PATTI SMITH, THE HOLY FATHER AND THE SHORT MEMORY OF THE CATHOLICISM

In Italy the law that legalized in 1978 voluntary termination of pregnancy, it was not signed by Patti Smith, but by the President of the Republic Giovanni Leone, Christian Democrat, countersigned by the Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, by the Minister of Health Tina Anselmi, by the Keeper of the Seals Francesco Bonifacio and by the ministers Tommaso Morlino and Filippo Maria Pandolfi, everyone, without exception, Christian Democrats and very Catholics

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

The 31 last July the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV received Patti Smith — the “priestess of rock” — in a private audience, singer-songwriter and poet, about to turn eighty next December — in a forty-minute meeting in the Library of the Apostolic Palace.

Some sites that improperly define themselves as traditionalist, in Italy and abroad they were immediately outraged, remembering that the artist would be in favor of abortion.

We do not intend to enter into controversy with these environments: it would be a sterile battle, as well as lost from the start. We limit ourselves to refreshing the short memory of those who forget, as in Italy, the law that legalized in 1978 the voluntary termination of pregnancy was not signed by Patti Smith, but by the President of the Republic Giovanni Leone, Christian Democrat, countersigned by the Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, by the Minister of Health Tina Anselmi, by the Keeper of the Seals Francesco Bonifacio and by the ministers Tommaso Morlino and Filippo Maria Pandolfi. Everyone, without exception, Christian Democrats and very Catholics, accustomed to spending their lives "kissing the piles" of holy water. And all these devotees hid behind the finger of the institutional act due.

It hits, But, an asymmetry: the Church has always firmly reiterated excommunication lat the same time (can. 1397 §2) for those who procure an actual abortion. John Paul II, in the encyclical Gospel of Life (NN. 73-74), it went beyond the single case, affirming the serious moral responsibility of those who, with your vote, contributes to promulgating laws that allow and favor abortion, a burden of conscience which for a professing Catholic should not be less serious just because it does not translate into an automatic canonical sanction. You might ask then, without any irreverence, What voice did this moral responsibility ever have for the army of very Catholic Christian Democrats who wrote and signed that law?, while in the sacred palaces there was indignation in one-way traffic: maximum indignation towards the radicals of Marco Pannella and Emma Bonino who had promoted the referendum for the legalization of abortion, but not towards those who promulgated that law, as they had to submit to a due act, poor holy victims!

Regarding the due act it would be enough to remember how things went differently in Belgium. King Baldwin I, Catholic seriously, in order not to sign the law except in 1990 decriminalized abortion, invoked the article 82 of the Constitution and temporarily abdicated. From the 3 al 5 April of that year the government exercised royal powers in his place, he promulgated the law and Parliament reinstated him on the throne just thirty-six hours later. The law passed anyway, but not from his hand. An extraordinary figure, that of the Belgian sovereign, for whom the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints has started the beatification process on 21 December 2024, after the announcement made by Pope Francis during his trip to Belgium (cf.. Vatican News).

This is the difference between those who really believe in what they profess and who, while professing it in words, he adapts with ease to the conveniences of power. As for the Supreme Pontiffs, it is good to remember that they have always received everyone, including bloodthirsty dictators and autocrats of all persuasions. Remember, among many, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, received both by John Paul II (Khatami, In the 1999) both by Francesco (Spiritual, In the 2016). And they did well, because receiving someone does not mean sharing their thoughts or politics, if anything it means believing that no meeting is ever completely useless, at least for whom, like us, he believes in the graceful action of the three theological virtues: faith, hope, charity (1Color 13,13). Anyone today who is scandalized by a forty-minute audience granted to a very talented artist should perhaps be indignant, with more knowledge of the facts, looking closer to home and further back in time.

Abortion is such a serious tragedy and crime that using them for similar polemical squabbles is offensive first and foremost towards the creatures killed every day. The Holy Father Francis himself expressed it bluntly, in the general audience of 10 October 2018, with a severity that not even John Paul II dared reach:

«I ask you: it is right to "take out" a human life to solve a problem? It's okay to hire a hitman to solve a problem? Can not be done, it is not right to "kill" a human being, albeit small, to solve a problem. It's like hiring a hitman to solve a problem". (cf.. who).

On this, not on a Vatican audience, those who say they really care about life should focus: the drama of hitmen hired every day to kill innocent angels. And in Italy, let's remember it again at the end because it is history: the hand of the assassins was armed by the very Catholic Christian Democrats, everyone lined up to kiss the holy water stacks the day after the law on the legalization of hitmen was passed.

Cagliari, 8 August 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

YOU DON'T BECOME A PRIEST FOR "AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PRACTICE SEX"

I. A problem was posed the wrong way – (II). The priest has a private life? – III. The big misunderstanding: «Just don't practice» – IV. The first requirement is not chastity: continence and identity do not coincide – V. The Magisterium is not a prejudice – WE. Excluding homosexuals is a protection, not a condemnation

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

A very subtle and insidious attempt has been underway for some years: introduce the rainbow Trojan horse into the Church. Not being able to openly demolish two thousand years of ecclesial doctrine and discipline, you try to change the meaning of words, progressively alter the criteria of vocational discernment and present as an achievement of civilization what in reality empties the nature of the ministerial priesthood from within. The most radical changes almost never occur through violent revolutions, but for the slow slippage of language.

Organized groups have been participating in this operation for years, supported by a segment of poorly trained clergy, unable to distinguish between Christian anthropology, psychology and ideological claim, unaware that Christ's mission to the Church is to welcome the sinner (cf.. LC 15, 4-7) and reject sin, certainly not the opposite (cf.. LC 15, 8-10). Self-styled Catholic blogs casually dismiss how “homophobia” norms that the Magisterium has formulated and reiterated for over twenty years for the discernment of candidates for the priesthood, regardless of the fact that the problem is not whether a man is attracted to people of the same sex or the opposite sex, nor whether there are homosexuals capable of living chastely: the Church has never had any doubts about this, the dignity of the person derives from being created in the image of God (cf.. Gen 1,27; Catechism, n. 2358) and not from emotional inclinations. The problem is another: can an article dismiss as prejudice a discipline that the Magisterium has established for twenty years? It can reduce suitability for the priesthood to physical continence alone, totally ignoring the psychological aspect? He can argue that orientation is irrelevant when the Magisterium states the exact opposite for deeply rooted homosexual tendencies? (cf.. Fundamental System of Priestly Institution, 2016)

We need to start from here, not to judge the dignity of people, but to bring the discussion back to its authentic ground: the right and duty of the Church to discern who to admit to the priesthood, which is not a subjective right that can be claimed by anyone, but a vocation that the Church must recognize, check e, when necessary, reject for the good of the person and of the Church itself.

I. A problem was posed the wrong way

The article published a few days ago on the blog I can not remain silent under the title: Notre Dame's shameful plan to control the consciences of seminarians (18.07.2026) addresses in itself a topic that deserves to be discussed: the vocational discernment of candidates with homosexual tendencies. The problem isn't that we talk about it, but how the discussion is set up right from the premises, because if these are wrong, conclusions formulated with apparent coherence will also be so, or as an apologue mistakenly attributed to Duns Scotus warns, but in truth by an unknown author of medieval scholasticism: «Everything follows from false premises —anything can follow from false premises". An elementary principle that today, replaced logic with subjective emotion, It seems to have fallen into disuse.

Overlooking the fact that for them they have a consolidated style this article is also signed with the initials of two anonymous people, Let's move on instead to the thesis they supported:

«An individual's orientation should be neither a problem nor, much less, a question for those in authority".

From here the criticism of Church discipline comes to life as an anachronistic distrust towards homosexuals, through an entirely emotional and not at all scientific reasoning that goes wrong from the beginning: under discussion, indeed, it is not whether a homosexual person has equal dignity - the Church does not compromise on this - nor whether he can live chastely. To think that continence is impossible for homosexuals and natural only for heterosexuals would be unreal, as well as offensive. The real question that the article almost completely removes is another: who establishes the criteria for admission to the priesthood? The candidate who claims a right, or the Church exercising duty, expressly received by Christ, to discern who to admit to Holy Orders?

Certain psychologies are very susceptible and therefore intolerant of legitimate criticism, which they promptly denounce as harmful and persecutory elements, to the point of resorting to inappropriate legal categories, such as the improper use of the concept of “homophobia”, which in our Italian system does not constitute a crime, as it is not necessary to invoke the status of homosexuals “protected species” reserved by specific laws for many other vulnerable categories (cf.. Law 25 June 1993, n. 205, c.d. “reads Mancino”). Given that in certain respects every human person can be vulnerable, of always, if violence was used against a homosexual because he was homosexual, any court is inclined to apply the principle of aggravating circumstances, without any need for specific laws to protect the “homosexual category”.

The columnist assumes, instead, that every person has a natural right to enter any office and that any limitation is unjust: if this were true, I could claim the right to become president of the Constitutional Court and report discrimination if it were denied to me, or report anyone who dares to prevent me from participating for gender discrimination, the threshold of 63 year old, to the finals for the awarding of the Miss Italia prize. It is a logic that can make sense in the context of civil rights, but it is completely foreign to the Catholic theology of the ordained ministry. The priesthood is not a subjective right and no one can claim the right to be ordained before the Church. Ordination does not recognize an individual claim, but it is the outcome of an ecclesial discernment on the candidate's suitability. Reduce everything to the question «do you live chastely or not?» means misunderstanding the very criterion with which the Church has always prudently examined vocations.

(II). The priest has a private life?

To understand why the Church developed these criteria, it is necessary first of all to understand that the priesthood: it is not an ecclesiastical profession, but a sacramental configuration to Christ. The presbyter does not just receive skills, but a precise identity structured on a new character that affects the whole person. When the bishop consecrates a presbyter he tells him: "Understand what you do, imitate what you celebrate, conform your life to the mystery of the cross of Christ the Lord ". How can we think of separating this all-encompassing ontological dimension - "You are a priest forever" (Shall 110,4; EB 5,6) — in a public and a private sphere?

For years this blog has been claiming that the priest's tendencies and sexual life would belong to his private sphere - ignoring that no one would consider normal a priest whose private life was systematically incompatible with what he represents publicly, its creator himself states it without fear of contradiction, Marco Perfetti, also known as “Felipe”:

«[…] I can not remain silent he waged a battle in this by saying that the priest in his private life is free to do what he wants and neither the bishop nor this parlor chatter which he has really tired of by now can interfere in the private life of the priest" (cf.. I can not remain silent: in talks with Felipe Perfetti, YouTube, 8 September 2023, minute 11:38, video who)

These are statements that speak for themselves. The ordained ministry requires a profound unity between personal identity and public testimony: the priest is ontologically such in a totalizing way, without any separation between public and private. Or someone maybe, before a priest who lacked the fundamentals of charity, he would be willing to say that it is his private life?

It is precisely this conception of the priesthood which remains in the background in the article in question which reduces the relationship between priesthood and sexuality to the sole observance of continence, as if the prudent vocational assessment were an analysis of moral behavior, while ecclesial discernment concerns the person as a whole, his human maturity, spiritual and ecclesial, her ability to embody the form of life to which her ordained ministry calls her. Transform the discussion into the alternative “discrimination or chastity” it is misleading: between these two extremes lies a broader and more detailed evaluation, that the Church conducts on the person as a whole. The Church does not judge the value of people, but the suitability of a candidate to receive the Sacrament of Orders. They are two different judgements: stating that a person has immense dignity before God does not mean that he is suitable for any ministry; recognizing that a man sincerely lives chastity does not imply that he possesses all the requirements for the priesthood.

III. The big misunderstanding: «Just don't practice»

The article is based on an assumption that is only apparently reasonable: if a candidate lives chastely, why orientation should matter? And here the misunderstanding arises, big and dangerous: the entire judgment is reduced to a single dimension, sexual behavior. As if everything were condensed into an elementary question: «he has sexual intercourse or not?». A Bishop who admits a candidate to Orders does not only verify moral discipline: evaluate faith, human balance, emotional maturity, inner freedom, relational ability, the ecclesial sense, the pastoral attitude. Reducing everything to continence transforms the priesthood into a notarial issue - just respect the norm - but the vocation has never been conceived like this.

Celibacy itself is not simple abstinence: it is a form of donation. The priest does not renounce marriage because it is a lesser good, but because it is such a great good that it can only be left for the sake of a higher good: total dedication to Christ and the Church. This presupposes a precise anthropology, a precise way of living one's identity: the decisive question is therefore not «does he live chastely?» but as a man the Church considers called to sacramentally embody the image of Christ the Bridegroom. It is a different level from the sociological one of discrimination: it is that of sacramentality and Christian anthropology.

IV. The first requirement is not chastity: continence and identity do not coincide

The first requirement, so, it's not chastity: it is man understood as a person in his intimate human identity, his emotional maturity, his ability to take on that form of life. Priestly celibacy does not erase the spousal dimension of man, orients it in a new way: the priest renounces the actual bride because her existence makes the spousal relationship of Christ with the Church sacramentally present (cf.. Ef 5, 25-32) a category that runs throughout Scripture, from the prophets to the Apocalypse, not an ornamental image (cf.. John Paul II, I will give you shepherds, n. 22).

Continence is a necessary condition, but it is never a sufficient condition. This is where the article in question makes its simplification: if a man lives chastely, he observes celibacy and is capable of exercising the ministry, why orientation should matter? This is a conclusion that follows from the wrong premise: reduce everything to continence. The Church has never reasoned like this: the documents of the Magisterium do not say that people with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies are incapable of chastity, nor that they are less loved by God, if anything, the exact opposite can often happen, because in the severe warning of Jesus: «Publicans and prostitutes pass before you into the kingdom of God» (Mt 21, 31), numerous categories of people are included, including homosexuals. The Church evaluates the overall structure of the personality, not just the conduct, given that we are all sinners called to holiness. There are men of profound faith who lack the balance for pastoral ministry, or the internal freedom required: no one interprets these evaluations as a denial of personal dignity. Why should it change when the discernment concerns homosexual orientation? Because we continue to confuse the person with suitability for the ministry. The Church does not say that one is worth less: it says that not every person is called to every ministry and that not everyone is suitable to exercise it.

V. The Magisterium is not a prejudice

The documents of the Magisterium are often presented as an expression of an outdated cultural sensitivity, destined to fall with the evolution of society. It is an unfair reading of the texts already referred to: the Education of 2005, the Fundamental Reason del 2016 and the subsequent interventions of the competent Dicastery do not treat the issue as an isolated moral problem, place it in the overall suitability criterion. They do not introduce a new anthropology: they apply principles that have always belonged to the Catholic conception of the ministry. These documents can be discussed — doing so is legitimate theological work — but transform any dissent into a denunciation of prejudice, as if the Church had developed these criteria to exclude categories of people, it attributes to the Magisterium intentions that its texts do not express.

WE. Excluding homosexuals is a protection, not a condemnation

At this point the reasoning requires a further step, which the article in question never addresses: the difference between the continence experienced by a heterosexual candidate and that experienced by a candidate with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies does not concern the degree of virtue required - it is identical for both - but the nature of what is given up. Heterosexual celibacy renounces a good that is fully consistent with the spousal anthropology on which the Church bases the priesthood: the chastity of the celibate priest remains oriented, in its underlying affective structure, towards that same figure - the groom - that the ministry is called to represent sacramentally. The Church instead asks something different in substance from the candidate with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies, not just in rank: not just the renunciation of the act, but the renunciation of living openly, in the community in which he is called to exercise a public ministry, an element of one's emotional identity, with the real risk of a life split between what one is and what one represents. Or stated in clear terms and without any misunderstanding: within the Catholic clergy, the subject with homosexual tendencies could never be himself, ending up forced to live a life of fiction, or worse that life that some, in a dangerously erroneous way, they would claim to relegate it to that "sphere of private life" over which "no one has the right to review", as Perfetti has stated for years in articles and public videos.

This is not a judgment on the dignity of the person, nor a statement that the homosexual is less capable of chastity: it is a judgment on suitability for a specific form of life, which requires that same unity between personal identity and public testimony that we have already spoken about in relation to celibacy as donation, not as deprivation. Recognize this structural difficulty before ordering, rather than discovering it later — when the consequences fall on the person, on the community and on the Church itself - it is not discrimination, but the exact opposite: the most basic form of pastoral care that spares a man the experience of a double life that the Church, first, he has the duty not to let him undertake and live.

Conclusion

The problem is not whether a person with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies is worthy of God's love or capable of authentically living the faith: the Church's response in this sense is clear. The question is another: the Church has the right and duty to establish the criteria for discerning vocations? If the answer is negative, every exclusion from a ministry is discrimination, if instead it is affirmative, Vocational discernment belongs to the responsibility of the Church and is not reduced to the verification of conduct linked to sexual morality alone.

It is on this point that our disagreement focuses than dangerous claims, on the doctrinal and juridical level of I can not remain silent, join his attempt, carried out for years, to clear the practice of homosexuality within the clergy. All this is not to deny the dignity of anyone, nor to fuel sterile ideological conflicts, but because the initial question was phrased the wrong way. The ministerial priesthood is not a profession, it is not a claimable position, it is not a subjective right. It is a vocation that the Church evaluates according to criteria that it does not receive from the social consensus of the moment, but from one's own understanding of the apostolic ministry and the mission received from Christ. When the Church exercises this judgment it carries out one of the most delicate and responsible acts of its mission: safeguard the identity of the ministerial priesthood for the good of the entire People of God. For this reason the rainbow Trojan horse cannot make a triumphal entry into the clergy: to protect homosexuals first from a life of hiding and duplicity in the shadow of the sacristies.

From the island of Patmos, 23 July 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

___________________________________

Our previous articles (2023-2026):

 

Our previous articles (2023-2026):

– 28 June 2026 — SILERE NON POSSUM AND THE RAINBOW AS A TROJAN HORSE. WHEN THE FIGHT AGAINST ABUSE BECOMES THE PRETEXT TO REWRITE CATHOLIC MORALS (To open the article click WHO)

– 22 June 2026 — Press release: THE ISLAND OF PATMOS SUBJECT TO REPEATED UNFOUNDED REPORTS (To open the article click WHO)

– 11 June 2026 — MARCO PERFETTI: TELLING ME THAT I AM A PROBLEMATIC IS AS OBVIOUS AS SAYING THAT MADDALENA WAS A PROSTITUTE (To open the article click WHO)

– 5 May 2026 — ESTONIA, A PROMISED LAND, A DIFFERENT WORLD... AND A DAILY BADNESS OF THOSE WHO CANNOT BE SILENT (To open the article click WHO)

– 30 April 2026 — I CAN'T BE SILENT: THE DAY WHEN CRIMINAL LAW DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS BORN IN THE SACRESTY (To open the article click WHO)

– 27 April 2026 — WHY IN THIS CASE "I CAN KEEP SILENT"? (To open the article click WHO)

– 31 March 2026 — THE MALIGNANT NARCISSIST AND THE USE OF BLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH AND ITS FAITHFUL SERVANTS (To open the article click WHO)

– 21 March 2026 — THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTrinal CONFUSION (To open the article click WHO)

– 28 February 2026 — I CAN'T BE SILENT. AN EXTRAORDINARY MARCO PERFETTI BETWEEN CONFIDENT CANON LAW AND «SCANDAL IN THE SUN»: THE DECEASED AUGUST SAID THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN (To open the article click WHO)

– 16 February 2026 — DONNE, LAW AND THEOLOGY USED AS A SLOGAN BY THE SILERE NON POSSUM BLOG (To open the article click WHO)

– 8 February 2026 — THE ATTORNEYS OF ITACA AND THE EPIC OF THE ENFORCEMENT THAT CANNOT BE SILENT (To open the article click WHO)

– 10 December 2025 — MARCO PERFETTI, I CANNOT SILENCE OTHERS: THE CULTURED CRICKET AND THE MOSQUITO THAT THINKS IT IS A GOLDEN EAGLE (To open the article click WHO)

– 6 September 2025 — IL MIGHTY SILENCE I CAN'T STAND DOING GOOGLE SHAKES (To open the article click WHO)

– 16 August 2025 — I CAN'T BE SILENT And that word taboo that he just can't pronounce: "HOMOSEXUALITY" (To open the article click WHO)

– 14 August 2025 — There is a homosexual? AT THAT TIME I CAN'T BE SILENT Also defends the indefensible (To open the article click WHO)

– 29 March 2025 — Always about I CAN'T BE SILENT: DAL “Vertical man"A" Fireculo "and" quadhow "of Leonardo Sciascia (To open the article click WHO)

– 21 March 2025 — I CAN'T BE SILENT And the story of that convinced seamstress that he can give Giorgio Armani high fashion lessons (To open the article click WHO)

– 12 February 2025 — The Opossum is to the knowledge of the Vatican as Henger is in chastity and like his deceased husband Riccardo Schicchi is at work Confessions OF SAINT AUGUSTINE (To open the article click WHO)

– 15 January 2025 — AT THE CLERICAL BORDERS WITH REALITY: THE WOMAN SUFFERS FROM FREUDIAN PENIS ENVY, The Opossum of the envy by Matteo Bruni Director of the Press Room of the Holy See (To open the article click WHO)

– 20 January 2025 — THE OPOSSUM IGNORE THAT A NUN CAN QUIETLY BECOME GOVERNOR OF THE VATICAN CITY STATE, As already was Giulio Sacchetti (To open the article click WHO)

– 22 November 2024 — THE EPISCOPAL APPOINTMENT OF RENATO TARANTELLI BACCARI. WHEN YOU ARE AFFECTED BY LIVER CANCER, THEY CHARGE ON THE ATTACK THOSE WHO CANNOT BE SILENT (To open the article click WHO)

– 31 May 2024 — A NOTE FROM FATHER ARIEL ON THE SITE I CAN'T BE SILENT: «AS ANNOYING AS A SEA URCHIN INSIDE YOUR UNDERPANTS» (To open the article click WHO)

– 8 December 2023 — WHO IS MARCO FELIPE PERFETTI REFERRING TO STATING FROM THE SITE I CAN'T BE SILENT «HERE IN THE VATICAN… WE IN THE VATICAN…», IF YOU CANNOT EVEN SET FOOT IN THE VATICAN? (To open the article click WHO)

– 14 October 2023 — THE ARCHABOT EMERITUS OF MONTECASSINO PIETRO VITTORELLI HAS DEAD: CHRISTIAN PIETY CAN ERASE THE SAD TRUTH? (To open the article click WHO)

.

______________________

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

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

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

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

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

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florence, 22 June 2026

.

.

______________________

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

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Italian, english, español

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work depends on the morality of its author, then we will have to empty churches, museums and art galleries across the West

- Actuality -

.

.

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

.

For some years now hosts of candid souls have formed who demand that the works of Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, sanctuaries and places of worship. There is no shortage of professional indignants, the permanently scandalized and the vestal virgins who, after suddenly discovering the existence of sins against the Sixth Commandment, they call for the cancellation of the mosaics created by the former Slovenian Jesuit.

The fiercest accusers of this artist they are precisely those subjects who, a page before or two pages later, state and explain that certain rainbow-coloured ecclesiastics cannot be questioned for their life conduct, because certain vices and habits would be part of their private life.

An inevitable question then arises: the execrable sexual conduct attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik perhaps took place in St. Peter's Square during the Sunday Angelus recitation, or they also belonged to his private life? Because, if private life is invoked as a reason to remove some subjects from any public judgment, it is difficult to understand why the same criterion should be suddenly abandoned when the subject in question is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation according to which the artist would have had a moral conduct incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings, in fact it introduces a criterion so eccentric as to be impracticable when tested by facts. If applied with a minimum of consistency, it would in fact force us to empty not only part of the history of Christian art, but a considerable part of the history of Western art, especially the sacred one. Yet this very criterion is today proposed with increasing insistence. It is not simply asked that any personal responsibilities be ascertained by the competent ecclesiastical authorities, something different is expected: that the work is dragged into the same process as the man who created it; that the moral judgment on the author automatically transforms into condemnation of the work; what mosaics, frescoes, paintings and sculptures are evaluated not for what they represent, but for the private biography of those who created them.

The question, therefore, It's no longer just about Marko Ivan Rupnik. It concerns a much broader principle. Because if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured on the basis of the moral conduct of its author, then we need to have the courage to apply this criterion to the entire history of art and not just to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the target of the moment.

Already in December of 2022, when the case had taken on international dimensions, Vicar General of His Holiness for the diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had provided the Church of Rome with "numerous and precious ministerial services" and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark in ecclesial places of primary importance. At the same time he expressed dismay at the matter and assured full collaboration with the competent authorities. Two statements that are not mutually exclusive and that, indeed they should be kept together. One thing is to ascertain any personal responsibilities, another is the judgment on the artistic work produced by a person (cf.. Diocese of Rome, Statements by Cardinal Angelo De Donatis on the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, who).

At this point the question becomes inevitable: we are really willing to apply to the history of art the criterion according to which the work must be condemned together with the man who created it? Because, if this is the path we intend to take, we will have to be consistent all the way. And then the problem will no longer concern only Marko Ivan Rupnik.

Let's start with Michelangelo Merisi known as Caravaggio. Extraordinary painter, author of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, he was at the same time a violent man, involved in constant fights and legal affairs, until he killed Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and to be formally condemned to death by the justice of the Papal State. Yet no one proposes removing the Vocation of Saint Matthew from the churches, the Conversion of Saint Paul, the Deposition, the Martyrdom of Saint Lucia and so on. Evidently the value of the work is not judged on the basis of its author's criminal record.

Let's move on to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, brilliant goldsmith and artist. The chronicles of his time and his own autobiography tell of murders, violence, fights and trials for sodomy. Even in this case no one has ever thought of eliminating his works from museums or erasing his name from the history of art.

We continue with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, went down in history with the nickname of Sodom, which was not attributed to him out of distraction or gratuitous slander. Yet his frescoes, filled with clearly homoerotic scenes in Renaissance style, continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for campaigns to remove or cancel series of frescoes from monastic cloisters.

We then come to Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest artist of the Roman Baroque. When he discovered the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, of whom he was a lover, he reacted with such violence that one of his servants slashed the woman's face in revenge. This did not prevent his works from continuing to adorn basilicas, squares and churches, without anyone ever thinking of demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter.

We could go on and on. But the point is already clear: for centuries Christian and Western civilization has distinguished the moral judgment on man from the artistic judgment on the work. Today, instead, someone claims to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist's sin should automatically contaminate what he has created. Except support, when the protagonists are others, that no one should be interested in their lifestyle because they belong to that private sphere which, apparently, it remains inviolable for some and becomes a criterion of public condemnation for others.

Florence, 14 June 2026

.

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work of art depends upon the morality of its creator, then we shall have to empty churches, museums and art galleries throughout much of the Western world

— Actuality —

.

.

For several years now, whole ranks of pure souls have been demanding that the works of the Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, shrines and places of worship. There is no shortage of professional moralists, perpetual scandal-seekers and modern vestal virgins who, having suddenly discovered the existence of sin, call for the removal of the mosaics created by the former Slovenian Jesuit (cf. here). The most relentless accusers of this artist are often the very same people who, one page earlier or two pages later, explain that certain rainbow-coloured churchmen should not be criticised for their conduct because such vices and habits belong to their private lives (cf. here).

An inevitable question therefore arises: were the sexual acts attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik carried out in Saint Peter’s Square during the Sunday Angelus, or did they also belong to his private life? For if private life is invoked as a reason for shielding certain individuals from public scrutiny, it becomes difficult to understand why the same principle should suddenly be abandoned when the person concerned is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation that the artist’s alleged moral conduct is incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings introduces a criterion so eccentric as to prove unworkable when tested against historical reality. Applied with even a minimum degree of consistency, it would require us to empty not only a significant part of Christian art, but a considerable portion of Western art as a whole, especially sacred art. Yet this is precisely the criterion that is being proposed with increasing insistence today. What is being demanded is not simply that any personal responsibilities be investigated by the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Something far more radical is being proposed: that the work of art be dragged into the same trial as the man who created it; that moral judgement upon the artist automatically become a condemnation of the work itself; that mosaics, frescoes, paintings and sculptures be evaluated not according to what they represent, but according to the private biography of their creator.

The issue, therefore, no longer concerns Marko Ivan Rupnik alone. It concerns a much broader principle. For if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured according to the moral conduct of its creator, then one must have the courage to apply the same criterion to the whole history of art and not merely to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the latest target of public condemnation.

As early as December 2022, when the case had already assumed international dimensions, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, Vicar General of His Holiness for the Diocese of Rome, recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had rendered «numerous and valuable ministerial services» to the Church of Rome and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark upon ecclesiastical sites of primary importance. At the same time, he expressed deep concern over the affair and assured full cooperation with the competent authorities. These are two statements that do not exclude one another and which, indeed, ought to be held together. One thing is the investigation of any personal responsibilities; quite another is the judgement to be passed on the artistic work produced by a person (cf. Diocese of Rome, Statement of Cardinal Angelo De Donatis regarding the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, here).

At this point the question becomes unavoidable: are we truly prepared to apply to the whole history of art the principle that a work must be condemned together with the man who created it? For if this is the road we intend to take, then we must be consistent to the very end. And in that case the problem will no longer concern Marko Ivan Rupnik alone.

Let us begin, then, with Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio. An extraordinary painter and the creator of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, he was at the same time a violent man, constantly involved in brawls and legal troubles, eventually killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and being sentenced to death by the courts of the Papal States. Yet no one proposes removing from churches The Calling of Saint Matthew, The Conversion of Saint Paul, The Entombment, or The Burial of Saint Lucy. Evidently, the value of the work is not judged on the basis of the criminal record of its creator.

Let us move on to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, goldsmith and artistic genius. The chronicles of his age and his own autobiography recount murders, acts of violence, brawls and trials for sodomy. Yet no one has ever suggested removing his works from museums or erasing his name from the history of art.

We may continue with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, who entered history under the nickname of Sodoma, a name that was certainly not bestowed upon him by accident, still less through gratuitous slander. Nevertheless, his frescoes, permeated with unmistakably homoerotic Renaissance imagery, continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for campaigns of removal or for entire cycles of frescoes to be erased from monastic cloisters.

Then there is Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest artist of the Roman Baroque. Upon discovering the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, with whom he himself was involved, he reacted with such violence that he had the woman’s face slashed by one of his servants in an act of revenge. Yet this has not prevented his works from continuing to adorn basilicas, churches and public squares, nor has anyone ever suggested demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter’s Basilica.

We could continue at length. Yet the point is already clear enough: for centuries Christian and Western civilisation distinguished between moral judgement upon the individual and artistic judgement upon the work. Today, by contrast, some seek to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist’s sin should automatically contaminate whatever he has created.

This principle, however, is not applied consistently. For the very same people who demand that works of art be judged according to the moral conduct of their creators are often the first to insist, when confronted with the conduct of others, that such matters belong exclusively to the sphere of private life and should therefore be of no concern to anyone else.

The question, then, remains unanswered: why should one principle apply to Marko Ivan Rupnik and another to everyone else? If the value of a work of art truly depends upon the moral perfection of its creator, then consistency would require us to remove from churches, monasteries, museums and galleries a considerable part of the artistic heritage of the Christian West. If, on the other hand, we recognise that the value of a work cannot simply be reduced to the virtues or vices of its author, then we must admit that the issue extends far beyond the case of Marko Ivan Rupnik.

For this reason the debate is not really about one artist. It is about whether we wish to preserve a civilisation capable of distinguishing between the moral failings of a human being and the objective value of what that human being has created.

From Florence, 14 June 2026

.

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work of art depends on the morality of its author, then we will have to empty the churches, the museums and art galleries of much of the West

— Current Events —

.

.

For some years now True legions of candid souls have formed who demand that the works of the Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, shrines and places of worship (cf. here). There is no shortage of those who are indignant by profession, the permanently scandalized and the vestal virgins who, after suddenly discovering the existence of sins against the Sixth Commandment, They call for the elimination of the mosaics made by the former Slovenian Jesuit. The fiercest accusers of this artist are precisely those who, one page before or two pages after, They affirm and explain that certain rainbow-hued ecclesiastics should not be questioned for their way of life, because certain vices and customs would be part of their private sphere (cf. here).

An inevitable question then arises.: Did the execrable sexual behavior attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik take place in St. Peter's Square during the Sunday Angelus prayer?, or they also belonged to his private life? Why, if private life is invoked as a reason to remove certain people from all criticism, It is difficult to understand why this criterion should be abandoned when the person in question is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation according to which the artist would have maintained a moral conduct incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings introduces, indeed, a criterion so eccentric that it is impracticable when confronted with the reality of the facts. This criterion, Applied with a minimum of consistency, would force not only to empty a part of the history of Christian art, but also considerably from the history of Western art, and in particular sacred art. Y, however, Precisely this criterion is today proposed with increasing insistence. It is not simply requested that possible personal responsibilities be clarified by the competent ecclesiastical authorities; something very different is intended: that the work be dragged into the same process as the man who made it. That the moral judgment on the author automatically becomes a condemnation of the work; what mosaics, frescos, paintings and sculptures are valued not for what they represent, but for the private biography of the one who created them.

The question, therefore, It no longer concerns only Marko Ivan Rupnik. It refers to a much broader principle. Because if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured on the basis of the moral conduct of its author, then it is necessary to have the courage to apply this criterion to the entire history of art and not only to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the target of the moment.

Already in December 2022, when the case had acquired international dimensions, the Vicar General of His Holiness for the Diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, He recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had provided the Church of Rome with "numerous and valuable services of a ministerial nature" and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark in ecclesiastical places of primary importance.. At the same time, expressed its dismay at the events and assured full collaboration with the competent authorities. They are two statements that are not mutually exclusive and that, on the contrary, they should stick together. One thing is the clarification of possible personal responsibilities; It is quite another to judge the artistic work produced by a person. (cf. Diocese of Rome, Statements by Cardinal Angelo De Donatis on the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, here).

At this point, the question becomes inevitable: Are we really willing to apply to the history of art the criterion according to which the work must be condemned along with the man who made it?? Why, If that is the path we intend to take, we will have to be consistent until the last consequences. And then the problem would no longer affect only Marko Ivan Rupnik.

Let's start with Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio. Extraordinary painter, author of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, who was at the same time a violent man, continually involved in fights and legal proceedings, to the point of killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and be formally sentenced to death by the justice of the Papal States. Y, however, no one proposes removing the vocation of Saint Matthew from the churches, The conversion of Saint Paul, The descent of Christ, The burial of Saint Lucia and many other works. Evidently, The value of a work is not judged based on the criminal record of its author.

Let us now turn to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, brilliant goldsmith and artist. The chronicles of his time and his own autobiography recount homicides, acts of violence, fights and trials for sodomy. Nor in this case has anyone ever thought about removing his works from museums or erasing his name from art history..

Prosigamos with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, gone down in history with the nickname of Sodom, which was not attributed to him either through carelessness or gratuitous slander. However, its fresh, impregnated with openly homoerotic scenes in a Renaissance key, They continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for withdrawal campaigns or the elimination of entire cycles of frescoes from monastic cloisters..

Let us now come to Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest figure of the Roman Baroque. When he discovered the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, of whom he was a lover, He reacted with such violence that he ordered one of his servants to disfigure the woman's face out of revenge.. This has not prevented his works from continuing to adorn basilicas., squares and churches, without anyone having ever thought of demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter.

We could continue like this for a long time. But the point is already made clear: for centuries, Christian and Western civilization distinguished between moral judgment on man and artistic judgment on the work. Hoy, instead, Some seek to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist's sin should also automatically contaminate what he has created.. Except hold, when the protagonists are others, that no one should be interested in their life behaviors because they belong to that private sphere that, apparently, remains inviolable for some and becomes a criterion of public condemnation for others.

Florence, 14 June 2026

.

.

______________________

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

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Italian, English, Español

 

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

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

- Church news -

.

.

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

 

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the island of Patmos, 7 June 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

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

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

— Contemporary ecclesial affairs—

.

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Island of Patmos, 7 June 2026

.

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

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

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Island of Patmos, 7 June 2026

.

______________________

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

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

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos