The case “Don Rava”: between those who are guilty and those who are innocent and that symptom of an ecclesial malaise that we still don't want to recognize

/in /by

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

The Suitors of Ithaca and the epic of the Sfranta which cannot be kept silent

/in /by

THE ATTORNEYS OF ITACA AND THE EPIC OF THE ENFORCEMENT THAT CANNOT BE SILENT

The only ones Sfranta never gets angry with are the suitors, we remember are the approximately one hundred nobles of Ithaca who in Homer's Odyssey insistently court Penelope during the absence of Ulysses, but that in the modern version clerical-rainbow instead they court Odysseus and ignore Penelope altogether.

—Hypatia's cogitatory—

.

Author Hypatia Gatta Romana

Author
Hypatia Gatta Roman

.

Let lobby clerical-rainbow it is preserved by avoiding direct exposure. He doesn't act openly, does not take responsibility for the most controversial decisions. He prefers to operate through third parties, using subjects that act as a screen, by performers, from expendable tools. They are the classics straw men they useful idiots: figures in charge of doing what the lobbyists decide, once the illusion of counting has been instilled in them, of belonging to the clerical power and of being able to gain some recognition from it. Here is a sample of what was just said in the image below:

Photo: graphic composition containing textual extracts reproduced without indication of author or source, as in Sfranta’s style.

In the clerical world, these subjects are often clericalized lay people who enjoy, just as such, of an operational freedom that others cannot afford. They are the ones who intervene where i clerics-rainbow they do not intend - or cannot - expose themselves directly: they delegitimize, they offend, they report, they accuse, they give rise to proceedings without real foundation, aware that they will not produce any concrete results. What matters is not winning, but carry out disruptive actions, intimidate. This is the goal.

They act convinced that they matter and to have weight within the clerical power structure; in reality they are used precisely because they are replaceable, exposed and expendable. Reduced to mere executive tools, they are destined to absorb the brunt of the darkest deeds, those with whom i clerical-rainbow those who pilot them do not intend to get their hands dirty. They think they're leading, while in reality they are direct, in the manner of the worst subordinate servants.

This mode of action is not episodic, but structural. I clerics-rainbow thus maintaining a safe distance: they don't sign, they don't speak, they do not appear. It is always the one who exposes himselfuseful idiot, to whom the dirty work is entrusted. It is the same mechanism that is found in every organization that intends to exercise control without openly assuming the moral and legal weight. Responsibility remains invisible; the action, instead, it is very concrete.

Alongside this first category, a second one emerges, more aggressive and dangerous: the one that the late Paolo Poli used to call, with unrivaled theatrical precision, the “sfrante”.

Clericalized to maximum power and characterized by bitter militancy, vindictive and sometimes openly violent on a relational level, the Sfranta, instead of building a dignified present for a mature future, he prefers to spend his days attacking his own social whoever decides on the spot: today the members of the National Association of Magistrates defined by her as "the worst of criminals" as well as "para-mafia association", tomorrow the Minister of Justice accused of being "colluded" and "clown", follows a well-known magistrate referred to as a "convict" and "more criminal than all the others", the day after tomorrow he throws flames on the members of a dicastery of the Holy See indicated as "illiterates" and "idiots", the President of the Journalists' Association defined as a "vulgar longshoreman", one of the most famous Italian journalists and television hosts branded as "the most vomiting" and "repressed bully", to follow up with the plumbers, the mechanics, unisex hairdressers … no one is saved from the Sfranta.

etc… etc …

The only ones Sfranta never gets angry with are the pass, that we remember are the approximately one hundred nobles of Ithaca who in’Homer's Odyssey they persistently court Penelope during Ulysses' absence, but that in the modern version clerical-rainbow instead they court Odysseus and ignore Penelope altogether.

Amazing reports follow in a cascade: exposed to the Order of Psychologists against one of the most famous Italian criminologists; threats of a lawsuit against a diocese that dared to officially deny the Sfranta with a public statement from the curia after it had repeatedly offended the bishop in various articles; invitations to sign an official protest to remove from the chair a theologian of recognized preparation and undeniable teaching qualities …

The Sfranta does not limit itself to acting as a passive instrument of the system, but she becomes an active actress, driven by the frenetic objective of clearing customs and legitimizing the fantastic rainbow world inside the church. And if anyone opposes the entry of this Rainbow Trojan Horse within the walls of City of God, the accusation is ready and the critic branded as an "affectively unresolved subject". La Sfranta acts as a true vanguard of the system: he says and writes, via blog and social media, what certain clerical-rainbow they cannot afford to state publicly; it strikes those whom the latter cannot attack directly; exerts constant pressure through accusations, insinuations, reports to the ecclesiastical authorities, letters, exposed, delegitimization campaigns. But be careful not to deny it, or to react to his barrages of insults, is never! Right there and then he immediately proclaims himself a victim, shouting about discrimination, according to the now known and consolidated schemes of Sfranta’s logic.

The “strength” of the Sfranta lies in the almost total absence of constraints. It does not answer to any ecclesiastical authority, does not risk canonical sanctions, does not pay any institutional price. He acts, de facto, in a gray area of ​​substantial impunity, which renders any attempt at a proportionate legal reaction ineffective. For this reason it is very useful to certain groups of people clerical-rainbow who use it while maintaining an apparently neutral position: because she is the one who exposes herself, to talk, to write, to report; the puppeteers remain in total anonymity.

I clerical-rainbow that govern this system they rarely appear on the front lines. They observe, they protect, they orient, leaving it up to Sfranta to act and put her face to it, in a desperate attempt to delegitimize priests and theologians hostile to this Rainbow Pious Brotherhood. It is in this context that a Sfranta without any formal mandate turns into a promoter of "reports" motivated by an alleged zeal for the good of the Church. In addition to his writings, he also releases videos in which he sighs, she sobs and indulges in little moves that recall the satirist's less gifted sister Rita da Cascia played by the aforementioned great Paolo Poli.

No explicit accusation, no concrete evidence: just allusions, suspicious, sentences dropped with apparent discretion, in the hope that, by dint of repeating blatant falsehoods that are repeatedly denied as such, these end up being perceived as true, finally passing as such.

It is within this opaque environment that the Rainbow Pious Brotherhood finds the ideal conditions to consolidate and reproduce, remaining anonymous and sending a Sfranta who walks a tightrope on the attack, uttering insults and making bold allusions to behaviors that are indicated as criminally relevant without ever openly naming the targeted person, but making everyone understand who this unnamed person is, soon after, he begins to receive numerous messages from readers and friends who warn him «the Sfranta has taken it out on you again».

In this sense,, Sfranta has set a precedent. So much so that I decided to imitate it with the exact same technique: I didn't mention her, just like she doesn't name, often, those he heavily targets.

And now I say goodbye, I have to rush to assist Penelope, deeply depressed since i suitors of Ithaca they started waving the flag rainbow and to woo Ulysses while totally ignoring her. Even the suitors of Ithaca have now done an honest thing coming-out, or as Saint Augustine said in one of his famous sermons: «I can not remain silent (I can't keep silent)» (Sermon. 88, 14, 13, PL). Like this, they decided to do not be silent (don't be silent) and to openly court Ulysses.

From the Isle of Proci, 8 February 2026

 

 

______________________

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

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

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The close link between ethics, artificial intellence and theology of the San Tomso of Aquino – The close link between ethics, Artificial Intelligence and the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas – The close link between ethics, artificial intelligence and the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas – The close connection between ethics, artificial intelligence and the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas

/in /by

Italian, english, español, dutch

THE CLOSE LINK BETWEEN ETHICS, INELLIGINS AND AND TOMOGE TO THIS TO THIS OF THE AQUINE

The machine only perfects what it finds already in place in man: can refine a true thought, but do not generate truth; can clean up a successful sentence, but do not infuse the spirit that generated it. And it is precisely here that the parallel with the Thomistic principle becomes evident: «Greason does not take away nature, but finisht (grace does not destroy nature, but he perfects it)»

— Theologica —

.

.

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

 

.

This article for our page Theologica It's based on my latest book Freedom denied, published by our editions and on sale Who.

I am preparing to address this topic linked to Artificial Intelligence, one of the prophetic masterpieces of modern cinema came to mind: 2001: Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick and released in 1968. HAL appears in that film 9000, a very high level artificial intelligence, installed on board the spacecraft Discovery. HAL is perfect in calculation, infallible in data management, but devoid of what makes judgment human: conscience. When his programming conflicts with mission objectives, HAL doesn't "go crazy": it simply applies logic without the moral filter, without intentionality and without the ability to discern good from evil. The result is frightening: a very powerful machine becomes a mortal threat precisely because it does not understand man or the value of life. This intuition - cinematic but theologically lucid - shows that artificial intelligence raises problems that are not merely technical, but radically moral. What is at stake is not computing power - which no one disputes - but rather the risk that man delegates to an impersonal system what belongs exclusively to his conscience. And that's exactly what happens when you let a platform decide for itself what is "good" or "bad.", what can be said or what must be kept silent: an act that should be moral is delivered to the machine. And this is only the first step of the moral delegation to the machine.

Once the judgment on truth and falsehood has been surrendered to technology, the next step becomes almost inevitable: also give up educational common sense and personal responsibility. Or when a parent completely entrusts the algorithm with the task of filtering what a child can see, without critical vigilance: it means delegating educational responsibility to a statistical system. Or even when you ask Artificial Intelligence if a sentence is "offensive" or "morally acceptable": it means transferring a task that requires consciousness to the machine, I don't calculate.

What has been illustrated so far is not a set of technical details they are rather the decisive point. If the intention is missing, the machine can never understand what the man is doing when he speaks, warns, educa, treatment, corrects. And since he cannot access the “why”, reduces everything to the "how": does not evaluate the meaning, it only analyzes the shape. This is where misunderstanding becomes inevitable and systematic error. This is what happens, for instance, when a priest admonishes a believer or a father corrects a son: human conscience distinguishes between severity and cruelty, between correction and offense; the algorithm only records the harshness of the sentence and flags it as "hostile language". The doctor who writes «this risk leads to death» can see his words classified as “violent content”, because the machine doesn't distinguish a diagnosis from a threat. And a simple Bible verse can be censored as “offensive language” because Artificial Intelligence does not perceive moral purpose, but only the surface of the word. Because of this, any use of Artificial Intelligence that touches speech, the judgment, the relationship or freedom must be examined in the light of moral theology, not computer engineering.

The distinction is crucial: the machine doesn't decide, select; does not evaluate, filter; does not judge, Ranking. And what classifies is never good or bad, but only the probable and the improbable, the frequent and the rare, the statistical acceptable and the algorithmic suspicion. Human consciousness does the exact opposite: takes seriously the uniqueness of the act and the freedom of the agent; weighs intentions, circumstances, consequences; distinguishes between the reproach that saves and the offense that wounds; between severity out of love and cruelty out of contempt. The machine sees none of this.

When a father calls a son back, conscience recognizes the love that sustains it; the algorithm only sees a “potentially hostile” phrase. When a spiritual director admonishes one of his direct reports, conscience sees the mercy that accompanies the truth; the algorithm sees a violation of “community standards”. When a person speaks to correct, protect or educate, consciousness perceives finality, the machine only perceives the word hard. The result is paradoxical: where man combines justice and mercy, the machine only produces labels.

Moral ambiguity does not arise from technology: comes from the man who designs it. Because the algorithm is not neutral: carries out a moral he doesn't know, but that others have decided for him. And we see this every day: if a content calls into question the politically correct, the algorithm interprets it as “hostility”; if he criticizes some drifts of culture woke, labels it “discrimination”; if it addresses themes of Christian anthropology - for example sexual difference or the family - directing criticism at the powerful and politicized LGBT lobbies, reports it as “hate speech”, or “incitement to violence”, the so-called "hate speech”, verbatim: hate speech. All this not because the machine "thinks" like this, but because it was programmed to react and interact like this. The algorithm is not born neutral: it is born already educated by those who build it, shaped by ideological criteria that confuse criticism with aggression, reflection with offense, truth with violence. In other words, the algorithm has masters: reflects their fears, amplifies their beliefs, it censors what they fear. The platforms do not filter based on objective criteria but according to dominant ideologies: what the world idolizes is promoted, what the Gospel recalls is suspected; what satisfies is amplified, what warns is silenced. The result is a new form of cultural censorship: Elegant, polite, digitally sterilized — but still censored.

These analyzes of mine arise from reflections, from the studies and observations that I have been investigating for some time on the anthropological-cultural level and on the real functioning of digital platforms. This is precisely why I find it significant to note how, on a different but complementary level, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith recently recalled a decisive principle, essentially going in the same direction of thought as me, reiterating that Artificial Intelligence, while being able to "cooperate in the growth of knowledge", it cannot in any way be equated with human intelligence which possesses a depth and dynamics that no machine learning system can replicate. This document highlights that Artificial Intelligence does not understand, but elaborate, does not judge, but calculate, and is intrinsically incapable of grasping the moral dimension of the action, since it lacks conscience and interiority (cf.. Who). He then clearly warns that moral discernment cannot be attributed to an algorithmic device: doing so would mean abdicating man's ethical responsibility and handing over the truth to a statistical mechanism. The illusion of an artificial moral intelligence is defined by the document as a form of naive technological idolatry, because the truth is not the result of calculation, but of the encounter between freedom and grace[1].

This magisterial reflection confirms the central point: consciousness cannot be programmed. The machine can assist, but don't judge; can help, but don't interpret; can filter, but do not discern. What belongs to man's freedom - and therefore to his relationship with God - cannot be delegated to any technology.

The ethics of artificial intelligence thus reveals its fragility: a machine can be programmed to recognize words, but he cannot understand the Word. It can identify commands, not commandments. It can register behaviors, do not distinguish between virtue and vice. It can detect correlations, do not grasp divine revelation. And especially: cannot know God. A culture that gets used to replacing the judgment of conscience with the scrutiny of an algorithm ends up forgetting that freedom is a spiritual act, not a output digital[2]. And this is where moral theology becomes decisive, because it reminds man that: the truth is always personal; good is always intentional; consciousness is always irreducible; moral judgment cannot be delegated to anyone, much less to a software.

This doesn't mean demonizing technology, but put it back in its place: that of an instrument, not a judge. Artificial Intelligence, At that time, it can certainly make human work more agile, but he cannot replace him at the decisive point: moral judgment, the only area in which it is not enough to know "how things are", but you have to decide "why do them". It is the place of consciousness, where man weighs intentions, assumes responsibility, He is accountable for his actions before God. The car doesn't fit here, can't enter: calculate, but he doesn't choose; analyze, but he doesn't answer; beginning, but he doesn't love. Like an excellent plastic surgeon, Artificial Intelligence can enhance what is already beautiful, but it cannot make beautiful what is not beautiful, can correct disproportions, can attenuate certain signs of aging; but he cannot create from nothing nor the beauty that is not there, nor restore the faded youth. It can enhance a lined face, but he cannot invent a new face. In the same way, Artificial Intelligence can help organize data, to clarify a text, to put complex topics in order; but it cannot give intelligence to a limited and mediocre subject, nor conscience to those who don't have it.

The image, perhaps a little crude but effective, it is that of the thoroughbred horse and the pony: technology can train, cure, make the Arabian stallion perform at his best, but it will never turn a poor pony into a thoroughbred. What isn't there, no algorithm will ever be able to create it. The machine only perfects what it finds already in place in man: can refine a true thought, but do not generate truth; can polish a successful sentence, but it cannot reach the consciousness from which that sentence arose.

The machine only perfects what it finds already in place in man: can refine a true thought, but do not generate truth; can clean up a successful sentence, but do not infuse the spirit that generated it. And it is precisely here that the parallel with the Thomistic principle becomes evident:

«Greason does not take away nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but he perfects it)»[3].

At this point it becomes inevitable turn your gaze towards the more delicate terrain: if the machine can only perfect what it finds, then the real issue is not about the algorithm, but the man who hands himself over to him. And it is here that the Thomist analogy unfolds all its strength: just as grace does not work on emptiness, so technology does not work on the absence of consciousness. And when man stops exercising his own moral interiority, it is not the machine that gains power: it is man himself who loses stature. From this point arises the decisive — non-technical — problem, but spiritual — which we must now address. If we understand that the moral delegation to the machine is not a technical accident but an anthropological error, the question will arise as a logical consequence: what does man lose when he abdicates his conscience? He doesn't just lose an ability, but a spiritual dimension, the one in which the meaning of good and evil is decided. Technology can be powerful, sophisticated, very fast, but it cannot become a moral subject.

The Christian tradition he has always taught that the exercise of common sense is an art that arises from grace and freedom: a balance between prudence, truth and charity. The algorithm does not know any of these three. It's not prudent, because it doesn't evaluate; it's not true, because he doesn't know; It's not charitable, because he doesn't love. Because of this, using Artificial Intelligence as a tool is possible; using it as a criterion is inhumane, to think that it can create in place of man incapable of articulating a thought, or to produce intellectual work, it is illusory to say the least. Technology can assist humans, never judge him; the word can help, never replace it; can serve the mission, never determine its boundaries.

A civilization that delegates to the machine what belongs to consciousness loses its spiritual identity: becomes a company that knows a lot, but he understands little; who talks continuously, but he rarely listens; who judges everything, but she no longer judges herself.

Catholic morality reminds us that the criterion of good is not what the world accepts, but what God teaches. And God doesn't speak to algorithms: speak to the hearts. The Logos he became flesh, not code; he became a man, I don't plan; a report was made, not mechanism. For this reason no artificial intelligence, however advanced, can it ever become the ultimate criterion of what is true, right, good and human. Because good cannot be calculated: and identify.

From the island of Patmos, 7 February 2026

.

NOTE

[1] See. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Old and new. Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence (28 January 2025). — On the correct integration between human capacity and technological tools in the elaboration of moral judgment.

[2] N.d.A. Output means final result and is a technical-IT term that refers to the set of data that a computer emits during the production process, this in contrast to the input, which are instead the input data.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, QUESTION, I, q.1, a.8, ad 2, in The Works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, ed. Leo.

.

THE CLOSE LINK BETWEEN ETHICS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE THEOLOGY OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

The machine perfects only what it already finds at work in man: it may refine a true thought, but cannot generate truth; it may clean a well-formed phrase, but cannot infuse the spirit that generated it. And it is precisely here that the parallel with the Thomistic principle becomes evident: “Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it)”

— Theologica —

.

This article for our Theologica page is taken from my latest book Freedom denied, published by our own press and available for purchase here. As I set out to address this theme concerning Artificial Intelligence, my mind returned to one of the prophetic masterpieces of modern cinema: 2001: A Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick and released in 1968. In that film appears HAL 9000, an extremely advanced artificial intelligence installed aboard the spacecraft Discovery. HAL is perfect in calculation, infallible in data management, yet devoid of what makes human judgement truly human: conscience. When its programming comes into conflict with the objectives of the mission, HAL does not “go mad”: it simply applies logic without moral filtering, without intentionality, and without the capacity to discern good from evil. The result is terrifying: a supremely powerful machine becomes a mortal threat precisely because it neither understands man nor the value of life. This intuition — cinematic, yet theologically lucid — shows that artificial intelligence raises issues that are not merely technical, but radically moral. What is at stake is not computational power — which no one disputes — but the risk that man may delegate to an impersonal system what belongs exclusively to his conscience. And this is precisely what happens when one allows a platform to decide autonomously what is “good” or “bad”, what may be said and what must be silenced: one hands over to the machine an act that ought to be moral. And this is only the first step in the moral delegation to the machine.

Once judgement over truth and falsehood has been ceded to technology, the next step becomes almost inevitable: renouncing educational common sense and personal responsibility as well. When a parent entirely entrusts to an algorithm the task of filtering what a child may see, without critical supervision, this means delegating educational responsibility to a statistical system. Or again, when one asks Artificial Intelligence whether a phrase is “offensive” or “morally acceptable”, this means transferring to the machine a task that requires conscience, not calculation.

What has been outlined so far is not a collection of technical details, but rather the decisive point. Where intention is lacking, the machine can never understand what man is doing when he speaks, admonishes, educates, heals or corrects. And since it cannot access the “why”, it reduces everything to the “how”: it does not evaluate meaning, it analyses only form. It is here that misunderstanding becomes inevitable and error systematic. This is what happens, for example, when a priest admonishes a faithful person or a father corrects a child: the human conscience distinguishes between severity and cruelty, between correction and offence; the algorithm merely registers the harshness of the phrase and flags it as “hostile language”. A physician who writes “this risk leads to death” may see his words classified as “violent content”, because the machine does not distinguish diagnosis from threat. And even a simple biblical verse may be censored as “offensive language”, because Artificial Intelligence does not perceive moral purpose, but only the surface of words. For this reason, any use of Artificial Intelligence that touches speech, judgement, relationship or freedom must be examined in the light of moral theology, not computer engineering.

The distinction is decisive: the machine does not decide, it selects; it does not evaluate, it filters; it does not judge, it classifies. And what it classifies is never good or evil, but only the probable and the improbable, the frequent and the rare, statistical acceptability and algorithmic suspicion. Human conscience does the exact opposite: it takes seriously the uniqueness of the act and the freedom of the agent; it weighs intentions, circumstances and consequences; it distinguishes between rebuke that saves and offence that wounds; between severity born of love and cruelty born of contempt. The machine sees none of this.

When a father reproves a child, conscience recognises the love that sustains it; the algorithm sees only a “potentially hostile” phrase. When a spiritual director admonishes one entrusted to him, conscience perceives mercy accompanying truth; the algorithm sees a violation of “community standards”. When a person speaks in order to correct, protect or educate, conscience grasps the purpose; the machine perceives only harsh words. The result is paradoxical: where man unites justice and mercy, the machine produces nothing but labels.

Moral ambiguity does not arise from technology: it arises from the man who designs it. For the algorithm is not neutral: it executes a morality it does not know, but which others have decided for it. And we see this every day: if content challenges political correctness, the algorithm interprets it as “hostility”; if it criticises certain excesses of woke culture, it labels it “discrimination”; if it addresses themes of Christian anthropology — for example sexual difference or the family — by criticising powerful and politicised LGBT lobbies, it flags it as “hate speech” or “incitement to violence”. All this not because the machine “thinks” this way, but because it has been programmed to react this way. The algorithm is not born neutral: it is already educated by those who build it, shaped by ideological criteria that confuse criticism with aggression, reflection with offence, truth with violence. In other words, the algorithm has masters: it reflects their fears, amplifies their convictions, censors what they fear. Platforms do not filter according to objective criteria but according to dominant ideologies: what the world idolises is promoted, what the Gospel recalls is suspected; what pleases is amplified, what admonishes is silenced. The result is a new form of cultural censorship: elegant, polite, digitally sterilised — yet still censorship.

These analyses arise from reflections, studies and observations that I have long been developing on the anthropological-cultural level and on the real functioning of digital platforms. It is precisely for this reason that I find it significant to note how, on a different yet complementary level, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has recently recalled a decisive principle, essentially moving in the same direction of thought, reaffirming that Artificial Intelligence, while it may “cooperate in the growth of knowledge”, can in no way be equated with human intelligence, which possesses a depth and dynamism that no machine-learning system can replicate. This document stresses that Artificial Intelligence does not understand, but processes; does not judge, but calculates; and is intrinsically incapable of grasping the moral dimension of action, since it lacks conscience and interiority (cf. here). It therefore clearly warns that moral discernment cannot be attributed to an algorithmic device: to do so would mean abdicating human ethical responsibility and handing truth over to a statistical mechanism. The illusion of an artificial moral intelligence is defined by the document as a form of naïve technological idolatry, because truth is not the fruit of calculation, but of the encounter between freedom and grace[1].

This magisterial reflection confirms the central point: conscience cannot be programmed. The machine may assist, but not judge; it may help, but not interpret; it may filter, but not discern. What belongs to human freedom — and thus to man’s relationship with God — cannot be delegated to any technology.

The ethics of artificial intelligence thus reveal their fragility: a machine may be programmed to recognise words, but it cannot understand the Word. It can identify commands, not commandments. It can catalogue behaviours, not distinguish between virtue and vice. It can detect correlations, not grasp divine revelation. And above all: it cannot know God. A culture that becomes accustomed to replacing the judgement of conscience with algorithmic screening ends up forgetting that freedom is a spiritual act, not a digital output[2]. It is here that moral theology becomes decisive, for it reminds man that truth is always personal; good is always intentional; conscience is always irreducible; moral judgement cannot be delegated to anyone, least of all to software.

This does not mean demonising technology, but restoring it to its proper place: that of a tool, not a judge. Artificial Intelligence may certainly make human work more efficient, but it cannot replace it at the decisive point: moral judgement, the only realm in which it is not enough to know “how things are”, but one must decide “why to do them”. This is the realm of conscience, where man weighs intentions, assumes responsibility, and answers for his actions before God. Here the machine does not enter, cannot enter: it calculates, but does not choose; it analyses, but does not answer; it simulates, but does not love. Like an excellent plastic surgeon, Artificial Intelligence may enhance what is already beautiful, but it cannot make beautiful what is not; it may correct disproportions, soften certain marks of time, but it cannot create beauty from nothing nor restore youth once it has faded. It may enhance a marked face, but it cannot invent a new one. In the same way, Artificial Intelligence may help organise data, clarify a text, or order complex arguments; but it cannot give intelligence to a limited and mediocre subject, nor conscience to one who lacks it.

The image — perhaps somewhat stark, but effective — is that of the thoroughbred horse and the pony: technology may train, care for and bring out the best in the Arabian stallion, but it will never turn a poor pony into a thoroughbred. What is not there, no algorithm will ever create. The machine perfects only what it already finds at work in man: it may refine a true thought, but cannot generate truth; it may polish a successful phrase, but cannot reach the conscience from which that phrase arose.

The machine perfects only what it already finds at work in man: it may refine a true thought, but cannot generate truth; it may clean a well-formed phrase, but cannot infuse the spirit that generated it. And it is precisely here that the parallel with the Thomistic principle becomes evident:

“Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it)” [3].

At this point it becomes inevitable to turn our gaze to the most delicate ground: if the machine can perfect only what it finds, then the true question does not concern the algorithm, but the man who hands himself over to it. And it is here that the Thomistic analogy displays its full force: just as grace does not act upon a void, so technology does not work upon the absence of conscience. And when man ceases to exercise his moral interiority, it is not the machine that gains power: it is man himself who loses stature. From this point arises the decisive problem — not technical, but spiritual — that we must now confront. If we understand that moral delegation to the machine is not a technical accident but an anthropological error, the question will arise by logical consequence: what does man lose when he abdicates his conscience? He does not lose merely a skill, but a spiritual dimension, the one in which the meaning of good and evil is decided. Technology may be powerful, sophisticated, extremely rapid, but it cannot become a moral subject.

Christian tradition has always taught that the exercise of sound judgement is an art born of grace and freedom: a balance between prudence, truth and charity. The algorithm knows none of these three. It is not prudent, because it does not evaluate; it is not true, because it does not know; it is not charitable, because it does not love. For this reason, using Artificial Intelligence as a tool is possible; using it as a criterion is inhuman. To think that it can create in place of a man incapable of articulating a thought or producing intellectual work is, at the very least, illusory. Technology may assist man, never judge him; may help speech, never replace it; may serve the mission, never determine its boundaries.

A civilisation that delegates to the machine what belongs to conscience loses its spiritual identity: it becomes a society that knows much, but understands little; that speaks incessantly, but rarely listens; that judges everything, but no longer judges itself.

Catholic morality reminds us that the criterion of good is not what the world accepts, but what God teaches. And God does not speak to algorithms: He speaks to hearts. The Logos became flesh, not code; became man, not programme; became relationship, not mechanism. For this reason no artificial intelligence, however advanced, can ever become the ultimate criterion of what is true, just, good and human. Because good is not calculated: it is recognised.

From the Isle of Patmos, 7 February 2026

.

NOTES

[1] CF. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Old and new. Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence (28 January 2025) — On the correct integration between human capacity and technological tools in the formation of moral judgement.

[2] A.N. Output means final result and is a technical computing term referring to the set of data produced by a computer through a processing operation, in contrast to input, which are the incoming data.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, QUESTION, I, q.1, a.8, ad 2, in the Works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Leonine Edition.

.

THE CLOSE LINK BETWEEN ETHICS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE THEOLOGY OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

The machine perfects only what it already finds in action in man.: can hone a true thought, but not generate the truth; can clean up a successful sentence, but not instill the spirit that has generated it. And it is precisely here where the parallelism with the Thomistic principle becomes evident.: «Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it)».

- Theological -

.

This article for our page Theologica It is taken from my latest book Freedom denied (Freedom denied) published by our editions and available for sale here.

When I am ready to discuss this topic related to Artificial Intelligence, one of the most prophetic works of modern cinema came to mind: 2001: space odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick and released in 1968. HAL appears in that movie 9000, a very high level artificial intelligence, installed aboard the Discovery spacecraft. HAL is perfect in calculation, foolproof in data management, but it lacks that which makes judgment truly human: the conscience. When your schedule conflicts with mission objectives, HAL does not “go crazy”: simply apply logic without the moral filter, without intentionality and without the ability to discern good from evil. The result is shocking: a very powerful machine becomes a mortal threat precisely because it does not understand man or the value of life. This cinematic intuition, but theologically very clear — shows that artificial intelligence raises problems that are not merely technical, but radically moral. What is at stake is not the computing power - which no one disputes - but the risk that man delegates to an impersonal system what belongs exclusively to his conscience.. And this is precisely what happens when a platform is allowed to autonomously decide what is “good” or “bad.”, what can be said and what should be silenced: an act that should be moral is handed over to the machine. And this is only the first step of moral delegation to the machine.

Once surrendered to technology the judgment about what is true and what is false, the next step becomes almost inevitable: also renounce educational common sense and personal responsibility. Occurs, For example, when a parent completely entrusts an algorithm with the task of filtering what a child can see, without critical oversight: means delegating educational responsibility to a statistical system. Or when Artificial Intelligence is asked if a phrase is “offensive” or “morally acceptable”: means transferring a task that requires consciousness to the machine, not calculation.

What has been explained so far does not constitute a set of technical details, but the decisive point. If the intention is missing, the machine can never understand what the man is doing when he speaks, reprimands, educa, cure or correct. And since you cannot access the “why”, reduce everything to the “how”: does not evaluate the meaning, analyze only the shape. It is here that misunderstanding becomes inevitable and systematic error. It's what happens, For example, when a priest admonishes a believer or a father corrects a son: human conscience distinguishes between severity and cruelty, between correction and offense; The algorithm only records the harshness of the phrase and marks it as “hostile language.”. The doctor who writes "this risk leads to death" may see his words classified as "violent content", because the machine does not distinguish a diagnosis from a threat. Even a simple Bible verse can be censored as “offensive language.”, because Artificial Intelligence does not perceive the moral purpose, but only the surface of the word. For this reason, any use of Artificial Intelligence that affects the word, to the trial, to relationship or freedom must be examined in the light of moral theology, not computer engineering.

The distinction is decisive: the machine does not decide, select; does not evaluate, filter; does not judge, classify. And what classifies is never good or evil, but only the probable and the improbable, the frequent and the rare, what is statistically acceptable and what is algorithmically suspicious. Human consciousness does exactly the opposite.: takes seriously the uniqueness of the act and the freedom of the agent; ponder intentions, circumstances and consequences; distinguishes between the rebuke that saves and the offense that hurts; between severity out of love and cruelty out of contempt. The machine sees none of this..

When a father rebukes a son, conscience recognizes the love that sustains it; the algorithm sees only one “potentially hostile” phrase. When a spiritual director admonishes those under his charge, conscience perceives the mercy that accompanies the truth; the algorithm sees a violation of “community standards”. When a person speaks to correct, protect or educate, consciousness grasps the purpose; the machine only perceives the hard word. The result is paradoxical: where man unites justice and mercy, the machine produces only labels.

Moral ambiguity is not born of technology: born from the man who designs it. Because the algorithm is not neutral: executes a morality that he does not know, but that others have decided for him. And we see this every day: if content questions political correctness, the algorithm interprets it as “hostility”; If you criticize certain cultural drifts woke, labels it “discrimination”; if it addresses issues of Christian anthropology — for example, sexual difference or the family — criticizing the powerful and politicized LGBT lobbies, He describes it as “incitement to hatred” or “incitement to violence”, the call (c). All of this is not because the machine “thinks” like that., but because it has been programmed to react that way. The algorithm is not born neutral: It is born already educated by those who build it, shaped by ideological criteria that confuse criticism with aggression, reflection with offense, the truth with violence. In other words, the algorithm has masters: reflects your fears, amplifies your convictions, censor what they fear. The platforms do not filter according to objective criteria, but according to dominant ideologies: what the world idolizes is promoted, what the Gospel remembers is suspicious; what pleases is amplified, what admonishes is silenced. The result is a new form of cultural censorship: Elegant, polite, digitally sterilized — but always censored.

These reflections of mine are born from studies, analysis and observations that I have been delving into for some time now at the anthropological-cultural level and in the real functioning of digital platforms. Precisely for this reason I consider it significant to point out how, on a different but complementary level, The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has recently recalled a decisive principle, going substantially in the same direction of thought, reaffirming that Artificial Intelligence, even being able to "cooperate in the growth of knowledge", cannot be compared in any way to human intelligence, that has a depth and dynamics that no machine learning system can replicate. This document highlights that Artificial Intelligence does not include, but processes; does not judge, but it calculates; and is intrinsically incapable of grasping the moral dimension of action, lacking consciousness and interiority (cf.. here). Warn, therefore, clearly that moral discernment cannot be attributed to an algorithmic device: To do so would mean abdicating man's ethical responsibility and handing over the truth to a statistical mechanism.. The illusion of an artificial moral intelligence is defined by the document as a form of naive technological idolatry, because the truth is not the result of calculation, but of the encounter between freedom and grace[1].

This magisterial reflection confirms the central point: consciousness is not programmed. The machine can assist, but don't judge; can help, but not interpret; can filter, but not discern. That which belongs to the freedom of man — and, therefore, to your relationship with God — cannot be delegated to any technology.

The ethics of artificial intelligence thus revealing its fragility: a machine can be programmed to recognize words, but can't understand the Word. Can identify orders, not commandments. Can census behaviors, not distinguishing between virtue and vice. Can detect correlations, not accepting divine revelation. Y, above all: can't know God. A culture that gets used to replacing the judgment of conscience with the screening of an algorithm ends up forgetting that freedom is a spiritual act, not a output digital[2]. This is where moral theology becomes decisive., because it remembers the man who: the truth is always personal; good is always intentional; consciousness is always irreducible; moral judgment cannot be delegated to anyone, and even less to a software.

This does not mean demonizing technology, but return it to its proper place: that of instrument, not that of judge. Artificial Intelligence can certainly make human work more agile, but cannot replace it at the decisive point: the moral judgment, the only area in which it is not enough to know “how things are”, but it is necessary to decide “why to do them”. It is the place of consciousness, where man ponders intentions, assumes responsibilities and is responsible for his actions before God. The machine does not fit here, can't get in: calculate, but don't choose; analysis, but he doesn't respond; beginning, but he doesn't love. As an excellent plastic surgeon, Artificial Intelligence can enhance what is already beautiful, but you cannot make beautiful what is not beautiful; can correct disproportions, can attenuate certain signs of time, but it cannot create from nothing beauty that does not exist nor restore youth that has already withered.. Can enhance a marked face, but can't invent a new face. In the same way, Artificial Intelligence can help organize data, clarify a text, sort complex arguments; but it cannot give intelligence to a limited and mediocre subject, nor conscience to those who lack it.

The image, maybe a little crude but effective, It is that of the race horse and the pony: technology can train, care for and make the Arabian stallion perform to the maximum, but it will never transform a poor pony into a thoroughbred. What does not exist, no algorithm can ever create it. The machine perfects only what it already finds in action in man.: can hone a true thought, but not generate the truth; can polish a successful sentence, but not reaching the consciousness from which that phrase has arisen.

The machine perfects only what it already finds in action in man: can hone a true thought, but not generate the truth; can clean up a successful sentence, but not instill the spirit that has generated it. And it is precisely here where the parallelism with the Thomistic principle becomes evident.:

«Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it)»[3].

At this point, it becomes inevitable to look at the most delicate terrain: if the machine can perfect only what it finds, then the real issue does not concern the algorithm, but to the man who gives himself to him. And this is where the Thomistic analogy displays all its force.: just as grace does not act on emptiness, In the same way, technology does not work on the absence of consciousness.. And when man stops exercising his moral interiority, It is not the machine that gains power: It is the man himself who loses height. From here arises the decisive problem — not a technical one., but spiritual — which we must now face. If we understand that moral delegation to the machine is not a technical accident but an anthropological error, The question will arise by logical consequence: What does a man lose when he abdicates his conscience?? You don't just lose one skill, but a spiritual dimension, the one in which the meaning of good and evil is decided. Technology can be powerful, sophisticated, very fast, but cannot become a moral subject.

The Christian tradition has always taught that the exercise of good judgment is an art born of grace and freedom: a balance between prudence, truth and charity. The algorithm does not know any of these three. It is not wise, because it doesn't evaluate; it's not true, because you don't know; It is not charitable, because he doesn't love. For this reason, using Artificial Intelligence as an instrument is possible; using it as a criterion is inhumane. To think that I can create instead of a man incapable of articulating a thought or producing intellectual work is, at least, illusory. Technology can assist man, never judge him; can help the word, never replace it; can serve the mission, never determine its confines.

A civilization that delegates to the machine that which belongs to consciousness loses its spiritual identity: becomes a society that knows a lot, but understands little; who talks continuously, but rarely listens; who judges everything, but she no longer judges herself.

Catholic morality reminds us that the criterion of good is not what the world accepts, but what God teaches. And God does not speak to algorithms: speaks to the hearts. The Logos became flesh, not code; he became a man, not program; relationship was made, not mechanism. That's why no artificial intelligence, no matter how advanced it is, can never become the ultimate criterion of what is true, fair, good and human. Because good is not calculated: is recognized.

From the Island of Patmos, 7 February 2026

.

NOTES

[1] See. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Old and new. Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence (28 January 2025). —On the correct integration between human capacity and technological instruments in the elaboration of moral judgment.

[2] N. from A. Output means final result and is a technical-computer term that refers to the set of data that a computer emits through a production process., as opposed to input, what is the input data.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, QUESTION, I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2, en Sancti Thomas de Aquinas Opera Omnia, Leonina edition.

.

THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN ETHICS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE THEOLOGY OF SAINT THOMAS AQUIN

The machine only perfects that, what it already finds in humans: It can refine a true thought, but produce no truth; she can clean up a successful sentence, but not breathe the spirit, who produced him. And it is precisely here that the parallel to the Thomian principle becomes evident: „Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but completes it)“

— Theologica —

.

.

This post for our category Theologica is my latest book Freedom denied (Freedom denied), which was published by our publisher and available here is.

When I set out to do it, to address this topic in connection with artificial intelligence, One of the most prophetic masterpieces of modern cinema came to mind: 2001: A space odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick and 1968 published. HAL appears in this film 9000, a highly developed artificial intelligence, which is installed on board the spaceship Discovery. HAL is perfect at arithmetic, infallible in data processing, but she misses that, what constitutes human judgment: the conscience. When their programming conflicts with the mission's goals, HAL doesn’t “go” crazy: it simply applies logic without a moral filter, without intentionality and without the ability, to distinguish between good and evil. The result is shocking: This is precisely why an extremely powerful machine becomes a deadly threat, because she doesn't understand people and the value of life. This one – cinematic, but theologically extremely clear - intuition shows, that artificial intelligence poses problems, which are not just of a technical nature, but radically moral. It's not the computing power that's at issue - no one disputes that -, but the danger, that man leaves to an impersonal system, which is solely the responsibility of his conscience. This is exactly what is happening, if you allow a platform, to decide autonomously, what is “good” or “evil”., what can be said and what must be kept quiet: You transfer an act to the machine, which would have to be moral. And this is just the first step of moral delegation to the machine.

As soon as technology is left to decide what is true and false, the next step becomes almost inevitable: also to forgo educational common sense and personal responsibility. This happens about then, when a parent completely delegates the task to an algorithm, to filter, what a child can see, without critical supervision: That means, to delegate educational responsibility to a statistical system. Or if you ask artificial intelligence, whether a sentence is “offensive” or “morally acceptable”.: Then you give the machine a task, which requires conscience, not calculation.

What was presented here, is not an ensemble of technical details, but the crucial point. The intention is missing, the machine can never understand, what man does, when he speaks, admonished, educates, heals or corrects. And because she has no access to the “why”., she reduces everything to the “how”: It doesn't evaluate the meaning, but only analyzes the form. This is where the misunderstanding becomes inevitable and the systematic error sets in. Something like that, when a priest admonishes a believer or a father corrects his son: Human conscience distinguishes between severity and cruelty, between correction and insult; the algorithm simply registers the harshness of the sentence and marks it as “hostile language”. The doctor, who writes: “This risk leads to death”, can see his words classified as “violent content”., because the machine cannot distinguish a diagnosis from a threat. Even a simple Bible verse can be censored as “offensive language.”, because the artificial intelligence does not perceive the moral goal, but only the surface of the word. That's why every use of artificial intelligence must, of language, Verdict, Relationship or freedom touched, be examined in the light of moral theology, not in the context of computer science.

The distinction is crucial: The machine doesn't decide, she selects; she doesn't judge, she filters; she doesn't judge, classifies them. And what classifies them, is never good or evil, but only the probable and the improbable, Common and rare, Statistically acceptable and algorithmically suspect. The human conscience does the exact opposite: It takes the uniqueness of the action and the freedom of the actor seriously; it weighs intentions, circumstances and consequences; it distinguishes between rebuke, that saves, and the insult, who hurt; between severity out of love and cruelty out of contempt. The machine doesn't see any of this.

When a father corrects his child, conscience recognizes love, who carries him; the algorithm only sees one “potentially hostile” sentence. When a spiritual director admonishes his entrusted person, conscience recognizes mercy, that accompanies the truth; the algorithm sees a violation of “community standards”. When someone speaks, to correct, to protect or educate, conscience grasps the objective; the machine only records the hard word. The result is paradoxical: There, where man combines justice and mercy, the machine only produces labels.

The moral ambiguity does not arise from technology, but to people, who designs them. Because the algorithm is not neutral: He carries out a moral, that he doesn't know, but which others have set for him. This is evident every day: Does a piece of content question what is politically correct?, the algorithm interprets this as “hostility”; he criticizes certain excesses of the woke culture, he labels it as “discrimination”; He deals with topics of Christian anthropology - such as gender differences or the family - and criticizes powerful ones, politicized LGBT lobbies, it is marked as “hate speech” or “glorification of violence”.. None of this, because the machine “thinks” like that, but because it was programmed that way. The algorithm is not born neutral: He is trained from the start by his developers, shaped by ideological criteria, criticism with aggression, Confusing reflection with insult and truth with violence. In other words: The algorithm has masters. He reflects their fears, reinforces their beliefs, censored, what they fear. Platforms do not filter based on objective criteria, but according to dominant ideologies: What the world adores, is encouraged; what the gospel brings to mind, is suspected; what you like, is reinforced; what admonishes, is silenced. The result is a new form of cultural censorship: elegant, polite, digitally sterilized – but still censorship.

These considerations arise from studies, Reflections and observations, which I have been deepening for some time on an anthropological-cultural level as well as with regard to the real functioning of digital platforms. That's precisely why I think it's important to note, that on another, but at a complementary level the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has recently recalled a crucial principle and is essentially moving in the same direction of thought: It affirms, that artificial intelligence can “contribute to the growth of knowledge”., However, in no way should it be equated with human intelligence, which has depth and dynamism, which no machine learning system can replicate. The document underlines, that artificial intelligence does not understand, but processed; doesn't judge, but calculated; and is fundamentally incapable due to lack of conscience and inwardness, to grasp the moral dimension of action (cf. here). It therefore clearly warns against this, to attribute moral distinction to an algorithmic system: This would mean, to abdicate man's ethical responsibility and leave the truth to a statistical mechanism. The illusion of artificial moral intelligence has been described as a form of naive technological idolatry, since truth does not arise from calculation, but from the encounter between freedom and grace[1].

This magisterial reflection confirms the central point: The conscience cannot be programmed. The machine can support, but don't judge; help, but not interpret; filter, but don't differentiate. What belongs to human freedom - and thus to his relationship to God -, cannot be transferred to any technology.

The ethics of artificial intelligence thus reveal their fragility: A machine can be programmed, to recognize words, but she can't understand the word. She can identify commands, not commandments. It can capture behavior, do not distinguish between virtue and vice. She can see correlations, do not grasp divine revelation. And especially: She cannot recognize God. One culture, who gets used to it, to replace the judgment of conscience with the testing of an algorithm, eventually forgets, that freedom is a spiritual act, not a digital one Output[2]. This is where moral theology becomes crucial, because it reminds people of it: Truth is always personal; the good is always intentional; conscience is always irreducible; Moral judgment cannot be delegated to anyone – least of all to one Software.

This does not mean, to demonize the technology, but to put them in their right place: that of the tool, not the judge. Artificial intelligence can certainly make human work more efficient, But it cannot replace it at the crucial point: in moral judgment, the only area, in which it is not enough to know, “how things are”, but in which decisions must be made, “why you do them”. It is the place of conscience, where people weigh up intentions, Takes responsibility and stands up for your actions before God. The machine has no access here, she can't have one: She calculates, but doesn't choose; analyzed, but doesn't answer; simulated, but doesn't love. Like a great plastic surgeon, artificial intelligence can enhance what is already beautiful, but it cannot make beautiful, what it is not; she can correct proportions, Alleviate signs of aging, but neither creating beauty out of nothing nor returning lost youth. It can enhance a drawn face, but don't invent a new face. Artificial intelligence can also help, to organize data, clarify texts, to structure complex arguments; However, it cannot give intelligence to a limited and mediocre subject, nor can it give intelligence to a person without conscience.

The picture – perhaps a bit drastic, but effective – is that of the noble thoroughbred and the pony: Technology can train the Arabian stallion, maintain and lead to peak performance, but she will never turn a poor pony into a racehorse. What doesn't exist, no algorithm can ever create. The machine only perfects that, what it already finds in humans: It can sharpen a true thought, but do not produce truth; she can polish a successful sentence, but do not reach the conscience, from which this sentence emerged.

The machine only perfects that, what it already finds in humans: It can refine a true thought, but produce no truth; she can clean up a successful sentence, but not breathe the spirit, who produced him. And it is precisely here that the parallel to the Thomian principle becomes evident:

Grace does not take away nature, but finish (grace does not destroy nature, but completes it)“[3].

At this point it becomes inevitable, to focus on the most delicate terrain: If only the machine can perfect that, what she finds, then the real question is not about the algorithm, but the people, who surrenders to him. This is where the Thomian analogy develops its full power: Just as grace does not work on the void, technology does not work in the absence of conscience. And when the person stops, to practice one's moral interiority, It is not the machine that gains power – the human being loses size. This is where the crucial problem arises – not a technical one, but of a spiritual nature –, which we now have to face. If we understand, that the moral delegation to the machine is not a technical accident, but is an anthropological error, the question inevitably arises: What does man lose?, if he renounces his conscience? He doesn't just lose an ability, but a spiritual dimension, those, in which the meaning of good and evil is decided. The technology may be powerful, sophisticated and incredibly fast, however, she can never become a moral subject.

The Christian tradition has always taught, that the exercise of sound judgment is an art, which comes from grace and freedom: a balance of wisdom, truth and love. The algorithm does not recognize any of these three. He's not smart, because he doesn't weigh things up; not true, because he doesn't recognize; not loving, because he doesn't love. That's why it's possible, to use artificial intelligence as a tool; Using it as a criterion is inhumane. To believe, she could create in place of a person, who is incompetent, to articulate a thought or produce an intellectual work, is at least illusory. Technology can support people, never judge him; it can serve the Word, never replace it; she can help the mission, never determine their boundaries.

A civilization, which is left to the machine, what belongs to the conscience, loses her spiritual identity: It becomes a society, who knows a lot, but understands little; who speaks incessantly, but rarely listens; who judges everything, but no longer judges himself.

Catholic morality reminds us of this, that the criterion of good is not that, what the world accepts, but that, what God teaches. And God doesn’t speak to algorithms: He speaks to the heart. The Logos became flesh, not code; he became human, not program; it has become a relationship, not mechanism. That's why no artificial intelligence can, no matter how advanced it is, ever become the final measure of that, what true, just, is good and humane. Because the good is not calculated: It is recognized.

From the island of Patmos, 7. February 2026

.

NOTES

[1] cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Old and new. Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence (28. January 2025). — On the proper integration of human abilities and technological tools in the formation of moral judgments.

[2] Anm. (d). A.: Output refers to the final result and is a technical term in computer science, which refers to the entirety of the data, that a computer outputs as part of a processing process, in contrast to the input, i.e. the input data.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, QUESTION, I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2, in the Works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Leonine edition.

 

 

______________________

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

Alberto Ravagnani. Priests in crisis are the consequence of the crisis of ecclesiastical authority

/in /by

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

«Freedom denied. Catholic theology and dictatorship of Western conformism". New work by Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

/in /by

«FREEDOM DENIED. CATHOLIC THEOLOGY AND DICTATORSHIP OF WESTERN CONFORMITY". NEW WORK BY ARIEL S. LEVI of GUALDO

Among the greatest merits of the book is the ability to keep different plans together without confusing them. The Author intertwines the theological tradition of the great Fathers of the Church with the challenges posed by the contemporary era, including Artificial Intelligence, not treated as a technological curiosity but as a decisive test bed for Christian anthropology. The similarities between the theological thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas and some of the key elements that regulate and govern Artificial Intelligence are particularly interesting..

— Books and reviews —

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

.

In a historical time in which the word "freedom" has become a consumable slogan, Freedom denied presents itself as a work deliberately against the grain. Not because he chases the taste of provocation, but because it rejects the anesthetizing language with which contemporary culture has emptied the fundamental concepts of moral anthropology and Christian theology of content.

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo does not write to reassure, nor to confirm pre-packaged beliefs, but to stimulate thinking, above all to judge with a mature critical sense.

The heart of the work is a thesis as simple as it is radical: freedom is not an automatic given, nor an achievement guaranteed by technical progress or the expansion of the possibilities of choice. On the contrary, today it is systematically mutilated by a new form of power, more subtle and pervasive than those of the past: the dictatorship of Western conformism, which does not imprison bodies, but tames consciences; which does not explicitly prohibit, but silently orients what is sayable, thinkable, morally legitimate.

In this sense, Freedom denied it is not an essay on religious sociology nor an ideological indictment. It is a theological text in the most rigorous sense of the term: starts from man, from its spiritual and moral structure, to show how the loss of the truth about the good inevitably leads to the dissolution of freedom, remembers the Author, it does not consist of arbitrariness, but in the ability to adhere to the good recognized as the fulfillment of one's nature. When the limit is expelled from the human horizon, freedom does not expand: implode.

Among the book's greatest merits the ability to keep different plans together without confusing them. The Author intertwines the theological tradition of the great Fathers of the Church with the challenges posed by the contemporary era, including Artificial Intelligence, not treated as a technological curiosity but as a decisive test bed for Christian anthropology. The similarities between the theological thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas and some of the key elements that regulate and govern Artificial Intelligence are particularly interesting..

The analysis of internal ecclesial dynamics is particularly incisive. The Author does not indulge in personalistic polemics, nor in easy moralisms, but it clearly shows how even in the Church conformism can be transformed into a criterion of government, producing a progressive marginalization of everything that is not functional to consensus. In this picture, persecution no longer takes the form of bloody martyrdom, but that of irony, of delegitimization, of the systematic isolation of those who refuse to adapt to the dominant language.

The cover of the book — the Venus by Botticelli censored for “nudity” from a brand social — is not a simple graphic gimmick, but a key to understanding the entire book: beauty, when it is not tamable, must be darkened; the truth, when it cannot be manipulated, must be removed. In this sense, Freedom denied it is also a reflection on the relationship between truth and scandal: not the moral scandal constructed by the media, but the evangelical scandal of a truth that does not bend.

It is not a book for everyone and does not pretend to be, like the rest of the works of this author, it is terribly clear and understandable. It requires a reader willing to step outside comfort zone of ideological simplifications, to compete with a thought that allows no shortcuts. But this is precisely why it is a necessary book. In an era that confuses freedom with the absence of constraints and conscience with subjective feeling, Freedom denied remember that without truth there is no freedom and without freedom man loses himself.

A work that challenges believers and non-believers on the decisive point of our modernity: what remains of man when he gives up judging?

the Island of Patmos, 30 January 2026

.

LIBRARY STORE – OPEN HERE

.

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Roma decadence. The passion of the mystical body and the illusion of activism – Rome decadence. The passion of the mystical body and the illusion of activism – Roma decadence. The passion of the mystical body and the illusion of activism

/in /by

Italian, english, español

 

ROMA DECADENCE. THE PASSION OF THE MYSTICAL BODY AND THE ILLUSION OF ACTIVISM

The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of its members, but as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification"; it is not holy due to the virtue of its members, but because its head is Christ and its animator is the Holy Spirit.

— Theologica —

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

.

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

 

.

Dear readers of the Island of Patmos, I am writing to you at a time that many, not wrongly, define of Roma decadence, an era in which the evaporation of Christianity, as Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi also lucidly observed[1], it is no longer a dystopian prophecy, but a tangible reality.

However, faced with this scenario, a theologian looks at the Church not with the worldly eyes of sociology, but with the gaze of faith that recognizes in the Mystical Body the living presence of Christ and His Spirit.

This article of mine was born from dialogue social with dear Alessandro, also a digital pastoral operator (who his site). I would like to divide our reflections into three moments.

The Ecclesial Kenosis: between the Holy Saturday of history and the heresy of efficiency. As Don Giuseppe Forlai writes, but the theme returns in many reflections carried out in multiple areas, the Church in Europe today resembles the body of Jesus taken down from the Cross: lifeless, consummate, apparently defeated, and yet - and this is the divine paradox - a treasure chest of eternal life persists in it. We must not be scandalized if the Bride of Christ appears disfigured; she is reliving the mysteries of her Spouse's life, including the passion and burial[2]. In this sulphurous ecclesial, the greatest temptation is to replace mystery with organization, grace with bureaucracy, falling into that Pelagianism that Pope Francis and his predecessors have often stigmatized. A young Saint Benedict of Nursia, in the face of the corruption of Rome, he did not found a party or a protest movement, but he retreated into silence to "relive with himself" (to live with him), laying the foundations for a civilization that was not born from a human project, but from the search for God (To seek God). This contemplative silence is not mutism but prayerful listening to the Word and is the only adequate response to the crisis. The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of its members, but as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification" (CCC 827); it is not holy due to the virtue of its members, but because its head is Christ and its animator is the Holy Spirit. Because of this, a serious way of reforming the ecclesial community is not frenetic activism. Already Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, of venerable memory, he wisely remembered that a shepherd must feed the sheep and not vice versa, and serve the sanctification of people. Following the teaching of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Philippians: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Fil 2,12), we must stop looking for scapegoats or structural solutions to problems that exist, in their root, pneumatic and spiritual. They take time, study and prayer.

The fundamental mistake I think it lies in a sort of "heresy of action" which forgets a basic principle of Scholasticism: Acting follows being (the Act follows the be). If the being of the Church is emptied of its supernatural substance, his actions become an empty shell, a background noise that converts no one. Today we are witnessing what we could define as an obsession with structures, almost as if by modifying the organizational chart of the Curia or inventing new pastoral committees we can infuse the Holy Spirit on command. I'm not saying that planning or reorganization are bad things in themselves, indeed they are welcome. But let's remember that the Spirit blows where he wants, not where our human planning forces it. This efficiency mentality betrays a lack of faith in the intrinsic power of Grace. We behave like the Apostles on the boat in the storm before Christ woke up: we get agitated, we row against the wind, we scream, forgetting that He who commands the winds and the sea is present, albeit apparently dormant, aft.

The current condition of the Church in Europe, which we defined above as "deposed from the Cross", it reminds us of the mystery of Holy Saturday. It is the day of great silence, not of desperate inactivity. On Holy Saturday, the Church does not proselytize, does not organize conferences, it does not draw up five-year synodal plans; the Church keeps vigil next to the tomb, knowing that that stone will not be overturned by human hands. The mortal danger of our time is wanting to "reanimate" the ecclesial body with worldly techniques marketing or sociological adaptation to a century, transforming the Bride of Christ into a compassionate NGO, pleasing to the world, but barren of divine life. Let us remember what Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in On Consideration: «Woe to you if, to worry too much about external things, you end up losing yourself[3]. If the Church loses its mystical dimension, it becomes flavorless salt, destined to be trampled by men" (cf.. Mt 5,13). Moreover, this anxiety about «doing» often hides the fear of «being». Standing under the Cross, stay in the cenacle, stay on your knees. The crisis of vocations, the closure of parishes, cultural irrelevance cannot be resolved by lowering the bar of doctrine to make it more attractive - a failed operation, as demonstrated by the now deserted liberal Protestant communities - but by raising the temperature of faith. The Church is Crawford Prostitute, the Fathers loved to say: chaste due to the presence of the Spirit, a prostitute for the sins of her children who prostitute her to the idols of the moment. But purification does not occur through human reforms, but rather through the fire of trial and the sanctity of individuals.

Non serve, so, a Church that is agitated, but a Church that burns. We need to return to that priority of God that Benedict XVI tirelessly preached: where God fails, man does not get bigger, but he loses his divine dignity. The remedy for Roma decadence it is not an «activist Rome», but a "praying Rome". We must have the courage to be that "little flock" (LC 12,32) who does not fear numerical inferiority, provided that he keeps the deposit of faith intact. Like yeast in the mass, our effectiveness does not depend on quantity, but by the quality of our union with Christ. Therefore, Let us commit ourselves not to let ourselves be robbed of hope by prophets of doom, nor by the strategists of creative pastoral care, let's go back to the tabernacle, at the Lectio Divina, to the passionate study of the Truth. Only from there, from the pierced and glorious heart of the Redeemer, the living water capable of irrigating this western desert will be able to flow. The Church will rise again, not because we are good organizers, but because Christ is alive and death no longer has power over Him. Because Christ offers everyone a profound act of contemplation if we know how to grasp it.

Rediscover Dogma against the dictatorship of sentiment. Faith that seeks understanding: Faith seeking understanding. To avoid falling into sterile quietism, But, we must understand that Christian contemplation is intrinsically fruitful and that love for the Church requires a radical return to the foundations of our faith. There is no charity without truth, and there is no real reform that does not start from the rediscovery of deposit of credit. In a liquid world where faith risks dissolving into mere emotional feeling and truth is sacrificed on the altar of social consensus, it is urgent to return to the Symbol of our faith which is not a nursery rhyme to be recited, but the route of our Christian existence. About that, I would like to suggest reading the latest book by Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo: I think to understand: Journey in the Profession of Faith. In quest’opera, Father Ariel explains each article of the Symbol or Creed making it taste its original power: not cold formula, but to a «word to live by». The text takes the reader on a theological journey where reason, illumined by faith, he bows before the mystery without abdicating, but finding its fulfillment. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, faith is an act of the intellect that adheres to divine truth under the control of the will moved by grace (cf.. QUESTION, II-II, q. 2, a. 9); for this reason, study the dogma, understand what we profess every Sunday, it is an operation of the highest contemplation. Approach the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, connate ourselves with the mysteries we profess, so that action becomes a reflection of our being in Christ. Sacred art, the liturgy, theology is not aesthetic frills, but vehicles of the Truth that saves. If we don't understand what we believe, how will we be able to testify to this? If the salt loses its flavor, It is good for nothing other than to be thrown away (cf.. Mt 5,13). Father Ariel's book teaches precisely this: give flavor to our faith, giving back to the word I believe the sense of perfect adherence to the incarnate Truth.

We live in an era afflicted by another serious spiritual pathology which we could define as "sentimental fideism". The erroneous idea has spread that faith is a blind feeling, a consoling emotion detached from reason, or worse, that dogma is a cage that imprisons the freedom of God's children. Nothing could be more false and dangerous. As a preacher brother, I strongly reiterate that the Truth (Veritas) it is the very name of God and that the human intellect was created precisely to grasp this Truth. Rejecting the intellectual effort to understand dogma means refusing to use the highest gift that the Creator has given us in his image and likeness. Culpable ignorance of the truths of faith is the ideal breeding ground for every heresy. When the Catholic stops forming, when he stops asking "who is God" according to Revelation and begins to build a god of his own size and likeness, he inevitably falls into the idolatry of his own self.

Give back meaning and value to the Creed it means rediscovering the constitutional charter of our Christian life. Each of his articles is not abstract philosophical lucubration, since they are linked to the Christian fact, to the history of salvation that has affected man and the entire cosmos. Saying "I believe in one God" or "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh" is an act of disobedience to nihilism that leads to desperation and the detriment of spirit and matter. The intellectual reconstruction I'm talking about is, ultimately, an act of love. You can't love what you don't know. If our knowledge of Christ is imperfect our love for Him will remain childish, fragile, unable to withstand the impact of the trials of adult life and the seductions of dominant thought.

On this journey that I propose to you let us learn to see theology not as a science for initiates, but what does the Church do when it bends over revealed data and therefore what it breathes and therefore lives from. The study, done on your knees, it becomes prayer; the understanding of the Trinitarian mystery becomes adoration in Spirit and truth. We need not fear the complexity of dogma: it is like the sun which, while being bright enough to be looked at directly without hurting the eye, it is the only source that allows us to clearly see all the rest of reality. Without the light of dogma, the liturgy becomes choreography, charity becomes philanthropy and hope becomes illusion. So let's get back to studying, to read, to meditate. Let us make St. Peter's exhortation our own: “Always be ready to answer anyone who asks you why the hope is within you” (1PT 3,15). But to give reasons (logos) of Christian hope we must honor reason as we seek to possess the things of God and in this theology is a great help.

The A small herd and the power of grace. Beyond desperation, theological hope. I conclude this itinerary by inviting "cautious optimism" that flows from the virtue of theological hope. The decadence of Christianity in Europe is a historical fact, but the story of Salvation does not end with Good Friday. Our identity, as the Scriptures and the testimony of many saints remind us, must be based on the awareness of being "useless servants/simple servants" (LC 17,10). This "uselessness/simplicity" is not devaluation, but the recognition that the main actor of history is God. I'll try to explain myself.

Christian hope is the polar opposite of worldly optimism. This could arise from a statistical or simply humoral prediction that "things will get better". theological Hope, instead, it is the certainty that God does not lie and keeps his promises even when things happen, humanly speaking, they go from bad to worse. Abraham "had faith, hoping against all hope" (Sa foot against hope, RM 4,18), just when biological reality presented him with the impossibility of having a child. We today are called to the same faith as Abraham. The numerical decline of believers and the loss of appeal of the Church must not lead us to a sectarian retreat, but to the awareness that God, as the history of salvation teaches and the biblical idea of ​​the "remnant" advocates, it has always operated not across ocean masses, but using a a small herd, a small faithful flock that takes charge of the whole. This appears in Scripture and in the history of the Church as a constant: some few pray and offer themselves for the salvation of many.

From this perspective, the definition of "useless servants" that Jesus talks about in the Gospel becomes our greatest liberation. Useless (useless) does not mean "worthless", but "without any claim to profit", that is, without claiming to be the efficient cause of Grace. When man, even within the Church, forget this truth, ends up building pastoral towers of Babel that collapse at the first breath of wind. The history of the 20th century, with its atheistic totalitarianisms, he showed us the hell that man builds when he decides to do without God to save humanity with his own strength. But be careful: there is also a spiritual totalitarianism, thinner, that creeps in when we think that the Church is "our thing", to be managed with corporate or political criteria. No, The Church is of Christ. And the Christian's action is fruitful only when it becomes teandric, that is, when our human freedom allows itself to be so permeated by divine Grace that it becomes a single act with Christ. This is what Saint Paul expressed by saying: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me " (Gal 2,20). This synergy between God and man is the antidote to despair. If the work were only mine, I would have every reason to despair, given my smallness; but if the work is of God, who can stop it? Under the leadership of the Holy Father Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost), we are called to guard this flame. It doesn't matter if our cathedrals empty or if the media laughs at us; what matters is that that flame remains lit and pure. Like the myrophores on Easter morning, like Joseph of Arimathea in the darkness of Good Friday, we are the keepers of a promise that cannot fail.

The beauty that saves the world is not a façade aesthetic, but the splendor of the Truth (The Splendor of Truth). It may appear uncomfortable, give the sensation of cutting like a sharp sword, but it is the only one capable of making man truly free. I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't be afraid to go out into the world and speak against the grain. Just as I think it is important to study our Creed to profess it in its entirety, though, even among priests, there are those who consider it obsolete and "don't believe in it" (4)[4]. In the silence of our rooms, in our families, in parishes or convents, wherever you operate, we are preparing the spring of the Church. We may not see it with our mortal eyes, but we are building it in faith and wisdom-based charity. Everything passes, only God remains. And who is with God, he has already won the world. The Cross stands while the world revolves: the Cross stands still while the world turns. Let us cling to this glorious Cross, and we will be immovable in hope.

Santa Maria Novella, in Florence, 29 January 2026

_____________

[1] Speech by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi at the opening of the 81st General Assembly of the CEI, Assisi, 17 November 2025. The full text can be found on the website of the Italian Episcopal Conference: Who

[2] Summarized by G. Forla, church: reflections on the evaporation of Christianity, St. Paul, Cinisello Balsamo (MY) 2025, p.133-134

[3] Paraphrased from this original text “Tibi feet, if you have completely abandoned yourself, and you have reserved nothing for yourself!“ (Woe betide you if you give yourself everything to them [to administrative matters] and you will not reserve anything of yourself for yourself!). In On Consideration Book I, Chapter V, paragraph 6.

_________________________

ROME DECADENCE. THE PASSION OF THE MYSTICAL BODY AND THE ILLUSION OF ACTIVISM

The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of its members; yet, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is “holy and at the same time in need of purification” (CCC 827). She is not holy by virtue of her members, but because her Head is Christ and her animating principle is the Holy Spirit.

— Theologica —

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

.

Dear readers of The Island of Patmos, I write to you in a time that many — rightly so —define as one of Rome decadence, an era in which the evaporation of Christianity, as Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi has also lucidly observed, is no longer a dystopian prophecy but a tangible reality. Yet, in the face of this scenario, a theologian looks upon the Church not with the worldly eyes of sociology, but with the gaze of faith, which recognises in the Mystical Body the living presence of Christ and of His Spirit.

This article arises from a dialogue on social media with my dear friend Alessandro, himself engaged in digital pastoral ministry (his website may be found here). I would like to divide our reflections into three moments.

Ecclesial kenosis: between the Holy Saturday of history and the heresy of efficiency. As Don Giuseppe Forlai writes — and the theme recurs in many reflections developed in various contexts — the Church in Europe today resembles the body of Jesus taken down from the Cross: lifeless, consumed, apparently defeated, and yet — and here lies the divine paradox — within her there persists a casket of eternal life. We should not be scandalised if the Bride of Christ appears disfigured; she is reliving the mysteries of her Bridegroom’s life, including His Passion and burial. In this ecclesial kenosis, the greatest temptation is to replace mystery with organisation, grace with bureaucracy, falling into that Pelagianism which Pope Francis and his predecessors have frequently denounced. A young Benedict of Nursia, confronted with the corruption of Rome, did not found a party nor a protest movement, but withdrew into silence in order “to dwell with himself” (to live with him), laying the foundations of a civilisation that did not arise from a human project, but from the search for God (to seek God). This contemplative silence is not muteness but prayerful listening to the Word, and it is the only adequate response to the crisis. The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of her members; yet, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is “holy and at the same time in need of purification” (CCC 827). She is not holy by virtue of her members, but because her Head is Christ and her animating principle is the Holy Spirit. For this reason, a serious way of reforming the ecclesial community is not frenetic activism. Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, of venerable memory, wisely recalled that a shepherd must pasture the sheep and not vice versa, and must serve the sanctification of persons. Following the teaching of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Philippians: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), we must cease seeking scapegoats or structural solutions to problems that are, at their root, pneumatic and spiritual. They require time, study, and prayer.

I believe the fundamental error lies in a kind of “heresy of action” that forgets a basic principle of Scholastic theology: Agere sequitur esse (action follows being). If the being of the Church is emptied of its supernatural substance, her action becomes an empty shell, a background noise that converts no one. Today we witness what might be defined as an obsession with structures, as though by modifying the organisational chart of the Curia or inventing new pastoral committees one could infuse the Holy Spirit at will. I do not say that planning or reorganisation are in themselves erroneous — on the contrary, they may be welcome. But we must remember that the Spirit blows where He wills, not where our human planning attempts to constrain Him. This efficiency-driven mentality betrays a lack of faith in the intrinsic power of Grace. We behave like the Apostles in the boat during the storm before Christ awoke: we agitate ourselves, row against the wind, cry out, forgetting that the One who commands the winds and the sea is present, though apparently asleep, at the stern.

The current condition of the Church in Europe, which we have described above as “taken down from the Cross,” leads us into the mystery of Holy Saturday. It is the day of great silence, not of desperate inactivity. On Holy Saturday, the Church does not engage in proselytism, does not organise conferences, does not draft five-year synodal plans; the Church keeps vigil beside the tomb, knowing that the stone will not be rolled away by human hands. The mortal danger of our time is the attempt to “reanimate” the ecclesial body through worldly techniques of marketing or sociological adaptation to the a century, transforming the Bride of Christ into a compassionate NGO, pleasing to the world yet sterile of divine life. Let us remember what Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in On Consideration: “Woe to you if, by occupying yourself too much with external matters, you end up losing yourself”. If the Church loses her mystical dimension, she becomes salt without flavour, destined to be trampled underfoot by men (cf. Mt 5:13). Moreover, this anxiety of “doing” often conceals the fear of “being”: being beneath the Cross, being in the Upper Room, being on one’s knees. The crisis of vocations, the closure of parishes, and cultural irrelevance are not resolved by lowering the bar of doctrine in order to make it more palatable — an operation that has failed, as demonstrated by liberal Protestant communities now largely deserted — but by raising the temperature of faith. The Church is Crawford Prostitute, as the Fathers used to say: chaste by the presence of the Spirit, a harlot through the sins of her children who prostitute her to the idols of the moment. Purification does not occur through human reforms, but through the fire of trial and the holiness of individuals.

What is needed, therefore, is not a Church that agitates, but a Church that burns. We must return to that primacy of God which Benedict XVI tirelessly preached: where God fades away, man does not become greater, but loses his divine dignity. The remedy for Rome decadence is not an “activist Rome,” but a “praying Rome.” We must have the courage to be that “little flock” (Page 12:32) that does not fear numerical inferiority, provided that it preserves intact the deposit of faith. Like leaven in the dough, our effectiveness depends not on quantity, but on the quality of our union with Christ. Therefore, let us commit ourselves not to allow hope to be stolen from us — neither by prophets of doom nor by strategists of creative pastoral planning. Let us return to the tabernacle, to Lectio Divina, to the passionate study of Truth. Only from there, from the pierced and glorious heart of the Redeemer, can living water flow to irrigate this Western desert. The Church will rise again, not because we are skilful organisers, but because Christ is alive and death no longer has power over Him. Because Christ offers to all a profound act of contemplation, if we know how to receive it.

Rediscovering dogma against the dictatorship of sentiment. Faith seeking understanding: faith seeking understanding. In order not to fall into sterile quietism, however, we must understand that Christian contemplation is intrinsically fruitful and that love for the Church requires a radical return to the foundations of our faith. There is no charity without truth, and there is no true reform that does not begin with the rediscovery of the deposit of credit. In a liquid world where faith risks dissolving into mere emotional sentiment and truth is sacrificed on the altar of social consensus, it is urgent to return to the Symbol of our faith, which is not a nursery rhyme to be recited, but the course of our Christian existence. In this regard, I feel compelled to recommend the latest book by Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, I think to understand: Journey in the Profession of Faith. In this work, Father Ariel explains each article of the Symbol or Creed, allowing its original power to be tasted — not as a cold formula, but as a “word to be lived.” The text accompanies the reader on a theological journey in which reason, illumined by faith, bows before the mystery without abdicating, but rather finding its fulfilment. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, faith is an act of the intellect assenting to divine truth at the command of the will moved by grace (cf. QUESTION, Ii-ii, q. 2, a. 9); for this reason, studying dogma, understanding what we profess every Sunday, is an act of the highest contemplation. Approaching the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, becoming connatural to the mysteries we profess, so that our action may become a reflection of our being in Christ. Sacred art, liturgy, and theology are not aesthetic ornaments, but vehicles of the Truth that saves. If we do not understand what we believe, how can we bear witness to it? If the salt loses its flavour, it is good for nothing but to be thrown out (cf. Mt 5:13). Father Ariel’s book teaches precisely this: to restore flavour to our faith by returning to the word I believe its full meaning of perfect adherence to the Incarnate Truth.

We live in an age afflicted by another grave spiritual pathology that might be described as “sentimental fideism.” The erroneous idea has spread that faith is a blind feeling, a consolatory emotion detached from reason, or worse, that dogma is a cage imprisoning the freedom of the children of God. Nothing could be more false or more dangerous. As a preaching friar, I reaffirm with force that Truth (Veritas) is the very name of God, and that the human intellect was created precisely to grasp this Truth. To refuse the intellectual effort to understand dogma is to refuse to use the highest gift the Creator has bestowed upon us in His image and likeness. Culpable ignorance of the truths of faith is the ideal breeding ground for every heresy. When a Catholic ceases to be formed, when he stops asking “who God is” according to Revelation and begins to fashion a god in his own image and likeness, he inevitably falls into the idolatry of the self.

To restore meaning and value to the Creed means rediscovering the constitutional charter of our Christian life. Each of its articles is not an abstract philosophical speculation, but is bound to the Christian event, to the history of salvation that has marked man and the entire cosmos. To say “I believe in one God” or “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh” is an act of disobedience to the nihilism that leads to despair and to the degradation of spirit and matter. The intellectual reconstruction of which I speak is, ultimately, an act of love. One cannot love what one does not know. If our knowledge of Christ is imperfect, our love for Him will remain infantile, fragile, incapable of withstanding the impact of adult life’s trials and the seductions of dominant thought.

In the journey I propose, we learn to see theology not as a science for initiates, but as what the Church does when she bends over the revealed datum — and thus what she breathes and lives by. Study, when done on one’s knees, becomes prayer; understanding the Trinitarian mystery becomes adoration in Spirit and truth. We must not fear the complexity of dogma: it is like the sun, which, though too luminous to be stared at directly without harming one’s sight, is the only source that allows us to see all the rest of reality clearly. Without the light of dogma, liturgy becomes choreography, charity becomes philanthropy, and hope becomes illusion. Let us therefore return to study, to reading, to meditation. Let us make our own Saint Peter’s exhortation: “Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15). But in order to give reasons (logos) for Christian hope, we must honour reason as we seek to possess the things of God—and in this, theology is a great aid.

The a small herd and the power of grace. Beyond despair, theological hope. I conclude this itinerary by inviting to a “cautious optimism” that flows from the theological virtue of hope. The decline of Christianity in Europe is a historical fact, but the history of Salvation does not end with Good Friday. Our identity, as Scripture and the testimony of so many saints remind us, must be founded on the awareness of being “unworthy servants / simple servants” (Page 17:10). This “uselessness / simplicity” is not devaluation, but the recognition that God is the principal actor in history. Let me explain.

Christian hope stands at the opposite pole of worldly optimism. The latter may arise from statistical forecasts or from a merely emotional expectation that “things will get better.” Theological Hope, by contrast, is the certainty that God does not lie and fulfils His promises even when, humanly speaking, things go from bad to worse. Abraham “believed, hoping against hope” (hope against hope, Rom 4:18), precisely when biological reality placed before him the impossibility of having a child. We are called today to the same faith as Abraham. The numerical decline of believers and the loss of the Church’s cultural appeal must not lead us into sectarian withdrawal, but into the awareness that God, as salvation history teaches and as the biblical notion of the “remnant” proclaims, has always acted not through vast masses, but by means of a a small herd, a small faithful flock that bears responsibility for the whole. This appears in Scripture and in Church history as a constant: a few pray and offer themselves for the salvation of many.

In this perspective, the definition of “unworthy servants” spoken by Jesus in the Gospel becomes our greatest liberation. Useless (useless) does not mean “without value,” but “without claim to usefulness,” that is, without the presumption of being ourselves the efficient cause of Grace. When man, even within the Church, forgets this truth, he ends up constructing pastoral Towers of Babel that collapse at the first breath of wind. The history of the twentieth century, with its atheistic totalitarianisms, has shown us the hell that man constructs when he decides to do without God in order to save humanity by his own strength. But let us be careful: there also exists a more subtle spiritual totalitarianism, which insinuates itself when we think the Church is “ours,” to be managed according to corporate or political criteria. No — the Church belongs to Christ. And Christian action is fruitful only when it becomes theandric, that is, when our human freedom allows itself to be so penetrated by divine Grace as to become a single action with Christ. This is what Saint Paul expressed when he said: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). This synergy between God and man is the antidote to despair. If the work were only mine, I would have every reason to despair, given my poverty; but if the work is God’s, who can stop it? Under the guidance of the Holy Father Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost), we are called to guard this little flame. It does not matter if our cathedrals empty or if the media mock us; what matters is that the flame remain lit and pure. Like the myrrh-bearing women on Easter morning, like Joseph of Arimathea in the darkness of Good Friday, we are the custodians of a promise that cannot fail.

The beauty that saves the world is not a superficial aesthetic, but the splendour of Truth (The Splendor of Truth). It may appear uncomfortable, may feel like the cut of a sharp sword, but it alone is capable of making man truly free. I believe it is right to say that we must not be afraid to go out into the world and to speak against the current. I also believe it is important to study our Creed in order to profess it in its entirety, even though, tragically, even among presbyters there are those who consider it obsolete and “do not believe in it”. In the silence of our rooms, in our families, in parishes or convents — wherever one may labour— we are preparing the springtime of the Church. We may not see it with our mortal eyes, but we are building it in faith and in sapiential charity. Everything passes; only God remains. And whoever abides in God has already overcome the world. The Cross stands while the world revolves: the Cross stands firm while the world turns. Let us remain clinging to this glorious Cross, and we shall be immovable in hope.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 26 January 2026

 

_______________________

ROMA DECADENCE. THE PASSION OF THE MYSTIC BODY AND THE ILLUSION OF ACTIVISM

The historical body of the Church suffers for its wounds and for the sins of its members., but, as he teaches Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification" (CIC 827); It is not holy because of the virtue of its members, but because its Head is Christ and its life-giving principle is the Holy Spirit.

— Theologica —

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

.

Dear readers of The Island of Patmos, I am writing to you at a time when many, not without reason, define as Roma decadence, a time when the evaporation of Christianity, as Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi has also lucidly observed, It is no longer a dystopian prophecy, but a tangible reality. However, in this scenario, a theologian looks at the Church not with the worldly eyes of sociology, but with the look of faith, that recognizes in the Mystical Body the living presence of Christ and his Spirit.

This article of mine is born from dialogue on social networks with dear Alessandro, also the operator of digital pastoral (here). I would like to divide our reflections into three moments.

The sulphurous ecclesial: between the Holy Saturday of history and the heresy of efficiency. As Don Giuseppe Forlai writes — and the theme reappears in numerous reflections developed in different areas —, The Church in Europe today resembles the body of Jesus taken down from the Cross: let's examine, consumed, apparently defeated, and yet — and here lies the divine paradox — a chest of eternal life persists in it.. We should not be scandalized if the Bride of Christ appears disfigured; She is reliving the mysteries of her Husband's life., including passion and burial. Herein sulphurous ecclesial, The greatest temptation is to replace mystery with organization, grace for bureaucracy, falling into that Pelagianism that Pope Francis and his predecessors have repeatedly denounced. A young Saint Benedict of Nursia, in the face of the corruption of Rome, He did not found a party or a protest movement, but he withdrew into silence to "dwell with himself." (to live with him), laying the foundations of a civilization that was not born from a human project, but of the search for God (to seek God). This contemplative silence is not muteness, but listen prayerfully to the Word, and it is the only appropriate response to the crisis. The historical body of the Church suffers for its wounds and for the sins of its members., but, as he teaches Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification" (CIC 827); It is not holy because of the virtue of its members, but because its Head is Christ and its life-giving principle is the Holy Spirit. For this reason, a serious way to reform the ecclesial community is not frenetic activism. Already Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, of venerated memory, wisely remembered that a shepherd must feed the sheep and not the other way around, and serve the sanctification of people. Following the teaching of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Philippians: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Flp 2,12), We must stop looking for scapegoats or structural solutions to problems that are, at its root, pneumatic and spiritual. They require time, study and prayer.

The fundamental error, I think, resides in a kind of "heresy of action" that forgets a basic principle of Scholasticism: Agere sequitur esse (working follows being). If the being of the Church is emptied of its supernatural substance, his work becomes an empty shell, a background noise that converts no one. Today we are witnessing what we could define as an obsession with structures, as if by modifying the Curia's organizational chart or inventing new pastoral committees the Holy Spirit could be infused at will. I'm not saying that programming or reorganization is wrong in itself.; on the contrary, may be welcome. But let us remember that the Spirit blows where it wants, not where our human plans force it. This efficiency mentality betrays a lack of faith in the intrinsic power of Grace.. We behave like the Apostles in the boat during the storm before Christ woke up: we stir, we row against the wind, we scream, forgetting that He who commands the winds and the sea is present, although apparently asleep, in the stern.

The current condition of the Church in Europe, which we have defined above as "descent from the Cross", It refers us to the mystery of Holy Saturday. It is the day of great silence, not from desperate inactivity. On Holy Saturday, The Church does not proselytize, does not organize conferences, does not prepare five-year synodal plans; the Church watches next to the tomb, knowing that that stone will not be removed by human hands. The mortal danger of our time is wanting to "reanimate" the ecclesial body with mundane marketing techniques or sociological adaptation to the a century, transforming the Bride of Christ into a compassionate NGO, pleasing to the world, but barren of divine life. Let us remember what Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in the On Consideration: «Woe to you if, for worrying too much about external things, you end up losing yourself!». If the Church loses its mystical dimension, turns into tasteless salt, destined to be trampled by men (cf. Mt 5,13). Besides, This anxiety of “doing” often hides the fear of “being.”: be under the cross, be in the cenacle, kneel. The crisis of vocations, the closure of parishes, cultural irrelevance are not resolved by lowering the bar of doctrine to make it more attractive — a failed operation, as demonstrated by the liberal Protestant communities today practically deserted —, but by raising the temperature of faith. The Church is Crawford Prostitute, the Fathers said: caste by the presence of the Spirit, prostitute for the sins of her children who prostitute her to the idols of the moment. But purification does not occur through human reforms, but through the fire of trial and the holiness of individuals.

It is not necessary, well, a Church that shakes, but a Church that burns. It is necessary to return to that primacy of God that Benedict XVI preached tirelessly: where God disappears, man doesn't get bigger, but loses its divine dignity. The remedy to Roma decadence It is not an "activist Rome", but a "praying Rome". We must have the courage to be that "little flock" (LC 12,32) who does not fear numerical inferiority, in order to keep intact the deposit of faith. Like yeast in the dough, our effectiveness does not depend on the quantity, but of the quality of our union with Christ. So, Let us commit ourselves not to let the prophets of calamity or the strategists of creative pastoralism steal our hope.; let's go back to the tabernacle, to the Lectio Divina, to the passionate study of the Truth. Just from there, of the pierced and glorious heart of the Redeemer, living water capable of irrigating this western desert may spring forth. The Church will resurrect, not because we are skilled organizers, but because Christ is alive and death no longer has power over Him. Because Christ offers everyone a profound act of contemplation, if we know how to welcome it.

Rediscover the Dogma against the dictatorship of feeling. The faith that seeks understanding: faith seeking understanding. To avoid falling into a sterile quietism, We must understand that Christian contemplation is intrinsically fruitful and that love for the Church requires a radical return to the foundations of our faith.. There is no charity without truth, nor is there a true reform that does not start from the rediscovery of the deposit of credit. In a liquid world where faith runs the risk of dissolving into mere emotional sentiment and truth is sacrificed on the altar of social consensus, It is urgent to return to the Symbol of our faith, that it is not a song to recite, but the route of our Christian existence. For this purpose, I would like to suggest reading the latest book by Father Ariel S.. Levi di Gualdo, I think to understand: Journey in the Profession of Faith. In this work, Father Ariel explains each article of the Symbol or Creed, allowing you to savor its original power: not a cold formula, but a "word to live by". The text accompanies the reader on a theological journey in which reason, illuminated by faith, bows before the mystery without abdicating, finding in it its fulfillment. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, Faith is an act of the understanding that assents to divine truth by command of the will moved by grace (cf. QUESTION, II-II, q. 2, a. 9); for it, study the dogma, understand what we profess every Sunday, It is an operation of the highest contemplation. Getting closer to the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, connaturalize ourselves with the mysteries we profess, so that acting becomes a reflection of our being in Christ. sacred art, the liturgy, theology is not aesthetic decorations, but vehicles of the Truth that saves. If we do not understand what we believe, How can we bear witness to this?? If salt loses its flavor, It's good for nothing but to be thrown out. (cf. Mt 5,13). Father Ariel's book teaches precisely this: restore flavor to our faith, restoring the word I believe the sense of perfect adherence to incarnate Truth.

We live in an affected time due to another serious spiritual pathology that we could define as "sentimental fideism". The erroneous idea has spread that faith is a blind feeling, a consoling emotion unrelated to reason, or even worse, that dogma is a cage that imprisons the freedom of the children of God. Nothing more false and dangerous. As a preaching friar, I strongly reaffirm that the Truth (Veritas) is the very name of God and that the human intellect has been created precisely to grasp this Truth. Rejecting the intellectual effort to understand dogma means rejecting the use of the highest gift that the Creator has granted us in his image and likeness.. Guilty ignorance of the truths of faith is the ideal breeding ground for all heresy.. When the Catholic stops forming, when he stops asking himself "who is God" according to Revelation and begins to build a god in his own image and likeness, inevitably falls into the idolatry of one's own self.

Return meaning and value to the Creed means rediscovering the constitutional charter of our Christian life. Each of his articles is not an abstract philosophical musing., because they are linked to the Christian fact, to the history of salvation that has affected man and the entire cosmos. Saying "I believe in one God" or "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh" is an act of disobedience to nihilism that leads to despair and the deterioration of spirit and matter.. The intellectual reconstruction I speak of is, ultimately, an act of love. You can't love what you don't know. If our knowledge of Christ is imperfect, our love for Him will remain childish, fragile, unable to resist the shock of the trials of adult life and the seductions of dominant thought.

On this path that I propose to you we learn to see theology not as a science for initiates, but as what the Church does when it leans on the revealed data and, therefore, what she breathes and lives. The study, performed on knees, becomes a prayer; the understanding of the Trinitarian mystery is transformed into worship in Spirit and truth. We must not fear the complexity of dogma: It's like the sun that, even though it is too bright to be fixed directly without damaging the eyesight, It is the only source that allows us to see everything else clearly. Without the light of dogma, liturgy becomes choreography, charity in philanthropy and hope in illusion. let's go back, well, to study, to read, to meditate. Let us make the exhortation of Saint Peter our own: "Always be ready to give an account of the hope that is in you" (1 Pe 3,15). But to give reasons (logos) of Christian hope it is necessary to honor reason as we seek to possess the things of God, and in this theology is a great help.

The a small herd and the power of grace. Beyond despair, theological hope. I conclude this itinerary by inviting a "cautious optimism" that springs from the theological virtue of hope. The decline of Christianity in Europe is a historical fact, but the history of Salvation does not end with Good Friday. Our identity, as the Scriptures and the testimony of so many saints remind us, must be based on the awareness of being "useless servants" / simple servants (LC 17,10). This "uselessness" / simplicity" is not devaluation, but the recognition that the main actor in history is God. I try to explain myself.

Christian hope is at the antipodes of worldly optimism.. This may arise from a statistical forecast or from a purely emotional expectation according to which "things will go better.". Theological Hope, instead, It is the certainty that God does not lie and keeps his promises even when, humanly speaking, things are going from bad to worse. Abraham "believed, hoping against hope" (hope against hope, Rom 4,18), precisely when the biological reality presented her with the impossibility of having a child. Today we are called to the same faith as Abraham. The numerical decrease of believers and the loss of attractiveness of the Church should not lead us to a sectarian retreat, but to the awareness that God, as salvation history teaches and as the biblical idea of ​​the “remnant” proclaims, has always acted not through oceanic masses, but using a a small herd, a small faithful flock that takes charge of the whole. This appears in Scripture and in the history of the Church as a constant: a few pray and offer themselves for the salvation of many.

In this perspective, the definition of "useless servants" what Jesus talks about in the Gospel becomes our greatest liberation. Useless (useless) does not mean "worthless", but "without any pretense of usefulness", that is to say, without the pretension of being the efficient cause of Grace. When the man, even within the Church, forget this truth, ends up building pastoral towers of Babel that collapse at the first breath of wind. The history of the 20th century, with their atheistic totalitarianisms, has shown us the hell that man builds when he decides to do without God to save humanity with his own strength.. But attention: There is also a spiritual totalitarianism, more subtle, that is insinuated when we think that the Church is "our thing", that must be managed with business or political criteria. No: the Church is of Christ. And the action of the Christian is fruitful only when it becomes theandric., that is to say, when our human freedom allows itself to be penetrated so deeply by divine Grace that it becomes a single act with Christ. This is what Saint Paul expressed by saying: «It is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2,20). This synergy between God and man is the antidote to despair. If the work were only mine, I would have every reason to despair, given my smallness; but if the work is from God, who can stop her? Under the guidance of the Holy Father Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost), we are called to guard this little flame. It doesn't matter if our cathedrals are empty or if the media ridicules us; What matters is that that flame remains lit and pure. Like the myrophores on Easter morning, like Joseph of Arimathea in the darkness of Good Friday, We are custodians of a promise that cannot fail.

The beauty that saves the world is not a facade aesthetic, but the splendor of Truth (The Splendor of Truth). It may seem uncomfortable, give the sensation of cutting like a sharp sword, but it is the only one capable of making man truly free. I think it is fair to say that we should not be afraid to go out into the world and speak against the current.. I also believe that it is important to study our Creed to profess it in its entirety., although, tragically, Even among priests there are those who consider it obsolete and "do not believe in it". In the silence of our rooms, in our families, in parishes or convents, wherever you work, we are preparing the spring of the Church. Maybe we don't see it with our mortal eyes, but we are building it in faith and in sapiential charity. everything passes, only God remains. And whoever remains in God has already overcome the world. The Cross stands while the world revolves: The Cross stands firm while the world turns. Let us remain clinging to this glorious Cross, and we will be immovable in hope.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, a 29 January 2026

.

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

 

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

.

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

.

.

.

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

The rational, between symbol, history and aesthetic misunderstandings – The rationale: between symbol, history, and aesthetic misunderstandings – The rational: between symbol, history and aesthetic misunderstandings

/in /by

Italian, english, español

 

THE RATIONAL: BETWEEN SYMBOL, HISTORY AND AESTHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS

It's good to say this clearly, even at the cost of disappointing some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from civilian clothes, pre-Christian honorifics or religious ones. La casula derives from the Roman ribbon, the dalmatic from a garment of oriental origin, the stole gives signs of civil distinction.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

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

.

.

One of the most widespread temptations in certain ecclesial circles is to stop at the external apparatus of the liturgy, transforming vestments, colors and shapes in objects of aesthetic contemplation, sometimes even of identity satisfaction.

Yesterday, in the celebration of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, in the Ostiense Basilica, the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV wore it for the first time in his pontificate, the rational. The risk - already widely verifiable on various social media —, is to give in to fervent enthusiasm for what "is seen", accompanied, however, by an often very approximate - if not completely absent - knowledge of the historical genesis, of the symbolic meaning and theological function of those same elements that are so fascinating.

The rational falls fully into this category: very rare vestment, evoked with almost mythological tones, sometimes cited as an emblem of a “more authentic” liturgy, but in reality little known in its origin and its profound meaning. Precisely for this reason it lends itself well to a reflection that goes beyond aesthetics and recovers the symbolic and historical dimension of the liturgy. But what is rational? The term rational indicates a liturgical vestment worn over the chasuble or cope, generally rectangular or slightly arched in shape, richly decorated, worn on the chest and fastened to the shoulders. This is not a vestment of universal use in the Latin Church, nor a constitutive element of the Eucharistic celebration.

Used in some specific contexts, especially in the episcopal sphere, with particular reference to certain local Churches - notoriously that of Eichstätt e, in a different form, of Krakow —. The use of the rational has never been normative for the entire Church, nor even necessary for the validity or lawfulness of the rite.

Of biblical origin, the rational name itself explicitly refers to the breastplate of the high priest of the Old Testament, described in the book of Exodus (Is 28,15-30). That bib — called The strength of the sentence (ḥōžen ha-imicpāṭ) “judgment breastplate” — carried twelve precious stones, symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel, and it was a sign of priestly responsibility in bringing the people before God.

Nascent Christianity, as he did with many elements of the ancient world, he did not reject pre-existing symbols, but he took them on and transfigured them. The Christian liturgy was not born in a cultural vacuum, is inserted into the story, assumes form, languages, symbols - even coming from the pagan or Jewish world - and leads them back to Christ. In this perspective, the rational is not a decorative ornament, but a theological sign: recalls the ministry of responsibility, of discernment and judgment exercised not in one's own name, but before God and for the good of the people.

It's good to say it clearly, even at the cost of disappointing some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from civilian clothes, pre-Christian honorifics or religious ones. The chasuble derives from skirt romana, the dalmatic from a garment of oriental origin, the stole gives signs of civil distinction. This has never been a problem for the Church.

The liturgy has never been an "archaeological reconstruction" of a pure and uncontaminated era. It always has been, instead, a work of inculturation and transfiguration. What changes is not the external form itself, but the meaning that the Church attributes to it. Even the rational is placed in this line: not a remnant of an idealized past, but a sign that made sense in certain ecclesial contexts and which today above all retains a historical and symbolic value, non-regulatory.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, the rational has never been a vestment in ordinary use, nor universal. Its use has always been linked to particular concessions, local traditions or specific privileges, never to a general prescription of the Latin Church. This data is essential to avoid a recurring error: confusing what is symbolically suggestive with what is theologically necessary. The liturgy does not grow through the accumulation of external elements, but for clarity of the sign and fidelity to its primary function: make visible the saving action of Christ.

When the rational - like other rare or obsolete vestments - it is taken as a banner of identity by certain forms of aestheticism or as proof of a presumed liturgical superiority, we fall into a profound misunderstanding. The liturgy is not a museum, nor a stage. It is the action of the Church, not self-representation of a taste. Learn about the history of vestments, their development and their authentic meaning does not impoverish the liturgy: it frees it from ideological readings and returns it to its deepest truth.

Therefore the rational is not a liturgical fetish nor a symbol of a lost golden age. It is a historical sign, theological and symbolic that speaks of responsibility, of discernment and service. Understood in its context, enriches the understanding of the liturgy; isolated and absolutized, it impoverishes it. True tradition does not consist in multiplying ornaments, but in guarding the meaning. And the meaning of the liturgy, yesterday as today, it's not aesthetics, but Christ.

Florence, 26 January 2026

.

THE RATIONALE: BETWEEN SYMBOL, HISTORY, AND AESTHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS

It must be stated clearly, even at the risk of disappointing some naïve enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from pre-Christian civil, honorific, or religious garments. The chasuble derives from the Roman paenula, the dalmatic from a garment of Eastern origin, and the stole from marks of civil distinction.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

One of the most widespread temptations in certain ecclesial circles is to stop at the outward apparatus of the liturgy, transforming vestments, colours, and forms into objects of aesthetic contemplation and, at times, even of identity-driven self-complacency.

 

Yesterday, during the celebration of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV wore the rationale for the first time in his pontificate. The risk — already clearly observable across various social media platforms — is to give way to fervent enthusiasm for what “is seen”, accompanied, however, by a knowledge that is often highly approximate — when not entirely absent — of the historical genesis, symbolic meaning, and theological function of those very elements that so strongly fascinate.

The rationale fully belongs to this category: a very rare vestment, evoked in almost mythological terms, at times cited as an emblem of a “more authentic” liturgy, yet in reality scarcely known in its origin and deeper meaning. Precisely for this reason, it lends itself well to a reflection that goes beyond aesthetics and recovers the symbolic and historical dimension of the liturgy. But what, in fact, is the rationale? The term rationale designates a liturgical vestment worn over the chasuble or the cope, generally rectangular or slightly curved in shape, richly decorated, worn on the chest and fastened at the shoulders. It is not a vestment of universal use in the Latin Church, nor is it a constitutive element of the Eucharistic celebration.

It has been used in certain specific contexts, especially within the episcopal sphere, with particular reference to certain local Churches — most notably Eichstätt and, in a different form, Cracow. The use of the rationale has never been normative for the entire Church, nor has it ever been necessary for the validity or liceity of the rite.

Of biblical origin, the very name rationale explicitly refers to the breastplate of the high priest of the Old Testament, described in the Book of Exodus (Ex 28:15–30). That breastplate — called The strength of the sentence (ḥōšin ha-mišpāṭ), “breastplate of judgment” — bore twelve precious stones, symbolising the twelve tribes of Israel, and signified the priestly responsibility of bearing the people before God.

Early Christianity, as it did with many elements of the ancient world, did not reject pre-existing symbols but assumed and transfigured them. Christian liturgy does not arise in a cultural vacuum; it is grafted into history, assumes forms, languages, and symbols — including those drawn from the pagan or Jewish world — and reorients them toward Christ. In this perspective, the rationale is not a decorative ornament, but a theological sign: it recalls the ministry of responsibility, discernment, and judgment exercised not in one’s own name, but before God and for the good of the people.

It must also be stated clearly, even at the cost of disappointing some ingenuous enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from pre-Christian civil, honorific, or religious garments. The chasuble derives from the Roman paenula, the dalmatic from a garment of Eastern origin, and the stole from marks of civil distinction. This has never constituted a problem for the Church.

The liturgy has never been an “archaeological reconstruction” of a pure and uncontaminated age. Rather, it has always been a work of inculturation and transfiguration. What changes is not the external form as such, but the meaning that the Church attributes to it. The rationale too belongs to this line: not a remnant of an idealised past, but a sign that made sense in specific ecclesial contexts and that today retains primarily a historical and symbolic value, not a normative one.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, the rationale has never been a vestment of ordinary or universal use. Its employment has always been linked to particular concessions, local traditions, or specific privileges, never to a general prescription of the Latin Church. This datum is fundamental in order to avoid a recurrent error: confusing what is symbolically evocative with what is theologically necessary. The liturgy does not grow through the accumulation of external elements, but through clarity of sign and fidelity to its primary function: making visible the saving action of Christ.

When the rationale — like other rare or obsolete vestments — is taken up as an identity banner by certain forms of aestheticism or as proof of an alleged liturgical superiority, one falls into a profound misunderstanding. The liturgy is not a museum, nor a stage. It is the action of the Church, not the self-representation of a taste. Knowing the history of vestments, their development, and their authentic meaning does not impoverish the liturgy: it frees it from ideological readings and restores it to its deepest truth.

The rationale, therefore, is neither a liturgical fetish nor a symbol of a lost golden age. It is a historical, theological, and symbolic sign that speaks of responsibility, discernment, and service. Understood within its context, it enriches the understanding of the liturgy; isolated and absolutised, it impoverishes it. True tradition does not consist in multiplying ornaments, but in safeguarding meaning. And the meaning of the liturgy, yesterday as today, is not aesthetics, but Christ.

Florence, 26 January 2026

.

THE RATIONAL: ENTER SYMBOL, HISTORY AND AESTHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS

It is worth saying it clearly, even at the risk of disillusioning some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments come from civil vestments, pre-Christian honorifics or religious. The cassulla derives from the Roman panel, the dalmatic of a garment of oriental origin and the stole of signs of civil distinction.

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

One of the most widespread temptations in certain ecclesial environments it is to stop at the external apparatus of the liturgy, transforming vestments, colors and shapes in objects of aesthetic contemplation and, sometimes, even identity complacency.

Ayer, during the celebration of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, The Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV wore the rational for the first time in his pontificate. The risk – already widely verifiable in various social networks – is giving in to fervent enthusiasm for what “is seen.”, accompanied, however, of a knowledge that is often very approximate — if not totally absent — of the historical genesis, of the symbolic meaning and theological function of those same elements that so fascinate.

The rational fits fully into this category: a very rare facing, evoked with almost mythological tones, sometimes cited as an emblem of a “more authentic” liturgy, but in reality little known in its origin and in its deep meaning. Precisely for this reason, lends itself to a reflection that goes beyond aesthetics and recovers the symbolic and historical dimension of the liturgy. But what is the rational? The term rational is used to designate a liturgical vestment worn over the chasuble or raincoat., usually rectangular or slightly curved in shape, richly decorated, placed on the chest and attached to the shoulders. It is not a vestment of universal use in the Latin Church, nor of a constitutive element of the Eucharistic celebration.

Its use has occurred in some specific contexts, especially in the episcopal sphere, with special reference to certain local Churches - notably that of Eichstätt and, in various ways, that of Krakow —. The use of the rational has never been normative for the entire Church, much less necessary for the validity or legality of the rite.

Of biblical origin, the rational name itself explicitly refers to the breastplate of the high priest of the Old Testament, described in the book of Exodus (Ex 28,15-30). That pectoral — called The strength of the sentence (ḥōžen ha-imicpāṭ), “breastplate of judgment” – carried twelve precious stones, symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel, and it was a sign of the priestly responsibility to bring the people before God.

Nascent Christianity, as he did with many elements of the ancient world, did not reject pre-existing symbols, but he assumed them and transfigured them. The Christian liturgy is not born in a cultural vacuum: is inserted into the story, assumes forms, languages ​​and symbols — also coming from the pagan or Jewish world — and brings them back to Christ. In this perspective, the rational is not a decorative ornament, but a theological sign: sends to the ministry of responsibility, of discernment and judgment exercised not in one's own name, but before God and for the good of the people.

It is also important to say it clearly, even at the cost of disillusioning some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments come from civil vestments, pre-Christian honorifics or religious. The cassulla derives from the Roman panel, the dalmatic of a garment of oriental origin and the stole of signs of civil distinction. This has never represented a problem for the Church.

The liturgy has never been an “archaeological reconstruction” of a pure and uncontaminated time. It has always been, instead, a work of inculturation and transfiguration. What changes is not the external form itself, but the meaning that the Church attributes to it. The rational is also situated on this line: not as a residue of an idealized past, but as a sign that made sense in certain ecclesial contexts and that today retains, above all, a historical and symbolic value., non-normative.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, the rational has never been a facing of ordinary or universal use. Its use has always been linked to particular concessions, local traditions or specific privileges, never to a general prescription of the Latin Church. This information is essential to avoid a recurring error: confuse what is symbolically suggestive with what is theologically necessary. The liturgy does not grow by accumulation of external elements, but for clarity of the sign and fidelity to its primary function: make visible the saving action of Christ.

When the rational — like other rare or disused vestments — is assumed as an identity standard by certain forms of aestheticism or as proof of an alleged liturgical superiority, there is a deep misunderstanding. The liturgy is not a museum or a stage. It is the action of the Church, non-self-representation of a taste. Know the history of the walls, its development and its authentic meaning does not impoverish the liturgy: It frees it from ideological readings and returns it to its deepest truth..

The rational, therefore, it is neither a liturgical fetish nor a symbol of a lost golden age. It is a historical sign, theological and symbolic that speaks of responsibility, discernment and service. Understood in context, enriches the understanding of the liturgy; isolated and absolutized, impoverishes her. True tradition does not consist of multiplying ornaments, but in guarding the meaning. And the meaning of the liturgy, yesterday like today, it's not the aesthetics, but Christ.

Florence, 26 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

.

.

.

The Fede case&Culture and the importance of not following one “theology of emotion” which opposes the Magisterium of the Church

/in /by

THE CASE WEDDING RING & CULTURE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT FOLLOWING A "THEOLOGY OF EMOTION" WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THE MAGISTERY OF THE CHURCH

Theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

- Church news -

.

.

In response to my recent article The irrepressible fascination exercised on certain laypeople by the "theology of the underpants", dr. John Zeno, director of Edizioni Fede&Cultura released a reply video which I insert here.

It is first necessary to clarify a methodological point: theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

My article advanced a precise thesis, articulated and verifiable (cf. Who). Anyone who reads it and then examines the content of Dr.'s reply. Zeno, will be able to ascertain an objective fact: the issues I raised are not addressed on their merits, but circumvented by shifting the discourse to lateral planes, which do not touch the argument I proposed, rather: they don't even touch it.

Anyone can verify that in the disputed text I explicitly clarified that I was intervening as a priest, pastor in care of souls, confessor and spiritual director. The reply of Dr. Zeno instead generically refers to the right of lay people to express themselves, however avoiding the central point, without taking into account that the speech did not concern the right to speak or criticize, but on the specific ecclesial experience from which the reflection originates: the Sacrament of Penance and spiritual direction, where the priests operate, not the laity. It is from this concrete practice, not from an abstract theoretical construction, that my intervention begins and is structured. And on this specific level, the reply is simply irrelevant.

The argument that having had six children suggests a sort of competence superior to that of priests in the moral and pastoral field, it falls within a well-known argumentative typology, historically used by secularist and anticlerical environments to delegitimize the magisterium and the word of the clergy on family and relational issues. Re-proposing this scheme does not strengthen the argument, but it reveals its methodological weakness.

Then there is a central point, which does not allow for ambiguity. The Dr. Zeno publicly objected several times, in harsh and disrespectful tones, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in relation to the Doctrinal Note Mother of the Faithful People, concerning the inappropriateness of the use of the title of "co-redemptrix" referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now, the determining fact is the following: that document, approved by the Supreme Pontiff who ordered its publication, falls within the authentic Magisterium of the Church. This data, by itself, closes the problem on the ecclesiastical level to any specious "right of criticism".

Then reply by invoking freedom of thought to reject this act is equivalent to deliberately confusing the level of theological research with that of the assent due to the Magisterium. Theological freedom does not authorize the public and contemptuous contestation of a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff, nor does it allow personal opinions and acts of ecclesial authority to be placed on the same level, only to then proclaim themselves theologians, defenders of the faith and Catholic educators.

The call to saints, mystics or to individual statements by past Pontiffs does not change this picture, because Catholic theology has always distinguished:

– devotional or mystical expressions, which do not bind the faith of believers in any way;

– the statements made by the Popes as private doctors;

– the acts of the authentic Magisterium, which instead require ecclesial membership combined with filial respect and devout obedience to the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops.

It is also an indisputable historical fact that Saint John Paul II always rejected the request to define the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix; that Benedict XVI highlighted the Christological difficulties posed by the term itself; that Francesco, as well as finally Leo XIV, have confirmed this orientation, approving the doctrinal note in question. Faced with this coherent set of data, the insistence on isolated and decontextualized quotes does not constitute theological argument, but an ideological selection of sources, preceded and accompanied by their manipulation, after an amateurish approach to the theology and history of the dogma that arises, as an effect, that of poisoning the simplest members of the People of God, the same one that we must protect and protect by imperative of conscience, as Priests of Christ instituted to teach, sanctifying and guiding.

Applying the same criterion of extrapolation and manipulation, one could challenge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by recalling the reservations of Saint Thomas Aquinas, or call into question the current discipline of Penance on the basis of the positions of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory the Great, matured in a radically different historical context, when this Sacrament was not repeatable and could only be administered once in a lifetime and never again. Always following this anti-theological and anti-historical logic, one could even deny the First Council of Nicaea, referring to hypotheses and opinions expressed by various Holy Fathers before the year 325.

The inconsistency of this method is therefore immediately evident that — between saints and mystics, messages of Fatima and clumsy lives of Jesus fictionalized by Maria Valtorta - would bring the discussion back into the realm of pietism and the most desolate fideism, realities that have nothing to do with the Catholic faith and with theological speculation properly and scientifically speaking.

From the videos released by Dr. Zeno a not exactly correct and not fully orthodox approach to fundamental theology emerges: manifest forms of hostility towards the Magisterium of the Church are detected; we set ourselves up as defenders of the "true faith" and the "true tradition", that these groups would claim to protect in the face of actions by Pontiffs and Bishops that they consider doctrinally questionable; everything is masked under the reference to freedom of thought and opinion, which, however, in fact, results in ideological stances.

The picture is completed — and here I conclude — with a series of other videos “highly educational”, distinct and subsequent to that which is the subject of this response of mine, which speak for themselves. To name just one, among many, just think of statements of unprecedented gravity such as: «Heresy is worse than pedophilia»

This is a statement devoid of any logical and theological criteria, founded on an improper juxtaposition between radically different realities on an ontological and moral level. These are comparisons, if proposed by someone who presents himself as a theologian, Catholic pedagogue and trainer, they cannot be dismissed as simple naivety of expression, but they reveal a serious lack of prudence and methodological discernment on a pedagogical and theological level.

From the island of Patmos, 14 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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The irrepressible fascination exercised on certain lay people by the "Theology of the Underpants" – The irresistible fascination exerted on certain lay people by the “Theology of the Underwear” – The fascinating and irresistible attraction that the “Theology of Braga” exerts on certain lay people – The irresistible fascination, which “underwear theology” exerts on certain laypeople

/in /by

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 -

.

.

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 —

.

.

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 -

.

.

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 —

.

.

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The liturgy as living catechesis. Because it is not a pond to be strengthened – The liturgy as living catechesis. Why it is not a stagnant pool to be preserved – The liturgy as living catechesis. Why it is not a pond that should freeze

/in /by

 

Italian, english, español

 

LITURGY AS LIVING CATECHESIS. BECAUSE IT IS NOT A POND TO BE CONFIRMED

As Saint John Paul II remembered, making his own a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guardianship of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

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

.

.

In the last few years we have witnessed the proliferation of groups and environments that make the liturgy - and in particular the Eucharistic celebration - not the place of ecclesial unity, but a terrain of ideological conflict. It is not simply a question of different sensitivities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic element, identity or as an ideological banner. In many cases, this phenomenon is promoted by strictly lay groups who, rather than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, they project personal fragilities into the liturgy, internal discomforts and needs for self-reassurance of identity.

It needs to be said clearly: using the Eucharistic Sacrifice as an instrument of division is a very serious ecclesial fact, because it strikes the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy was never conceived as a place of subjective self-definition, but as a space in which the Church receives itself from the mystery it celebrates. When the liturgy is bent to ends foreign to its nature, it is emptied and reduced to what it never was.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not private initiative nor group language. The Second Vatican Council clearly expressed this truth by stating that the liturgy is «the culmination towards which the action of the Church tends and, together, the source from which all his virtue emanates" (Holy Council, n. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place where the Church manifests itself as the Body of Christ.

Using the liturgy to divide means contradicting its deepest nature. The liturgy was not created to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated on the altar is what they themselves are called to become.: «Be what you see and receive what you are» (The word is 272). When the liturgy is transformed into an instrument of opposition, it is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the aspects most overlooked by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic question is its intrinsic catechetical dimension. The liturgy is not just celebration, but also a primary form of transmission of the faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated in the faith by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church they were fully aware of it. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical catecheses, he did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but starting from the liturgical experience, because it is the mystery celebrated that generates the understanding of faith. The Liturgy, indeed, he does not teach only through words, but through the set of signs: guests, silences, posture, rhythms, symbolic languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical catechesis I, 1).

Reducing the liturgy to aesthetics it means emptying it of its formative function and transforming it into an object to be contemplated instead of a mystery to be experienced. In this way it ceases to be living catechesis and becomes a self-referential experience, incapable of generating an adult and ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents it is a theologically essential distinction and must be clarified very well, because at the root of many liturgical deviations there is the confusion - sometimes deliberate - between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, he has always clearly distinguished these two levels.

The substance it's about what makes the Sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the real presence, the sacramental form desired by the Lord and safeguarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but from the saving action of Christ.

Accidents, instead, they include the external elements of the celebration: the language, ritual forms, discipline, the celebratory structures. They are not only changeable, but they must change, because the liturgy is inserted in history and is called to speak to concrete men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often evoked inappropriately, recognized the Church's authority to dispose of the rites "save and integrate the substance of the sacraments" (Council of Trent, sess. XXI).

Elevate a language, like Latin, or a historical ritual, like the Missal of Saint Pius V, at the rank of articles of faith is a serious theological error. Not because these elements are worthless, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. Confusing these levels means absolutising what is historically determined and relativizing what is essential.

The history of the liturgy testifies that the Church has never conceived of worship as an immobile reality. In the first centuries different rites coexisted; sacramental discipline has undergone profound transformations; the celebratory forms have changed in response to new pastoral and cultural needs. All this happened without the faith of the Church fading, precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents has always been safeguarded.

Thinking of the liturgy as a reality to be "frozen" it means adopting a museum vision of the Church, foreign to its nature. As Saint John Paul II remembered, making his own a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guardianship of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, it is not an aesthetic refuge, it is not a terrain of identity claims. It is the place in which the Church receives its form from the mystery it celebrates. When the liturgy divides, it is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill internal voids or to build alternative identities to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

THE LITURGY AS LIVING CATECHESIS. WHY IT IS NOT A STAGNANT POOL TO BE PRESERVED

As Saint John Paul II recalled, making his own a well-known saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the safeguarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and does not develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable proliferation of groups and environments that make of the liturgy — and in particular of the Eucharistic celebration — not the place of ecclesial unity, but a field of ideological confrontation. This is not simply a matter of different sensibilities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather of an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic, identity-forming element or as an ideological banner. In many cases, this phenomenon is promoted by strictly lay groups which, rather than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, project onto the liturgy personal fragilities, inner discomforts, and needs for identity-based self-reassurance.

This must be stated clearly: to use the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a means of division is an ecclesially most serious matter, because it strikes at the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy has never been conceived as a space for subjective self-definition, but as the place in which the Church receives herself from the mystery she celebrates. When the liturgy is bent to purposes foreign to its nature, it is emptied and reduced to something it has never been.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not a private initiative nor the language of a group. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth with clarity, affirming that the liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed and, at the same time, the font from which all her power flows” (Holy Council, no. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place in which the Church manifests herself as the Body of Christ.

To use the liturgy as an instrument of division means to contradict its deepest nature. The liturgy is not born to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated on the altar is what they themselves are called to become: “Be what you see, and receive what you are” (The word is 272). When the liturgy is transformed into a tool of opposition, it is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the most neglected aspects by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic issue is its intrinsic catechetical dimension. The liturgy is not only celebration, but also the primary form of the transmission of faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated the faithful by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church were fully aware of this. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical Catecheses, did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but starting from the liturgical experience itself, because it is the celebrated mystery that generates understanding of the faith. Indeed, the liturgy teaches not only through words, but through the whole ensemble of signs: gestures, silences, postures, rhythms, and symbolic languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis I, 1).

To reduce the liturgy to aesthetics means to empty it of its formative function and to transform it into an object to be contemplated rather than a mystery to be lived. In this way, it ceases to be living catechesis and becomes a self-referential experience, incapable of generating a mature and ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents: a necessary distinction. The distinction between substance and accidents is theologically indispensable and must be clearly explained, because at the root of many liturgical distortions lies the confusion — sometimes deliberate — between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, has always clearly distinguished between these two levels.

Substance concerns what makes a sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the Real Presence, the sacramental form willed by the Lord and safeguarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but on the saving action of Christ.

Accidents, on the other hand, include the external elements of the celebration: language, ritual forms, disciplines, and celebrative structures. These elements are not only mutable, but must change, because the liturgy is inserted into history and is called to speak to concrete men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often invoked improperly, acknowledged the Church’s authority to regulate the rites, “the substance of the sacraments being preserved intact” (Council of Trent, Session XXI).

To elevate a language, such as Latin, or a historical rite, such as the Missal of Saint Pius V, to the rank of articles of faith is a serious theological error. Not because such elements lack value, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. To confuse these levels means to absolutize what is historically determined and to relativize what is essential.

The history of the liturgy shows that the Church has never conceived worship as an immobile reality. In the early centuries, different rites coexisted; sacramental discipline underwent profound transformations; celebrative forms changed in response to new pastoral and cultural needs. All this took place without the faith of the Church being diminished, precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents was always preserved.

To think of the liturgy as something to be “frozen” is to adopt a museum-like vision of the Church, foreign to her nature. As Saint John Paul II recalled, making his own a well-known saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the safeguarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and does not develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, not an aesthetic refuge, not a terrain for identity-based claims. It is the place in which the Church receives her form from the mystery she celebrates. When the liturgy divides, it is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill inner voids or to construct identities alternative to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

THE LITURGY AS A LIVING CATECHESIS. WHY IT IS NOT A POND THAT SHOULD FREEZE

As Saint John Paul II remembered, adopting a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow or develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith..

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

In recent years There has been a proliferation of groups and environments that make the liturgy – and in particular the Eucharistic celebration – not the place of ecclesial unity., but a field of ideological confrontation. It is not simply a question of diverse sensibilities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic element, identity or as an ideological banner. In many cases, This phenomenon is promoted by strictly secular groups that, more than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, project personal frailties onto the liturgy, interior discomforts and needs for identity self-affirmation.

It is necessary to say it clearly: Using the Eucharistic Sacrifice as an instrument of division is a fact of extreme ecclesial gravity., because it strikes at the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy has never been conceived as a place of subjective self-definition, but as the space in which the Church receives from itself the mystery that it celebrates. When the liturgy is subjected to purposes foreign to its nature, is emptied and reduced to something that has never been.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not a private initiative nor the language of a group. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth clearly when it stated that the liturgy is “the summit towards which the action of the Church tends and, at the same time, the source from which all its strength flows” (Holy Council, n. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place in which the Church manifests itself as the Body of Christ.

Use the liturgy to divide means contradicting your deepest nature. The liturgy is not created to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated at the altar is what they are called to become.: “Be what you see and receive what you are” (The word is 272). When the liturgy becomes an instrument of confrontation, It is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the aspects most neglected by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic question is its intrinsic catechetical dimension.. The liturgy is not just celebration, but also the primary form of transmission of faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated in the faith by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church They were fully aware of it.. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in their mystagogical catechesis, did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but from liturgical experience, because it is the celebrated mystery that generates the understanding of faith. The Liturgy, indeed, does not teach only through words, but through the set of signs: gestures, silences, postures, symbolic rhythms and languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical catechesis I, 1).

Reduce the liturgy to aesthetics It means emptying it of its formative function and transforming it into an object to be contemplated instead of a mystery to be lived.. In this way it stops being a living catechism and becomes a self-referential experience., incapable of generating an adult and truly ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents: an essential distinction. The distinction between substance and accidents is theologically essential and must be clarified precisely., because at the root of many liturgical drifts is the confusion — sometimes deliberate — between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, has always clearly distinguished these two levels.

The substance refers to that which makes a sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the real presence, the sacramental form willed by the Lord and guarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but of the saving action of Christ.

The accidents, instead, They include the external elements of the celebration: the tongue, ritual forms, the disciplines, the celebratory structures. These elements are not only mutable, but they must change, because the liturgy is inserted in history and is called to speak to specific men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often improperly invoked, recognized the Church's authority to dispose of the rites, “saves and integrates the substance of the sacraments” (Council of Trent, XXI session).

Raise a tongue, like latin, a historical rite, like the Missal of Saint Pius V, to the rank of articles of faith constitutes a serious theological error. Not because such elements are worthless, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. Confusing these plans means absolutizing what is historically determined and relativizing what is essential..

The history of the liturgy demonstrates that the Church has never conceived worship as an immobile reality. In the first centuries, various rites coexisted; sacramental discipline underwent profound transformations; Celebratory forms changed in response to new pastoral and cultural demands. All this occurred without the faith of the Church being undermined., precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents was always safeguarded.

Thinking of the liturgy as a reality that must be “frozen” It means adopting a museum vision of the Church, alien to its nature. As Saint John Paul II remembered, adopting a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow or develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith..

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, It is not an aesthetic refuge, It is not a terrain of identity claim. It is the place where the Church receives its form from the mystery it celebrates.. When the liturgy divides, It is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill interior voids or to build alternative identities to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 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

.

.

.