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.

Author
Hermit Monk

.

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.

Author
Hermit Monk

.

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

Author
Hermit Monk

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Hermitage, 30 March 2026

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

.

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

.

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

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.

Author
Hermit Monk

.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Hermitage, 19 March 2026

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF BLESSING

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

Author
Hermit Monk

.

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.

Author
Hermit Monk

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Eremo, 19 March 2026

.

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

.

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

.

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

THE «DON RAVA CASE»: BETWEEN GUILTY AND INNOCENT AND THAT SYMPTOM OF AN ECCLESIAL ILLNESS THAT WE STILL DO NOT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE

The first issue to be resolved is the choice of men who know how to truly be trainers and not "deformers", on this point it is necessary that the bar of demand and desire remains very high, without compromising.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

 

 

.

In this time there have been numerous writings that have interested the web on the story of Don Alberto Ravagnani's abandonment of the priestly ministry.

Fernando Botero, The priest's rest, year 1977

Personally, that's what bothered me the most — and I say this both as a priest but also as a faithful Christian — is that, Once again, people reacted by perceiving the whole story by reacting "gut-first". By assuming a dialectic of stadium fans it is impossible to read in depth and detect the evident educational emergency, pedagogical, theological and ecclesial that underlies it. Which means — rest assured — that a few months have passed, everything will fall into oblivion and we will look for a new scandal scoop to run after. We can say about Don Alberto Ravagnani what Manzoni's Don Abbondio said about Carneade: «Who was he??», and this not before having exhausted all the possible television and journalistic hosts who will use the case of this young man for their editorial itches and to launch yet another attack on the priesthood, to celibacy and the Church.

If all this wasn't sad enough already, we also had to put up with the various posts and videos of fellow priests «on page» who tore their clothes for the excessive severity against which people reacted in the face of the "Don Rava case". A completely out of place defense that has more the aftertaste of a psychological defense mechanism than of real interest in a person in crisis and in need of help. What is interesting to know instead, for a realistic and honest reading of the story, is that Don Alberto has collected with interest the price of media visibility cultivated for years as priest influence, and this is for better or for worse.

In 2026 most people is aware that the consecration of an individual to a public figure through the use and language of social media opens the door to a cascade of completely unpredictable events and consequences, including the fact that the Web it grants the right to speak to legions of imbeciles who previously only spoke at the bar after a glass of wine, without damaging the community while now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. I quote Umberto Eco by the way in this reading on the phenomenon of social because evidently this reading appears confirmed by the case in question. What seems strange is that a priest who has chosen to evangelize young people through the use of the media has not made this type of reflection, including the various public defenders who worked hard to put out the flames of the media fire around Don Alberto of whom we Fathers of the Island of Patmos continue to affirm substantial good faith combined with human and spiritual immaturity. Unfortunately, good faith alone is not enough and does not save.

Upon careful reflection, the whole affair evidently appears too unbalanced because dear Don Alberto had long ago abandoned the interior features of the priest to take on those of the sole influence and this disproportion of intent and image then bore fruit by depersonalizing him and directing him to aspire to other horizons considered more suitable and desirable for him, bordering on denial. The same need for greater freedom was the clear symptom of a priestly ministry perceived in a compelling way and it is there that someone should have exercised a prior paternal and pastoral responsibility, a surveillance made of charity and truth that our fathers had summed up with the Greek term bishop (the bishops) arising from epi (above) e skopéō (observe/watch), or “the one who controls”. Dare to look at this young man first, rather than acting diplomatically afterwards, with press releases demanding respect, silence and prayer. All good things if they didn't smell like clerical hypocrisy a mile away. Because it is clear that the epilogue of the entire "Don Rava" affair was the abandonment of the ministry, with accompanying publication of a book/confession, It doesn't take much acumen to understand that the oxen had already escaped from the stable some time ago, for at least a year.

For the love of truth, we must equally reject the contemptuous comments bordering on personal offense that many have directed against Don Alberto in a completely gratuitous and malicious way. Beyond personal sympathies and whether or not we share his activity, no one can judge so with impunity. His attendance at the gym or i selfie in the disco they may have made him pass off perhaps a little too much as a "pussy" but the judgment was disproportionate because it sounded like a sentence without the possibility of appeal: «you are not worthy of being a priest!».

There is so much to say about this plethora of gallows blamers - all de rigueur eminently Catholic, apostolic and Marian - who never miss an opportunity to rebuke priests because their way of being or presenting themselves does not correspond to the "priestly canons" that these sublime minds think a priest should have, when then, when tested by facts, they prove completely incapable of straightening out their hearts, your family and children. But then what are these desirable canons of perfection that these leaders of priestly orthodoxy propose for a clergy above all suspicion?? I mention just a few, among the most recurring ones: the first is that the priest cannot be good-looking, de rigueur he must be ugly and sloppy and possibly overweight because otherwise it would be a waste for him to become a priest. If he is handsome and takes care of himself it is a fault because there is undoubtedly something to hide because it is inconceivable that a handsome man remains chaste. In this regard I limit myself to recalling the slanderous aesthetic evaluations on H.E. Mons. Georg Gänswein and his objective being a handsome man (you see who, who, who, who). Subsequently the priest cannot cultivate a public life, a life full of interests, of aspirations, of personal and spiritual maturation and improvement, as well as keeping dreams and ideals to achieve in our hearts. The priest on the other hand should be a disappointed recluse, stay within the four walls of the sacristy or rectory, have a dull life, flat, without aspirations, possibly always relegated to places where it cannot arouse suspicion, without aspiring to anything because desire is a demonic evil in that: "you have made a choice that precludes you from a normal life". We could add many other things but I will limit myself to these which are the most common evaluations that also wind through the naves and pews of our churches.

About that let us try to remember those words of the blessed apostle Paul who says:

«everything you do in word and deed, everything be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (With the 3,17).

Paul doesn't say what to do, but how to do it. Let us be careful as the apostle does not make it a moral question but of baptismal identity aimed at praise and the rendering of grace: carry out every word and action with authority, the spirit and charity of Christ, living as ambassadors of His kingdom, this is the lifestyle not only of the Christian but also of every priest.

All this is possible only within a Church who manages to be mature and responsible, who perceives contact with the people of God and with his fellow priests as an asset and not as a danger, without forgetting that the conformity to the cross of Christ with its inevitable trials will always exist and there is no insurance on the ministry that protects us from all misunderstandings, problems and criticisms.

We therefore come to the crucial point, to the problem of a healthy and mature ecclesial responsibility on the training of future priests and on the accompaniment of priests which for at least thirty years now seems to be completely ineffective if not deleterious.

The first knot to untie it is the choice of men who know how to truly be trainers and not "deformers", on this point it is necessary that the bar of demand and desire remains very high, without compromising. Both in the seminary and in houses of religious formation, there is a need for personally structured people, who know how to "build" a priest or religious person as a harmonious whole through holistic training - allow me this term - which is respectful of humanity and spirituality; of the body and soul of the candidate. I already expressed myself in this sense some time ago with an article (you see who) concerning that divine aesthetic of the Son of Man as the model of all well-proportioned humanity.

Without this pretense we invariably fall into a bigoted and fideistic spirituality, which mortifies the human being and will not allow the future minister of God or religious person to grow healthily. There are numerous cases - which are still too little talked about - of priests and religious who have fallen into dangerous depressions and harmful tendencies to the body and soul because they are fundamentally dissatisfied with their life and abandoned to themselves. Mortified as people by their hierarchical superiors and by those who should prove to be their "brothers", they experience the worst abusive dynamics of a totalitarian regime in the silence of those places that were born to be outposts of Paradise and which instead end up proving worse than the most absurd Purgatory.

The priority is to train the trainers. Naturally when we talk about training of trainers we cannot just think of academic-specialist preparation alone, but of a heart formation, wisdom and experiential that makes the trainer the image of that "wounded healer" capable of training and healing others because he is aware of his own wounds handed over to God and the Church. In this delivery I see a lot of the action of the Holy Spirit as the interior master and first educator of every self-respecting trainer. The temptation to look for rectors and teachers of formation without blemish and without sin risks leading to fanaticism, just as settling for the first to arrive just because it seems "so good" and therefore harmless is equally disastrous.

The second knot to untie it is that of the permanent accompaniment of the priest, as well as the religious. The idea that a young person cannot still stand, after priestly ordination he is left to his own devices and must manage himself as he sees fit only because he has completed the initial and theological training process. A way of understanding the ministry of the priest, turnkey, where one then becomes the arbiter and judge of one's own life and ministry without any control. And this becomes practically impossible to manage if you have not been trained before but deformed, and it is even more unlikely within a ministerial life which will bring inevitable challenges and tiring tests that cannot be faced and overcome (not twenty!) with only seminary training or that received in the religious house of one's own order or congregation.

The priest cannot and must not be left alone by your bishop or hierarchical superior, this is the first duty of responsible fatherhood still neglected in the Church which arises from that gesture of placing one's hands in those of the bishop: "I promise to me and to my successors reverence and obedience?». This promise does not constitute an act between vassal and sovereign. Obedience can be filial and respectful only when fatherhood becomes caring and constant, otherwise we move on from«I care!» (I'm interested), al «I do not care!» (you are a problem for me). Let's be honest, how many priests no longer look their bishop in the face because they feel abandoned or betrayed? Or what about certain bishops who see in their priests only a problem to be neutralized as soon as possible? What tangible embarrassment one can experience during certain Chrism Masses on Holy Thursday. We can also find the same thing in religious life with the aggravating circumstance that religious life insists more on a fraternal and mutual help dynamic, risks tearing apart the charismatic nature of the form of life that was assumed with the religious profession.

These are the conditions that generate the most frequent abandonments of the ministry priestly or requests to leave religious orders. Those who leave are always at fault? Personally I think not, but they are always victims. There would be a lot to say about it but I think the wisest thing in these cases is to note that these epilogues represent the most obvious sign of a faulty mechanism that must be fixed as soon as possible. And such a responsibility falls on everyone, no one excluded.

Sanluri, 10 February 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

ALBERTO RAVAGNANI. PRIESTS IN CRISIS ARE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE CRISIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

Crises are never sudden situations but have a beginning, a development and mature over time and over time give signs and symptoms that you can see, interpret and correct. When you don't do it you are guilty before God for a lost child, for a son who gave his whole life to a Church that he hoped would be a mother and instead was a stepmother.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

Ieri will, while I was returning from the priestly ordination of a Capuchin brother at the cathedral of Oristano, I received the news of Alberto Ravagnani's abandonment of the priesthood, Ambrosian presbyter (cf.. Who).

I still had those terrible words in my ears of the ordination rite that the bishop pronounces in front of the elected one: "Understand what you do, imitate what you celebrate, conform your life to the mystery of the cross of Christ the Lord ", when in the same Church of God a fellow priest had made the decision to move on.

As always, in situations like these, there's no point in tearing your clothes, There is no need for judgments on the person who must remain sacred and inviolable. However, allow me to comment on the general ecclesial situation, on the life of us priests and on the Church which almost seems as if over time it has forgotten its role as mother to take on that of stepmother.

There is a peculiarity which must be taken into account. Don Alberto's case is completely different from that of the latter to influence the priest O social that, in order of time, they abandoned the priesthood (no need to name names). In these, the ideology masquerading as the Gospel was clearly evident, much closer to Democratic Party membership or LGBT+ activism than to Jesus Christ and his message. Don Alberto was different in this, he believed in what he was doing, he was an enthusiast and perhaps he really thought that all this could be enough to be a good priest. Son of that Milan to drink in which the Church has always looked forward with courageous choices, with that Lombard determination and parrhesia which is definitely a quality to be appreciated.

Don Alberto was, and he's basically a good guy, perhaps a little naive and naive, given their relative young age, for having been sent into the great ocean of solitary youth ministry, without the presence of a more mature and experienced person who could support and accompany him.

As a public figure and influence of the youth world, Don Alberto has said a lot about himself in his videos, probably even more than he would have liked, without realizing it. For some time, lay people and priests had realized that something must have happened in the heart of this brother priest: both his outward appearance and his words highlighted a very clear transformation that was veering towards an emergency that did not exist (deliberately?) recognized and which had to be supported in every way. I make no secret that we Fathers of the Island of Patmos, in our editorial conversations, we have expressed ourselves several times, but this was already more than a year ago, that the fate of this brother was sealed because from his images and speeches one could perceive the crisis that many of us know well, especially Father Ariel who has dedicated himself to the care of priests for years.

That's why I ask, where were those who were supposed to do this? And it is clear, I'm not looking for culprits but for those responsible, people who should have been able to respond to the preciousness of the life of a man who was asking for help.

I take it as good the discernment that Don Alberto's seminary trainers had made about him, deeming him suitable for the priesthood and presenting him to the diocesan bishop. However, it is natural to ask ourselves why there was such a rapid epilogue, just eight years of priesthood. Because if you want to think badly, It's a shame, I know, but you can guess, and if at the time of the seminary he was considered suitable even though he was not, his formators will have to give an account to God for the loss of such a dear son. Because priests like Don Alberto become the bad conscience of many bishops, rectors and formators of seminary and of that hierarchy that is no longer capable of shepherding the flock of God that has been entrusted to them. God's question to Cain falls on them like a boulder: «where is your brother?» (cf.. GN 4,9). The tremendously serious question that shakes the foundations of the hierarchical Church is this, and I summarize it in one question: if we are not capable of caring for our priests, to protect them from themselves, to take care of it, to make them robust and true men, how can we claim to guide the Christian faithful and the Church of Christ?

And I start right from that part of the ordination rite in which it is said that we priests must conform our lives to the cross of Christ. This is the whole mystery of the priesthood, let's put it clearly in mind. It's certainly not a Club Mediterranean for runaways who have not been able to find fulfillment in any other way and who are looking for cheap accommodation. This is what formators should teach and explore in depth during the seminary years but especially after sacred ordination because that is perhaps the most delicate moment where the priest finds himself walking alone and no longer has any protection.

The cross of Christ is not easy to accept and embrace, the Apostles were the first to avoid it by fleeing from Calvary, to accept the cross we need the fire of Pentecost which makes us foolish and gives us the courage to preach the conversion of the world. That world that Don Alberto naively tried to bend to evangelical needs - remember the collaboration with Fedez and the inevitable shipwreck? — together with the effort to sugarcoat worldliness as a new alchemist to make the Gospel more instagrammable and captivating for young people but which this epilogue reveals as the greatest vanity among vanities.

One of my superiors told me one day, quoting Paul VI as he said, that we are responsible only for those who remain and not for those who leave. Forgive me for my French but I consider these things to be enormous clerical bullshit. Even if it were true that such an expression had come from the mouth of a pontiff, in which circumstances and contexts is it to be verified, we must get it into our heads that every time a priest leaves the Church and abandons his ministry it is a defeat and a terrible failure without any ifs or buts.

In the face of a tragedy such as priestly abandonment The official press releases from the bishop's chancelleries asking for silence are of no use, respect and prayer. If we priests were parents, faced with failure or the loss of our child we would not react in this way. Let's say it all: the meat that hurts the most is the one that is attached to the bone and in this sense Don Alberto is in his own way a symptom and a victim. A symptom of a hierarchical Church incapable of generating children and supporting them except as professionals of the sacred; and a victim of those who observe from the balcony of the curia and think that the Gospel is just a question of marketing strategy and emotion waiting to pocket the hoped-for success and then pat the sacred professional on duty on the back.

From the columns of Patmos Island over and over again we have expressed ourselves on the need to take care of the human and spiritual formation of priests, reiterating how crises are never sudden situations but have a beginning, a development and mature over time and over time give signs and symptoms that you can see, interpret and correct. When you don't do it you are guilty before God for a lost child, for a son who gave his whole life to a Church that he hoped would be a mother and instead was a stepmother.

I don't know what Don Alberto's future will be, but I implore the Lord that other brother priests are able to be supported and accompanied to avoid a situation like this which is not a source of pride for the Church of God and which underlines all its human weakness. If we are not capable of managing the grace and talents that the Lord entrusts to us, and it's right that everything is taken away from us.

It just went into distribution today a book by Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, under the title Freedom denied, which follows the previous one dedicated to I believe. I recommend reading it, because it also deals with the drama of these problems.

Sanluri, 1° February 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, dutch

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

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

- Church news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen.

From the island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

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

.

.

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

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

— Eclesial actuality —

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

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

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

- Ecclesial news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

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

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

— Church topicality —

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen.

From the island of Patmos, 13. January 2026

.

.

.

______________________

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

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

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.