Latest

The Vatican has confirmed the next stage of the Synod on Synodality, with a series of international meetings planned through to 2028 The Vatican has outlined the next stage of the Synod on Synodality, confirming that a series of international meetings will take place over the coming two years. In a statement issued on April 17, the General Secretariat of the Synod said it had convened the XVI Ordinary Council in an online session chaired by Cardinal Mario Grech. The meeting opened “with a moment of prayer led by Sr Nathalie Becquart”, before turning to what the Secretariat described as “the current phase of implementation of the Final Document of the XVI Assembly”. It forms part of what it describes as the “implementation phase” of the 2024 assembly. The statement said that the Secretary General “opened the session with several communications concerning the current phase of implementation of the Final Document of the XVI Assembly, the work of the Study Groups, whose final reports are in the process of being published, and the forthcoming organisation of two meetings”. Among the key developments is the convocation of a preparatory gathering at the Vatican from June 23 to 25. According to the Secretariat, this meeting will serve to prepare the continental evaluation assemblies scheduled for the first months of 2028. Those invited include “one representative of the Patriarchs of the Council of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, the Presidents of the International Meetings of Episcopal Conferences, as well as the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of the United States and Canada, each accompanied by the Coordinator of the Synodal Team of the respective body”. The statement added: “The Holy Father Leo XIV will take part in a specific working session.” The June meeting forms part of a wider timetable which will see the synodal process continue through to 2028, when continental assemblies will assess the reception and application of the Synod’s conclusions. A global assembly in Rome is expected to follow later that year. The Secretariat also confirmed that a further document to guide this phase is in preparation. During the April 17 session, Fr Giacomo Costa presented “a proposal for a document for the implementation phase of the Synod, particularly concerning the organisation of the evaluation assemblies”. The Council, it said, “discussed the document at length and approved its general structure”. It added that the final version, intended as a complement to the “Pathways for the Implementation Phase” published in June 2025, “will be revised by the Ordinary Council and published by the beginning of summer”. In a separate development, the Vatican provided new details of a meeting of bishops’ conference presidents to be held in Rome from October 7 to 14, focusing on Amoris laetitia. The gathering had previously been announced by Pope Leo XIV in a message marking the tenth anniversary of the document’s publication. According to the Secretariat, the October meeting “will be organised by the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life”, with the General Secretariat of the Synod providing “organisational and methodological support”. It stressed that “this is not a synodal assembly, but a consultative meeting of the Holy Father with the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences and of the Synods of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris”. In his March 19 message, Pope Leo XIV said the purpose of the gathering would be “to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today […] and taking into account what is currently being done in the local Churches”. The April 17 statement concluded with a note of thanks to Bishop Luis Marín de San Martín for his service to the Secretariat, stating that members had asked Cardinal Grech “to convey to H.E. Msgr Luis Marín de San Martín their gratitude for his years of service”, and assuring him of their prayers following his appointment as Almoner of His Holiness and Prefect of the Dicastery for the Service of Charity. The Vatican’s latest moves on the Synod on Synodality indicate that the process has been established as a continuing feature of Church governance and, under Pope Leo XIV, it is acquiring a firmer institutional shape. What is now emerging is a phase of consolidation, with the Holy See proceeding in a measured manner. There has been no pause or quiet shelving of a process associated with Pope Francis. On the contrary, it is moving forward with precision, as the promised roadmap, due in early summer, will formalise a multi-year implementation phase running through to 2028. This continuity indicates that synodality is now treated as a structural principle. The Synod of Bishops, established by Pope Paul VI in 1965, was conceived as a consultative body assisting the Roman Pontiff. What has since developed is an expansion of its process, including a prolonged phase of reception and evaluation. The personal involvement of Pope Leo XIV is also notable, as the Secretariat has confirmed that he will take part in a specific working session during the June meeting. Popes do not routinely participate in mid-level preparatory gatherings, which suggests a direct interest in shaping the outcome. The explicit inclusion of the presidents of the United States and Canadian episcopal conferences, named alongside their synodal coordinators, is also notable. Other regions are referenced more generally through continental bodies such as CELAM, CCEE and SECAM. This level of specificity suggests continued attention to the reception of synodality in the English-speaking world, particularly in North America. During the 2023–2024 assemblies, several bishops from the United States were among those who raised concerns about doctrinal clarity and safeguards. The forthcoming June meeting can therefore be understood as part of an effort to ensure alignment ahead of the evaluation stage beginning in 2028. A similar approach is evident in the handling of the October meeting on Amoris laetitia. The Vatican has made clear that this will not be a synodal assembly but a consultative meeting organised by the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life, with support from the Synod Secretariat. A decade after its publication, the document’s treatment of the divorced and remarried remains contested. Holding the meeting outside the formal synodal framework appears intended to manage the tone of the discussion. This dual approach, advancing synodality while containing its more contentious applications, indicates that Pope Leo XIV is maintaining the trajectory set by Pope Francis while seeking to give it a more stable institutional form.

In an interview with La Repubblica, Pope Benedict’s longtime personal secretary discusses Benedict XVI and Pope Francis’s relationship, including tensions over the traditional Mass Archbishop Georg Gänswein has said that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI never criticised the restrictions imposed on the traditional Mass by Pope Francis, despite being personally troubled by them. In an interview published by La Repubblica on April 20, Archbishop Gänswein, who served for years as Benedict’s personal secretary, said: “Benedict never commented on Pope Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis custodes. In my book I wrote that when we read L’Osservatore Romano [about Traditionis custodes], Benedict’s heart grew heavy. That is true, but I am the one saying it, not him.” The archbishop, now Apostolic nuncio in Lithuania, also spoke at length about the unprecedented coexistence of two popes following Benedict’s resignation in 2013. “There was only one Pope. The other was still called Pope, but he was in reality the Pope Emeritus. That is a very important difference,” he said. He added that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself took visible steps to mark the distinction, removing elements of papal dress and adopting a simpler presentation, even as he retained the title “Pope Emeritus”, which Gänswein confirmed “he chose himself”. Responding to claims that the resignation had been shaped by scandal, Gänswein rejected any link to the Vatileaks scandal or other controversies. “None of what you have recalled had anything to do with it. Neither Vatileaks, nor the so called ‘gay lobbies’, nor anything else. The resignation was the fruit of deep reflection and intense prayer. The Pope put the question to his conscience and then made his decision.” He recalled the moment of the conclave that elected Francis, describing how he saw the white smoke from his office before going to the Sala Regia. “Then the door opened and from a distance I saw the cardinals congratulating the new Pope. Almost at once, the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio spread through the entire hall like wildfire.” When he met the newly elected Pope, Gänswein said Francis spoke first: “I would like to meet Benedict. Can you help me?” The first meeting between the two men took place at Castel Gandolfo on March 23, 2013. Gänswein said the encounter was marked by mutual deference. “When they entered the chapel, Pope Benedict wanted to let Pope Francis go first, but Francis refused. The same thing happened with the prie-dieu.” He added that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI had prepared a box of documents relating to the Vatileaks inquiry, which he handed over personally. “He wanted to explain the contents to Francis and tell him what he thought. He did it in writing, as usual, and put everything inside.” Archbishop Gänswein confirmed that Pope Francis chose not to reside in the Apostolic Palace after his election. “The Pope told me to find him something else,” he said, admitting that he initially did not take the request seriously. He later understood the decision more clearly when Francis explained: “I have never lived in such large rooms. I want to live in smaller ones.” The Pope subsequently remained at the Casa Santa Marta. The interview also addressed perceptions of tension between the two pontificates. Archbishop Gänswein said reports of sustained opposition organised around Benedict were exaggerated. “From what I experienced, the real situation was greatly exaggerated.” He acknowledged that “there were some observations about Francis’s behaviour and choices”, but added: “It is perfectly normal to comment on a Pope’s decisions; it is not in itself forbidden.” Reflecting on his own position, Archbishop Gänswein referred to a remark he had made about carrying the “mark of Cain”. He clarified: “I did say that, but in general, not with reference to Pope Francis.” He added that Benedict’s figure “aroused both friends and enemies”, and that his own association with the former Pope had remained a defining factor. Archbishop Gänswein also described the personal relationship that developed between the two popes in more ordinary terms. He pointed to small gestures, including visits and the exchange of gifts, as evidence of a cordial rapport. “One could sense it, atmospherically, so to speak, from the climate that had been created between them,” he said, noting that such gestures were “signs of mutual attention”. He also gave a detailed account of the moment following Benedict’s death, when Francis arrived at the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery. “Pope Francis had told me: ‘When the hour comes, please call me directly.’ I did so on my mobile phone. Shortly afterwards the Pope arrived.” Archbishop Gänswein said: “Francis blessed his predecessor, then sat down beside him, remained in silence for a few minutes, and then we all prayed together.” Asked about a comparison between recent popes, Gänswein declined to offer a clear characterisation of the current pontificate beyond noting the significance of the name. “That is a difficult question at the moment,” he said. “But the name Leo itself already says something, don’t you think?” The remarks of Archbishop Georg Gänswein over recent years, taken together with testimony from those close to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, suggest a more restrained relationship than some accounts presented during the years of his retirement alongside Pope Francis. The evidence increasingly suggests that the relationship may have been difficult, even if this was never publicly acknowledged by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself. His silence, long interpreted as serene acquiescence, now appears as an act of discipline intended to avoid any impression of a divided papacy. The clearest point of tension concerns the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which reversed the more permissive framework established by Benedict for the older form of the Roman rite in Summorum Pontificum. Archbishop Gänswein said in an interview with Die Tagespost on January 20, 2023: “It was very hard. I believe that reading the new motu proprio broke Pope Benedict’s heart because his intention had been to help all those who had found their home in the traditional Mass, to find inner peace, liturgical peace, so that they would abandon the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.” That judgement, offered by the man who knew Benedict most intimately in his final years, corresponds to a known priority of Benedict’s pontificate: the reconciliation of those attached to the older liturgy. Sources close to Archbishop Gänswein and to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI have further confirmed this, telling AdVaticanum that the promulgation of Traditionis custodes “caused [Benedict] pain”. That pain was not expressed publicly. Instead, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI maintained the silence he had promised upon his resignation. More significant, and less often discussed, is the way Archbishop Gänswein’s own position further complicates the picture. Once Prefect of the Papal Household, he was effectively sidelined and later sent to Germany and then the Baltics as nuncio. The same sources told AdVaticanum that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made both formal and informal requests that his secretary be allowed to remain in the Vatican. They said: “There wasn’t an actual relationship. Sometimes Benedict asked favours of Francis to keep Gänswein in the Vatican and not remove him, both formally and informally.” These requests, it is said, went unanswered. This asymmetry is also discernible in reflections offered by the papal biographer Peter Seewald in an interview with Nico Spuntoni. Seewald contrasted the widely remembered homily delivered by then Cardinal Ratzinger at the funeral of Pope St John Paul II with the more restrained tone of the rites following Benedict’s own death. “We all remember the warm words that Cardinal Ratzinger spoke at the requiem for John Paul II,” he said. “But no one remembers Bergoglio’s words at the requiem for Benedict XVI. They were as cold as the whole ceremony, which had to be rather brief so as not to honour his predecessor too much. At least that was my impression.” Pressed on whether such a judgement was too severe, Seewald continued: “I mean, how does one manifest friendship? With a mere statement in words, or by living it?” He pointed to differences “in temperament, culture, intellect and above all in the direction of the pontificates”, adding that Benedict had promised obedience and “remained silent so as not to give the slightest impression of wanting to interfere in his successor’s governance”. That silence, he suggested, was not without consequence. “Benedict trusted Francis. But he was bitterly disappointed several times.” Historically, the coexistence of a reigning Pope and a Pope Emeritus was itself without precedent in the modern Church. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI sought to define that relationship through withdrawal, discretion and loyalty. His intention was to remove himself entirely from the exercise of authority. Yet the very novelty of the situation meant that every gesture and every silence acquired a significance beyond the personal.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx has instructed clergy in Munich to offer blessings to couples in irregular unions, including same-sex couples, under new diocesan guidelines based on Fiducia Supplicans Cardinal Reinhard Marx has instructed priests in Munich to offer blessings to couples in irregular unions, including same-sex couples and those who are divorced and civilly remarried. Cardinal Reinhard Marx has instructed priests in Munich to offer blessings to couples in irregular unions, including same-sex couples and those who are divorced and civilly remarried. According to guidance confirmed this week by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, all pastoral practice is to follow the guidelines Segen gibt der Liebe Kraft (“Blessing Gives Love Strength”), adopted last year by the Joint Conference of the German Bishops’ Conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), and now set to become a fundamental element of pastoral work across the archdiocese. In a letter to clergy and pastoral staff, Cardinal Marx wrote: “To all couples who love each other and seek a blessing from the Church for their partnership, I wish that they may feel God’s grace in this blessing.” The letter, confirmed by diocesan officials, sets out that “no couple should be turned away” if they request such a blessing. The archdiocese has also announced that training sessions for pastoral workers on how to conduct these blessing ceremonies will begin in June, in line with the new guidelines. These sessions are intended to standardise the practice across parishes and ensure that clergy and lay workers are prepared to implement the policy. Clergy who do not wish to perform such blessings themselves are not permitted simply to refuse. Instead, they are expected to refer couples to their dean or to another member of pastoral staff who is willing to carry out the ceremony. The directive is intended to ensure that access to blessings is not dependent on the personal views of individual priests. Cardinal Marx also addressed anticipated resistance, asking that the “theological meaning” of the blessings be explained to those who “still struggle with this blessing”. The guidance emphasises that the practice is to be understood within a broader pastoral framework rather than as a change to sacramental teaching. The document makes clear that such blessings are not equivalent to marriage. However, it adds that this distinction should not result in exclusion. “This does not mean that the blessing of a non-sacramental union, which in many cases is already a civil marriage, pushes the couple to the margins of the community and the Church,” the text states. It continues: “Couples should be welcomed in the heart of the community. Therefore, the Church asks God to bless and grant good things to these couples.” The guidelines also suggest that, “where necessary”, such blessings may serve as “a contribution to healing and reconciliation”. The blessing text was developed under Pope Francis’s declaration Fiducia Supplicans in December 2023, which permitted non-liturgical blessings of couples in irregular situations under certain conditions. According to the document, the guidelines are intended as an offer to “divorced and remarried individuals, couples of all gender identities and sexual orientations, as well as couples who, for other reasons, do not wish or cannot receive the sacrament of marriage”. At the time of their presentation, they were described as following “the pastoral approach of the pontificate of Pope Francis”. However, several dioceses, including Augsburg, Eichstätt, Cologne, Passau and Regensburg, have indicated that they do not use the guidelines. Blessings for same-sex couples are already a common practice in several German dioceses, and the Munich directive is expected to set a broader trend within the country’s Church structures. The introduction of formal guidelines indicates a move towards greater consistency in how such blessings are carried out.

A Brazilian bishop has said young Catholics drawn to traditional practices such as kneeling for Communion and wearing veils have a legitimate place in the Church, describing such expressions as part of Catholicism’s natural diversity rather than a rupture. A Brazilian bishop has said that young Catholics drawn to more traditional forms of worship have a legitimate place in the Church, insisting that such expressions are part of the inherent diversity of Catholic life rather than a rupture within it. Speaking at a press conference during the 62nd General Assembly of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil in Aparecida, São Paulo, Bishop Joel Portella Amado of Petrópolis addressed questions about the resurgence of interest among younger Catholics in older liturgical customs. Responding to a question from a journalist with Rede Vida TV about “a return of a certain Catholic traditionalism in Masses”, the bishop acknowledged visible signs of this trend, including “young people who kneel to receive communion, who wear veils”, adding that “it is possible to perceive this in the Masses”. He said that such developments should be understood within the broader context of contemporary religious life in Brazil, particularly among younger generations. Referring to census data from 2022, he noted the large number of 19-39 year olds who do not profess a religious belief. “It’s not that they don’t believe in God,” he said. “The evangelical side calls them ‘unchurched’. I prefer this expression. They believe in God in heaven, but they don’t have a mediation on earth, a path to the Church.” Within this context, Bishop Amado indicated that the attraction to more traditional forms of worship may arise from a wider search for meaning. “In times of emptiness, we start searching, we look for things, even in some historical realities that this youth did not experience,” he said. The remarks came as part of a wider briefing on the ecclesial and socio-cultural issues discussed by the Brazilian bishops during their annual assembly, which has brought together prelates from across the country to consider pastoral priorities and challenges facing the Church. Bishop Amado, who serves as president of the CNBB’s Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasised that diversity in liturgical expression is not only permissible but intrinsic to Catholicism itself. “Does it have the right to be this way? Yes, because Catholicism is plural by nature, even more so in a profoundly plural world,” he said. At the same time, he cautioned against any tendency to elevate one form of expression above others or to impose personal preferences on the wider Church. “While there is a right to live and express one’s faith in one’s own way, according to one’s own personality, on the other hand, in the name of love and brotherhood, one cannot impose this on others or believe that only one is right,” he said. The bishop’s comments come amid an ongoing conversation within the global Church about the place of traditional practices in contemporary Catholic life, particularly in the years following the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century and subsequent debates over their implementation. While the early signs of Pope Leo XIV’s approach to the TLM suggest not a dramatic reversal of his predecessor’s policy, they do point to a deliberate attempt to reframe the question in terms of unity, discipline and synodality. What is emerging is a repositioning of the issue within a broader vision aimed at removing ideological conflict and quietly adjusting the tone. There has been no explicit indication that a formal or stable resolution for the traditional Latin Mass is imminent. Yet, indirectly, there has been a perceptible shift towards a more inclusive use of the Vetus Ordo, one that corresponds to the language of synodality. This began with the granting of extensions for the TLM in parishes in Texas and Ohio, and became most notable when the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales informed its members that Rome would “be generous” in granting dispensations from restrictions on the older liturgy. While there was a response from the CDW, owing to the media frenzy surrounding it, indicating that there had been no reversal, the tone shifted following the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes under Pope Francis. Further clarity has come through the remarks of Cardinal Pietro Parolin after he sent a letter to the French bishops on behalf of Pope Leo concerning the TLM. Speaking to Advaticanum’s Vatican correspondent the following day, Cardinal Parolin articulated what appears to be the governing principle behind the Pope’s thinking. “I think we all share this, this, let’s say, assessment that the Pope gives, right?” he said. “In the sense that the liturgy must not become a source of conflict and division among us. It will be necessary to find the formula, well, this I believe, it will be necessary to find the formula that can meet legitimate needs. But I believe that, well, this can happen without turning the liturgy into a battlefield.” The insistence on avoiding conflict, while acknowledging “legitimate needs”, encapsulates the present moment. Yet the significance of these developments cannot be understood solely in terms of the TLM alone. Sources have told Advaticanum that many cardinals and bishops expect a forthcoming document on the liturgy, following an anticipated encyclical on artificial intelligence. According to these curial sources, the document is likely to address reverence and ritual integrity in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, as well as the complex issue of inculturation. Such a move would confirm that the Pope’s concern is with the quality and unity of Catholic worship as a whole. This broader approach helps to explain why the Pope is moving more quickly on liturgical matters than had been expected. Rather than allowing the question to remain a point of ongoing contention, he appears intent on integrating it into a wider programme of ecclesial governance. His recent appointments, including figures such as Archbishop Randozza, Bishop Ioanne and Bishop Marin to senior curial roles within the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, the Dicastery for Bishops and the office of the Papal Almoner, have been noted as administratively capable prelates. In the bigger picture, while public attention has often focused on Cardinal Arthur Roche as the figure associated with restrictions on the TLM, it is widely understood that Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola played a decisive role in shaping that policy, working in collaboration with the lay theologian Andrea Grillo. Within the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, it is increasingly evident that the office of secretary has, in practice, exercised a level of influence that at times appears to rival, if not quietly supersede, that of the prefect. The question of Archbishop Viola’s and Cardinal Roche’s future therefore assumes a significance that goes beyond personnel. His first five-year term as secretary is due to conclude in May. Whether Pope Leo chooses to renew that mandate, reassign him within the Curia, or appoint him to a diocesan see will offer a clear indication of the direction in which liturgical policy is likely to develop. Sources close to Advaticanum suggest that an extension is expected, not least because of his relatively low profile in the English-speaking press, which has allowed him to operate without attracting sustained public scrutiny.

From medieval processions, feasts and liturgical splendour to a single tweet from Downing Street, St George’s Day has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. England once honoured its patron with seriousness and scale On April 23, at 7:29am, Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, told his 2.2 million followers on X that “today, we fly our flag proudly and we’re reminded of the values it represents – service, generosity and respect.” Lest there be any doubt as to which flag he was paying homage, the comment was followed with “Happy St George’s Day!” As endearing as Keir Starmer’s public flirtation with nationalism may be, St George’s Day is a shadow of its former self. In comparison with the national celebrations and general merriment of earlier centuries, a tweet is underwhelming. The official @10DowningStreet account did go as far as posting a short, uninformative video in commemoration of the Saint; however, a similar video had been posted the week before wishing “everyone celebrating a happy Nepali New Year”. While Keir Starmer can be blamed for some of the social ills of England, the demise of St George’s Day does not fall on only his shoulders. The rise and fall of England’s saintly culture predates his premiership and finds its origins in more ecclesiastical affairs. St George, a Roman soldier of good Christian stock, was born in Cappadocia, in modern-day Turkey in 275 AD. He spent much of his life under the Emperor Diocletian, who retired shortly after his death, reportedly preferring to garden rather than rule. The Diocletianic persecution, the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, attempted to force the empire’s Christian population to renounce their faith and offer sacrifice to the Roman gods or face execution. Preferring death to apostasy, St George died a martyr’s death. It was not until the 12th century that devotion to St George took hold in England. Returning from the Third Crusade, stories circulated about his power, and he was adopted as a military patron. In 1222, the Synod of Oxford declared St George’s Day a feast day in England, and in 1348, under Edward III, the newly founded Order of the Garter was placed under his patronage, effectively securing his status as patron of England. In 1415, at the Battle of Agincourt, soldiers fought under the red cross of St George, invoking his name as they entered battle, or, as Shakespeare later put it: “God for Harry, England and Saint George!” (Henry V, Act III, Scene I). Henry V’s army was weary and outnumbered, and England’s eventual triumph was widely accredited to the intercession of St George. The Sarum Missal, England’s medieval variant of the Roman Rite, places St George’s Day within the liturgical calendar as a recognised celebration, sometimes treated as a major feast, with proper prayers and chants assigned to the saint. The Order of the Garter marked the feast with particular solemnity, at times extending its observance to an octave. These liturgical celebrations were accompanied by towns and villages organising processions, plays, pageants and feasts. In the full life of medieval England, the country’s patron was publicly honoured. The demise of such celebrations has its roots in the Reformation. The Sarum liturgy was replaced by the Book of Common Prayer, and the proper Mass for St George gave way to a simple commemoration in the calendar, with the feast stripped of its former liturgical prominence and public ceremonial life. Over the following centuries, the processions and pageantry ceased, the guilds were dissolved, and St George receded from public life. Today, according to the Prime Minister, a single tweet suffices. Much has been made of the need for a renewed patriotism across the land of Mary’s Dowry, but little has been said about how this might be achieved. For a true rejuvenation of English identity, the best place to start would be to honour its patron. The return of the cult of St George, in full liturgical observance and cultural pomp, would likely give the country a powerful civic booster, as well as a recovery of its spiritual nerve.