Today the sun rose at 06:10 and it will set at 20:06. But that’s in Rome, not in Columbia Heights.
The Ave Maria Bell is still in the 20:15 slot for the Curia.
It is the Feast of the great Jesuit St. Peter Canisius, Doctor.
What would St. Peter Canisius say about his Jesuit brethren today? I mean by and large, not the few exceptions to the rule of corruptio optimi pessima.
On this note, I send you to Crisis to read a piece by Fr. Pericone inspired … provoked… by the absurd Jesuit Thomas Reese’s lamentations about the wrong kind of young person coming into the Church. HERE
Pericone has a line that herks precisely to what seminarians who believed in God and weren’t sodomites had to do in seminary in the 1980’s:
Like skilled CIA agents trained in the art of subterfuge, these new seminarians listen respectfully to the bloodless drone of the Seminary grandees, then they repair to the enthralling pages of St. Thomas Aquinas, the arresting invitations of St. Francis de Sales, or the rousing exhortations of Blessed Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, and St. Pius X. After attendance at the anemic seminary “liturgies” (or worse), they surreptitiously squeeze into their cars to search for the closest Traditional Mass.
Mutatis mutandis… it’s the same as it was back in the day. I used to describe it as being in the officers school of the Enemy.
But here is something even more absurd than the increasingly irrelevant Reese.
It’s hard to formulate for this blog’s readership what I would like to say.
JUST IN: Vatican releases photos of Pope Leo XIV’s meeting today with Sarah Mullally. In his address to her, the Pope noted that: “While much progress has been made on some historically divisive issues, new problems have arisen in recent decades, rendering the pathway to full… pic.twitter.com/Ng9ZhIsGrl
— Diane Montagna (@dianemontagna) April 27, 2026
I just can’t…
It’s white’s move. Mate in 4. Do it.
NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.
And somehow the SSPX are the baddies? Somehow Pope Leo can’t find the time to meet with them?
Words fail.
I actually thought the Archbisopess’s audience with the Holy Father smacked of Romanita. I somehow doubt that Leo would want to meet with her particularly, but Paul VI made such a visit de rigueur, and not doing it would certainly have caused diplomatic problems. But, there were several lines that I thought held clear, and surprisingly direct, criticism of the direction of the Church of England: “While much progress has been made on some historically divisive issues, new problems have arisen in recent decades, rendering the pathway to full communion more difficult to discern. I know that the Anglican Communion is also facing many of these same questions at this time…For my part, I add that it would also be a scandal if we did not continue to work towards overcoming our differences, no matter how intractable they may appear.” ‘Intractable,’ in particular, is an interesting word choice. He was polite and proper without being especially nice or conciliatory.
People are so silly. How is this different from the Pope receiving a male “archbishop of Canterbury”? All her predecessors have been to the Vatican.
It is diplomatic politeness, both of them know she is no more or less a Catholic priest than any other anglican minister.
But he has such a nice smile! And dresses so well! Are we to continue to zip it?
“…rendering the pathway to full communion more difficult to discern.”
Of course, chief among these new problems is the fact that a woman dressed in liturgical attire is now being passed off — and celebrated by the Vatican and even by the Pope — as someone who seemingly has valid Orders when she doesn’t — first because she’s a woman and second because she’s an Anglican…”
Discernment is useless when using the wrong assumptions or facts.
The photo of the ‘archbishopess’ at the altar over the very tomb of St Peter, cosplaying at imparting a blessing— and an actual bishop behaving as though her LARPing was real…. Nope. I pity her, but the real bishop should know better— what’s his excuse?
Now I understand that Popes, as part of their duties, must meet with all sorts of people. But for the sake of minimizing scandal, a sensible Pope would be careful to make clear— in the most diplomatic way possible— that receiving a visit from Mrs. Mullally in no way constitutes either an endorsement or a minimization of any of the heterodoxies she represents. (I’d say the same about this Pope’s previous warm reception for Fr. James Martin SJ).
That said, with the current Holy Father being so generous with his time and attention, granting audiences to the Martins and Mullallys out there— I think it’s a telling contrast that Pope Leo repeatedly refuses to grant an audience to the leader of the SSPX prior to the July episcopal consecrations that will most likely devolve into mass excommunications for a portion of Leo’s flock. It’s a strange sort of shepherd who would shut his door against part of his flock when they want to meet and try to iron out their differences. It’s as if he wants them gone…
I think the feting of Sarah Mullaly whilst refusing to meet with the SSPX shows (for me) that the modern Papacy has a predominantly political, rather than spiritual, character.
All these meaningless photos with Mullaly are nothing but politics. Everything done for show, regardless of the confusion and resentment the event and pictures will generate among Catholics. So too is the marginalisation of the SSPX pure politics.
Unity with Anglicans is impossible, as they keep moving further away and erecting new barriers. This is because they are primarily concerned with secular approval, not Christian Unity.
Everyone knows this, including Leo and Mullaly, so the whole affair is rather patronising, in addition to being meaningless. That this charade goes on and on indicates they are clueless as to what else to offer us.
I think Leo hopes his being pictured with a woman in clerical dress will also win him some secular approval. (That is clearly also what the bogus change in death penalty teaching is aimed at).
Leo’s defenders will say “oh, but he said xyz…” etc but all this is lost in the face of the pictures, which are forever.
As for Mullaly, well, she got what she wanted – the photos with the Pope meaning she can return to England triumphant with the credibility the pictures have bestowed on her. Look, she can claim, I am just like the Pope, see – I have pictures!
Meanwhile the SSPX – and so naturally the lay people who depend on them – is subjected to the usual spiritual abuse and gaslighting.
All this is – yet another – strong indicator of the ongoing crisis in the Church, which informed Catholic cannot ignore. The crisis which legitimises the SSPX in their unusual circumstances.
I am not a sedevacantist, but sadly I have to say that the Pope has held little relevance for me since the days of Benedict XVI; although he would also go along with the ecumenical nonsense, he would actually teach us and also cared deeply about finding traditionalists a deserved place in the Church.
I very much feel that these activities by the Pope and hierarchy are clearly at loggerheads with the Church’s real mission and actively detrimental to it. However, it means Prelates have an easy life – pleasant meetings and chit chat, instead of hard talk – and so it goes on.
With all due respect, Diane Montagna doesn’t appear to get what it was all about that the Pope said here, in the following paragraph.
In his address to her, the Pope noted that: “While much progress has been made on some historically divisive issues, new problems have arisen in recent decades, rendering the pathway to full communion more difficult to discern.” Of course, chief among these new problems is the fact that a woman dressed in liturgical attire is now being passed off — and celebrated by the Vatican and even by the Pope — as someone who seemingly has valid Orders when she doesn’t — first because she’s a woman and second because she’s an Anglican.
That is to say, she does get the implication:
Of course, chief among these new problems is the fact that a woman dressed in liturgical attire is now being passed off […] as someone who seemingly has valid Orders when she doesn’t — first because she’s a woman and second because she’s an Anglican.
Yes.
That’s what’s to read between the lines when someone talks about “new problems”, and precisely new problems, that arose.
It is also what everyone can read between the lines when he hears the Pope talking about “new problems” in exactly that setting.
And the Pope knew that everyone could and would read that between the lines.
Hence, it is a major diplomatic snub. And all the more forceful because the opponent needs to grin and bear it.
But the fact that the Pope snubbed her in such a brusque manner means that he and the Vatican didn’t pass her off and celebrate her as someone in valid orders.
Clergy are disincentivized to tell their bosses that they are replete with excrement. We laity, if we can find the courage, have less to lose. I hope that every day I am given the grace to cling to the barque of Peter is an annoyance to the mutineers.
I counted, and there are actually four separate pictures of cheese in this post.
Dear Clinton,
the problem with the SSPX is that this is what they are saying themselves; they want to play the “look at what all the others are doing, therefore, we may break the law”. It doesn’t work that way; it never worked that way.
I used to add “for all my sympathy with them, etc.”, especially in the times of Pope Francis. Right now I have to admit, that when they announced their illegal consecrations, and then refused even a postponement of their consecrations after consideration of a week, and then announced they’d consecrate five bishops while still claiming a “necessity”, my sympathy for the course of their leadership is pretty thin on the ground right now to be honest. (For their flock with their emotional ties to their community etc, the sympathy is still there.)
[Also, while I do not endorse what Abp Lefebvre did in 1988, this is emphatically and obviously something very different. To our great regret he later went back on his agreement with Rome because he felt Rome would be dishonest; he admitted as much. But before that he did postpone, he did negotiate, he even reached said agreement. He did not flat-out say “no, we’re doing our own thing” after a week.]
while “intractable” is a good addition to “absolutely null and utterly void”, receiving that lady in that costume is an affront to good taste and common decency.
1. Q×f7+ . . . K-h8
Not K×f7 despite White’s pinned Rook!
2. Q×e8+ . . Q×e8
3. R-f8+ . . . Q×f8
4. R×f8#
Has the Church of England ever apologized for supporting the murder of Catholic priests and laymen? (They may have, I just don’t remember if they did and if they did they did not make proper restitution by returning the Churches they stole. It seems they could easily do this since most of them are not being used.)
In response to Imrahil: It is not clear that the FSSPX has broken Church law because the salvation of souls is the highest law. One could make a strong case that the Vatican has violated this highest law by not being forthright regarding doctrine and failing to punish bishops and priests who in many cases openly commit sexual sins, which as the current Pope says we cannot allow to divide the Church. (I personally know families who left the Church because an Archbishop moved a predator priest from one Catholic school to another rather than punish him. One person whose family left the Church for this reason tells every class he teaches at my former university about this.)
I don’t know what anyone else thinks about this, but it seems to me that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has no good reason to send mixed messages. We should not have to read further down into a homily or his spontaneous remarks to realize our Pope did not really mean what he just said.
It does indeed read as a snub, at a minimum a less than cordial reception – I’m with Imrahil on that one. Mentioning that new problems have arisen the last decades is true but hardly diplomatic. And the list of those problems will overlap largely with the one many in the Anglican communion outside the UK will have, even if reapproachment with Rome is definitely not on their minds – that irony will not be lost on Anglicans in the developing world, and adds to the diplomatic snub.
Especially as ‘exhibit 1’ stands next to His Holiness… so, no, it isn’t as direct as blessing her with the “Ab illo benedicaris, in cuius honore cremaberis” as Bl. Pius IX allegedly once did with an Anglican heretic (warning: there are at least 3 versions of this story, also with Leo XIII and Pius XII, so the allegedly is a necessary caveat) but I doubt Lambeth palace will see this as a success.
But I must slighlty disagree with Mrs Montagna. The sentence “as someone who seemingly has valid Orders when she doesn’t – first because she’s a woman and second because she’s an Anglican.” has it exactly inverted. It’s first and forefost because she’s an Anglican, as that is an error she can and should fix. That she’s a woman is neither an error nor fixable, and that she believes that as a woman she could be ordained, follows from the problem that she’s an Anglican. So that remains the greater problem.
Finally, I is indeed a pity that the SSPX delegation wasn’t received instead, at least there is more of a chance of anything fruitful coming out of the meeting (but neither should attract bets!). But there I also would add: shouldn’t it be better, and potentially better received even – as it is the traditional thing to do! – that the Holy Father would summon the SSPX superior to his presence…?
PS: lest I need to explain myself 10 years from now: that last “problem” should be read as “problem with respect to the validity of her ‘orders’.”
@ Father Z, half tongue in cheek: maybe the time available for editing should be a function of the length of the post, at least till such time an AI agent arrives that auto-flags which words might be misinterpreted ;)
A couple details of the Holy Father’s address invite consideration together: “I am likewise grateful for the ministry of the Anglican Centre in Rome, also established sixty years ago” and “If the world is to take our preaching to heart, we must, therefore, be constant in our prayers and efforts to remove any stumbling blocks that hinder the proclamation of the Gospel.” The Wikipedia article “Doria-Pamphili-Landi” tells us “the Anglican Centre […] is housed in the Palazzo Doria Pamphilj” and also that Princess Orietta Doria Pamphili and her husband Frank George Wignall Pogson, “both Catholics”, “adopted two children: Jonathan Paul Andrew Pogson Doria Pamphilj (born 1963) – who became Jonathan Doria Pamphilj in 2006 by deed poll – in 2006 formed a civil partnership at the British Embassy in Switzerland with Elson Edeno Braga, a Brazilian citizen, and has two children by surrogacy: Emily Doria Pamphilj (b. 2006) and Filippo Andrea Doria Pamphilj (b. 2007). Gesine Margaret Orietta Mary Pogson Doria Pamphilj (born 1964) […] The ability of Jonathan Pogson Doria Pamphilj’s children to inherit, after his death, was called into question in October 2009 and legal action was taken by his sister on this point. On the basis that Jonathan Pogson Doria Pamphilj’s children were born of surrogate mothers, Gesine Floridi claimed that a recently passed Italian law on assisted procreation debarred them from inheriting. In 2010, a court in Rome declined to hear the case.”
The failure of the Holy Father – among how many others in Holy Orders in Rome? – to decry the commodification of children and abuse of women – indeed, however many of “the four sins that cry to Heaven” may be discerned to be committed by the hosts of the Anglican Centre – is among the gross “stumbling blocks that hinder the proclamation of the Gospel” which emphatically work against taking “our preaching to heart”.
Referring to Pope Leo XIV’s words in his meeting with the Anglican woman in fancy dress:
“Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Anything more than this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:37)
He didn’t follow this advice! Our Lord was pretty clear on how to deal with sin and heretics. I understand that if the Pope had no alternative but to meet her (because of unavoidable diplomatic courtesy) he should at least have made himself clear from the start that she wasn’t who she pretended to be. Anglican orders are “null and void” because the Anglican community broke from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church under Henry VIII, cruelly persecuted Catholics for centuries afterwards who wouldn’t go along with it, and has never apologised for doing so. I wonder if the few remaining Anglicans in the UK ever think about this.
It is also true what someone said above: we shouldn’t have to read through the Pope’s whole speech to find the words “intractable differences” to understand that he knows there could be no recognition of her supposed “church” with the Catholic Church.
Dear Veronica scriptor velum,
I understand that if the Pope had no alternative but to meet her (because of unavoidable diplomatic courtesy) he should at least have made himself clear from the start that she wasn’t who she pretended to be.
In the sense of “making clear” that you mean, that is even less possible.
Also, our Lord forbade lying and duplicity. He did not forbid diplomacy, he did not command primitiveness, he did not excuse not applying prudence and thinking to things one hears people say.
I know there are some people who apparently treat primitiveness as a virtue. They are wrong. At there very best it a personality trait on the level of “lack of athletic prowess”: morally neutral but the lesser good, excusable if not chosen at will, still a minor issue if it’s not excusable but one happens to have other priorities. It may even be worse than that; but it’s not a virtue.
And our Lord did make use of subtlety. I’m not only talking about “I’m not going up to Jerusalem” when it’s not time yet for the final confrontation is, to Him, very compatible to going up to Jerusalem a few days later in a non-open manner. I chiefly thought about the fact that he took the Scriptural words “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and actually proved resurrection of the dead from them! If you think about it…
(For those who have a feeling that in the “some people who apparently treat primitiveness as a virtue”, I might include the current American president: Yes, the feeling is justified.
Note “treat as a virtue”, which is a problem, not “be”, which would be no or almost no problem. Donald Trump used to, and presumably still is, able to be subtle, he has been subtle in the past [e. g. in interviews from the 1990s], but now chooses not to be. That is a pity, and he is wrong there, as he is in other, more important things.
And the fact that we have had in the past our disagreement with some of his political opponents on very important issues, and continue to have them, does not give any authoritative air to his preferences when these are wrong. Better to trust in God than to build on princes.)
Imrahil,
I’d be interested in your thoughts about “primitiveness” and St. John the Baptist – and about St. Nathan in his sudden switch from subtlety to “Tu es ille vir”. And in the context of the apparent differences in St. Paul’s reportedly saying on one occasion “Nesciebam fratres quia princeps est sacerdotum. Scriptum est enim : Principem populi tui non maledices” and on another writing “Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam, in faciem ei restiti, quia reprehensibilis erat.”
I have seen it (to my mind, plausibly) suggested that what you characterize as Mr. Trump’s “treat[ing] primitiveness as a virtue” is in fact part of his choosing “to be subtle” in a distinct rhetorical sense, a ‘tool of his diplomacy’.