SSPX told Vatican to ‘acknowledge its own errors’ in refusal of 2018 agreement

Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the former head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said in a recent interview that the main obstacle to the Vatican’s canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is its lack of “acceptance of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Magisterium.”

In an interview with La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, Pozzo expressed his disappointment with the SSPX’s decision to consecrate new bishops without papal approval this month, recalling that the Society had refused to accept the Vatican’s terms for regularization in 2018 discussions. 

He explained that these terms involved the acceptance of a Doctrinal Declaration proposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“In the autumn of 2018, Cardinal Ladaria and I met with the new Superior of the SSPX, Father Davide Pagliarani, elected in July at the Chapter meeting, who informed us that he would not sign the Declaration, deeming it insufficient and inadequate to address the difficulties and objections raised by the SSPX — and that it was Rome that should acknowledge its own errors,” Pozzo recounted.

It was at this point that Pope Francis suppressed the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which was founded by Pope John Paul II to facilitate the reconciliation of traditionalists formerly associated with SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Since 2009, the commission had been dialoguing with the SSPX’s Superior to attempt a reconciliation with the SSPX itself. Francis “transferred competence for any future relations with the SSPX to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF),” Pozzo recalled.

The main “knots” to be “untied” in the way of the SSPX’s reconciliation, Pozzo said, “are the acceptance of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Magisterium.”

He went on to list the main points of the Doctrinal Declaration proposed by the CDF for acceptance by the SSPX that Pozzo himself was satisfied with:

(a) The SSPX was asked to accept the Catholic truth that Christ the Lord has entrusted to the Magisterium “the deposit of faith — that is, Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be kept safe, defended, and interpreted” and that “the Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on.” The Magisterium of the Church, in turn, has the authority to explicate or make explicit even prior magisterial documents, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in conformity with the truths of the Catholic faith and in the light of the perennial Tradition that progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit — not as a contrary novelty, but as a deeper understanding of the depositum fidei …

(b) The SSPX was asked to recognize that the Second Vatican Council must be understood in the light of the whole of Tradition and on the basis of the constant Magisterium of the Church, while the possibility of legitimate discussion and theological clarification regarding the formulation of particular points of the conciliar documents — or regarding the subsequent reforms of the liturgy and of canon law — remains always open.

(c) The SSPX was asked to recognize the validity of the Rite of Holy Mass and of the Sacraments legitimately celebrated according to the liturgical books in their editio typica, promulgated by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.

While the SSPX has not publicly shared precisely which clauses of the Doctrinal Declaration it has refused, it affirmed in 2018 that an “irreducible doctrinal divergence” prevented its agreement with the Vatican. The Society has publicly shared that it takes issue with certain portions of Vatican II documents that it says cannot be reconciled with previous Church magisterial teaching.

For example, the SSPX has highlighted problems with Dignitatis Humanae, which states that “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom,” in apparent contradiction to Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors, which condemns the idea that “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”

Another document highlighted as problematic by the SSPX is Unitatis Redintegratio, which states that “during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.” This seems to contradict the repeated teaching of the Church, as expressed by, for example, Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, in which he condemned interreligious gatherings and stated, “ … this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

In fact, Pozzo clarified in 2016 that some texts of the Second Vatican Council that are not doctrinal and are thus not binding on the Catholic conscience. Pozzo specifically named texts with which the SSPX takes issue, including Nostra Aetate on interreligious dialogue; the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism; and the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, and explained:

They are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. On can (thus legitimately) continue to discuss these pastoral aspects after the (proposed) canonical approval (of the SSPX) in order to lead us to further (and acceptable) clarifications.

New Jersey diocese suppresses Traditional Latin Mass

A Traditional Latin Mass in New Jersey has been suppressed after the retirement of a priest who offered the TLM.

Bishop Joseph Andrew Williams of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, has decided not to renew the indult (permission) to continue the Traditional Latin Mass that was offered at St. Gianna Beretta Molla parish in Northfield, according to a recent report.

LifeSiteNews confirmed that the last TLM at St. Gianna was held Sunday, June 28, just before the retirement of Father Anthony J. Manuppella. 

According to several parishioners, the priest who has taken over as an administrator knows how to say the TLM, but lacking permission to offer it, is instead offering Novus Ordo Masses in Latin, ad orientem, at noon on Sundays.

The parish does not disclose its noon Masses on its website, reportedly after Fr. Manuppella was “chastised by the chancery for publicizing the noon Latin Mass on the parish website site and in the bulletin.”

A Responsa issued by Archbishop Arthur Roche, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to clarify question about Pope Francis’ Latin Mass-crushing Traditionis Custodes stated that TLMs are not to be advertised in parish Mass schedules.

LifeSite has heard from multiple parishioners who eagerly hope the parish will return to the Traditional Latin Mass.

The bishop “has a great opportunity to get on with saving souls and not follow the horrible decisions of (Pope Francis) that halts the only reverent, growing portion of the Catholic Church,” said one anonymous parishioner, who further noted that the introduction of the Novus Ordo was followed by a “steady decline in participating Catholics.”

“Pray. Hit the beads. Pray the pope, bishop and cardinals come to their senses. There is no need to stop the TLM and it has no impact on the other Masses. The TLM fits real well in Northfield,” the parishioner added.

LifeSiteNews contacted the Diocese of Camden for comment but had not received a response as of publishing.

Traditionis Custodes, which led to the suppression of dozens of Latin Masses around the world, has been denounced by clergy and scholars as a repudiation of the perennial practice of the Catholic Church and even of solemn Church teaching.

Cardinal Raymond Burke has affirmed that the traditional liturgy is not something that can be excluded from the “valid expression of the lex orandi.”

“It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority,” the cardinal wrote in 2021.

Traditionis Custodes also defies Quo Primum, which permanently authorized the traditional Mass, declaring that it may be used “freely and lawfully” in “perpetuity.” The 1570 bull further declares regarding the “Tridentine” rite:

This Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain … that this present document cannot be revoked or modified but remains always valid and retains its full force.

‘Obstructive’ Christian Brothers leader has ‘moral obligation’ to act as nominee in abuse cases, judge says

A High Court judge has strongly criticised the leader of the Christian Brothers for his “obstructive” approach towards lawsuits alleging physical and sexual abuse by members of the religious community.

Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said Brother David Gibson had made a “morally extraordinary decision” to refuse to act as a nominee for the congregation for the purpose of dealing with such lawsuits.

The refusal by him and his predecessor, Brother Edmund Garvey, to do so has made it much harder for survivors to progress damages claims.

As an unincorporated association, the Christian Brothers cannot be sued if it does not provide a nominee.

The only way around this is for a survivor to sue everyone who was a member of the community at the time they were abused, under the doctrine of vicarious liability. This has created significant difficulties for victims, not least because the Christian Brothers will only release the names of members on foot of a court order.

To further complicate matters, Brother Gibson has also insisted he does not have addresses for former brothers who are no longer members of the religious community, leaving victims with no obvious means of tracking them down. Critics of the controversial legal strategy claim it is designed to protect the congregation’s assets.

Figures compiled by the Charities Regulator indicate the Christian Brothers had net assets of €54.8m in 2024.

The strategy came into focus this week when a victim of paedophile former Christian Brother Liam Coughlan made an application to the High Court.

The man was seeking an order compelling the release of information that would assist his lawyers locate former brothers so they could be served, in circumstances where Brother Gibson had refused to act as a nominee.

Ms Justice Gearty accepted there was no legal obligation on Brother Gibson to do so, but said it was “a morally extraordinary decision”.

The judge said it was “almost unbelievable” that the provincial leader of the Christian Brothers “doesn’t consider it a moral obligation to nominate, to let himself be the nominee, when there would be no personal opprobrium visited at his door whatsoever”.

“There is a moral obligation but, obviously, I can’t enforce that,” she said.

The victim’ s counsel Andrew Nugent, who appeared instructed by solicitor Philip Treacy of Coleman Legal, said Brother Gibson had “flatly refused” to act as a nominee or to accept liability and had stated that any proceedings would be fully defended.

As a result, his client had to secure a court order for the release of the names of all members of the order at the time of the abuse. Details of 94 current members were produced.

Mr Nugent said he expected that none of those men would enter an appearance after being served, necessitating his side to file motions for judgment in default of an appearance against each of them. Mr Nugent said the names of 364 former members had also been provided, each of whom would also have to be served.

However, Brother Gibson had insisted he did not have information on their whereabouts, counsel said.

Brother Gibson’s barrister Isabelle Aylmer, appearing instructed by Frank Buttimer & Company, said Mr Nugent was essentially accusing her client of frustrating the efforts of the plaintiff.

But Brother Gibson could not just release personal information of more than 300 former brothers “on a whim”, she said.

In response, Ms Justice Gearty said Brother Gibson “could solve all the privacy issues for all of these 300-plus members by simply acting as nominee ”.

The judge said the flat denial of responsibility, in circumstances where Coughlan has been convicted of sexually abusing a child, “struck me as interesting”.

Ms Justice Gearty also said she was “very concerned” about the amount of court resources that were being taken up and that she considered “some” of Brother Gibson’s approach to matters “to have been obstructive”.

The judge said she was considering narrowing the order sought to one compelling the disclosure of email addresses and telephone numbers for former members.

Ms Justice Gearty adjourned the matter to allow Ms Aylmer take instructions on whether Brother Gibson could comply with an order in those terms for all of the former members.

The judge indicated that if Brother Gibson could not do so, then some former members may have to be served via a national newspaper notice.

The legal strategy was previously highlighted in the case of Ken Grace, who received an apology and a settlement in 2023 over abuse suffered at the hands of Paul Hendrick, former principal of Westland Row CBS in Dublin.

His case lasted four-and-a-half years and involved 25 court appearances before it was resolved. Brother Garvey, the provincial leader at the time, refused to act as a nominee, forcing Mr Grace to sue 120 Brothers individually.

The plaintiff in the case before Ms Justice Gearty was abused by Liam Coughlan (90) while attending school in Co Kilkenny in the 1970s.

In 2023, Coughlan, of Pine Grove, Tramore, Co Waterford, received two jail terms, of three years and two months and four-and-a-half years, for 49 counts of indecent assault.

Statement by the Bishops of the Tuam Ecclesiastical Province on the retirement of Archbishop Montemayor

The mission of Archbishop Luis Mariano Montemayor as our Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland has been relatively short, but it has been especially significant for the Dioceses of the Tuam Province.

For some years now, the Bishops of the Tuam province have been working together to reconfigure our six Dioceses for a renewal of our mission.  

Since his arrival, Archbishop Montemayor has been very supportive of our efforts.  

With his help, we now have three new pastoral and administrative groupings, moving towards amalgamation into three new Dioceses.

As well as engaging directly with us as Bishops, Archbishop Montemayor has visited all of our Dioceses, meeting with people and listening to them.  

Many who participated in those various gatherings commented on how pleasant and how personable the Apostolic Nuncio was, but also how open and direct he was about the mission entrusted to us all as Catholics in the 21st century.

We join in thanking Archbishop Montemayor for the care that he has given to our local Churches, as well as for the support and encouragement he has given to each of us as Bishops.  

We wish him every blessing and good health in his retirement.

Archbishop Francis Duffy, Archbishop of Tuam and Bishop of Killala

Bishop Kevin Doran, Bishop of Achonry and Bishop of Elphin

Bishop Michael Duignan, Bishop of Clonfert and Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh, and Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora

Primate expresses gratitude to Archbishop Montemayor on his resignation as Nuncio to Ireland

On behalf of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, I wish to express my appreciation to His Excellency Archbishop Luis Mariano Montemayor, Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland, following the announcement today by Pope Leo XIV, of his resignation from this role.

Since his appointment to Ireland on 25 February 2023, by the late Pope Francis RIP, Archbishop Montemayor has been warmly welcomed by parishioners and clergy across the length and breadth of the island.  

His time as Nuncio has coincided with the Synodal Pathway consultations and assemblies and he has also engaged in listening and discussions in several dioceses around the island.  His friendliness and good nature has been appreciated, and his approachability has been particularly welcomed by many.  

Archbishop Montemayor’s guidance and support to the Irish bishops regarding diocesan review and restructuring has been sensitive, collaborative and much appreciated.

I wish to thank Archbishop Montemayor for this commitment and dedication during his tenure here in Ireland.  

I pray for many blessings and good health for Archbishop Montemayor’s retirement.

Italian archbishop proposes that a woman "co-preside" at Mass alongside a priest

The statements of the archbishop-abbot of Modena-Nonantola and bishop of Carpi, Monsignor Erio Castellucci, have opened a new controversy regarding the liturgy and the ministerial priesthood. 

In an interview granted to Notizie Carpi, the prelate raised the possibility of a “co-presidency” of the Eucharist between a priest and a woman, a formula unknown both to the liturgical tradition of the Church and to canon law and the Magisterium.

“While women cannot access the ordained ministry, and therefore neither the diaconate, one could imagine a shared presidency of the Eucharist: a woman would preside over the Liturgy of the Word and a priest would preside over the Eucharistic liturgy. It would be a prophecy of co-presidency,” Castellucci stated.

The proposal introduces a concept nonexistent in Catholic liturgical doctrine. The Church has never contemplated a “co-presidency” of the Mass nor does it understand the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic liturgy as two autonomous celebrations that could be presided over by different persons. The Eucharist constitutes a single act of worship whose president is the priest or the bishop, who acts in persona Christi.

A proposal foreign to the discipline of the Church

Although the lay faithful—men and women—may exercise various ministries during the celebration, such as proclaiming the readings (except the Gospel), directing the singing, or performing other instituted liturgical services, the presidency of the Mass belongs exclusively to the ordained minister.

Therefore, the terminology used by Castellucci goes beyond a simple broadening of lay participation. By speaking of “co-presidency,” he introduces a category that does not exist in the liturgical books or in the Code of Canon Law and that directly affects the Catholic understanding of the ministerial priesthood and the very nature of the Eucharist.

A debate already resolved by the Magisterium

The archbishop’s statements come at a time when certain ecclesial sectors continue to call for an expansion of the sacramental role of women in the Church. However, the Magisterium has set precise limits on this issue.

In the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Saint John Paul II declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” Likewise, the various commissions established during recent pontificates to study the possible female diaconate have not resulted in any modification of ecclesiastical discipline.

In this context, the proposal of a “co-presidency” of the Mass raises doctrinal questions that go beyond a mere pastoral initiative, as it affects essential elements of the Eucharistic celebration defined by the constant tradition of the Church.

Awaiting clarification

To date, neither the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith nor the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has commented on Castellucci’s statements.

Meanwhile, the Italian archbishop’s initiative once again highlights the tensions existing between certain pastoral proposals promoted in some ecclesial circles and the liturgical and sacramental doctrine consistently maintained by the Church. 

It remains to be seen whether the Holy See deems it appropriate to issue a public clarification on a proposal that, by its formulation, has no precedent in Catholic liturgical tradition.

Investigation into Russian espionage in Italy reveals an alleged mission linked to the Vatican

An investigation opened in Italy into an alleged espionage network serving Russian military intelligence has incorporated an element that directly affects the Holy See. 

Among the conversations intercepted by investigators is one in which one of the former Italian agents arrested claims to have received, years earlier, the assignment to act “with the Vatican,” a reference whose meaning remains unclear.

The case came to light after the arrest in Rome of two former members of the Italian secret services, Gavino Raoul Piras and Vincenzo Di Pasquale, accused of having supplied classified information to the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service, for years. 

The investigation, jointly led by the ordinary Prosecutor’s Office and the Military Prosecutor’s Office of Rome, maintains that both men supplied reserved documentation related to Italian and NATO defense in exchange for cash payments.

A meeting recorded by investigators

According to documentation published by Corriere della Sera, one of the key conversations was recorded on October 9, 2025, during a meeting between Piras and the alleged Russian agent Mikhail Astakhov in the town of Bracciano.

During that meeting, the former Italian agent expressed his dissatisfaction with the remuneration received and recalled a previous mission that, he said, had been assigned to him in writing by his Russian interlocutors.

In the conversation, Piras stated that when “you, together with the general,” ordered him to proceed “with the Vatican,” he carried out that instruction, even making “a contribution to Pope Francis.”

A mission whose content remains unknown

The investigation does not allow determination of what exactly that reference to the Vatican meant or what the specific objective of the alleged mission was.

The judicial documents known so far do not clarify whether it involved gathering information on the diplomatic activity of the Holy See, establishing contacts in curial circles, monitoring certain individuals, or carrying out any other activity related to the Vatican.

Nor has it been specified to whom the “contribution” mentioned by the suspect would have gone or what its purpose would have been.

The hypotheses raised by the investigation

In the absence of details in the judicial documentation, the portal Silere non possum notes that the reference to working “with the Vatican” admits different interpretations, although it stresses that none of them can be considered proven with the information available.

Among the possible hypotheses, it mentions obtaining information on the diplomacy of the Holy See, the attempt to open channels of access to certain curial circles through donations and personal relationships, the surveillance of individuals considered of interest, or the collection of information on ecclesiastical officials and other interlocutors linked to the Vatican.

The same outlet highlights that, for the time being, there is no public information allowing determination of which of these possibilities, if any, actually corresponds to the activity carried out by the suspect.

Likewise, there is also no record that the Holy See had knowledge of these alleged actions or that there was any collaboration by Vatican bodies.

A method typical of classic espionage

The investigation describes a system of information exchange based on discreet meetings in various locations in Lazio, the use of micro SD cards hidden in caches, handwritten notes, and cash payments.

According to investigators, Piras would have delivered classified information for years on defense programs, weapons systems, military plans, and other reserved documents, as well as data relating to members of the Italian intelligence services.

During the searches carried out at the homes of the suspects, approximately 20,000 euros in cash were seized.

The investigation remains open

To date, the Italian authorities have not attributed any responsibility to the Vatican nor have they indicated that the Holy See had knowledge of the activities under investigation.

The reference to the Vatican appears only in a conversation intercepted between two of the suspects and forms part of the material that continues to be analyzed by the magistrates in charge of the case. 

The investigation remains open and, for now, no new elements have been made public that would allow the real scope of the alleged mission mentioned by the former Italian agent to be known.

Audit of the Basilica of Guadalupe… The main finding

Process, the monthly publication of political analysis, published in its July 2026 edition an article, “The case of embezzlement of alms that splashes Cardinal Aguiar Retes” about the financial scandals at the Basilica of Guadalupe. The same was done by the program “Sacro y Profano,” on July 1, when it addressed the topic with the rigor of analysis by specialists converging on one point: the demand for transparency and information on the results of the investigations.

Process reported one of the core elements, the Deloitte audit, which, it claims, is known by the Mexican Episcopal Conference according to statements made to that publication by the director of communication and press, Óscar Cruz, since the “archbishop has kept us informed of the results”; however, he also did not provide details about the investigations, according to the same publication.

The external audit commissioned to the firm Deloitte is a central part of the prior canonical investigation (IP 17/2025) opened in October 2025 following complaints by the Guadalupe chapter against the management of the rector, Efraín Hernández Díaz. However, its complete results have not been made public to date. This limits any detailed opinion on findings, rulings, or recommendations, but allows for a rigorous analysis of the process, its context, implications, and the reasons why the opacity surrounding it has deepened the institutional crisis.

What is known with certainty about the audit are data and statements from the ecclesiastical authorities themselves. Carlos Aguiar Retes personally confirmed that Deloitte, one of the four largest auditing firms worldwide, carried out the review of the finances of the Insigne and National Basilica of Guadalupe. The stated objective was to examine the administrative, economic, and patrimonial management denounced by the canons (problems in contracts, extraction of reserved documentation, internal climate, financial balances, and even tax issues).

The archbishop’s statement, when announcing the rector’s reinstatement, affirmed before the chapter that “having concluded these processes of the audit carried out by the firm Deloitte and by the ecclesiastical tribunal of our archdiocese, and there being no cause that prevents it,” Hernández Díaz would resume his duties. This formula is deliberately legalistic but terse: it does not state that the rector has been exonerated, nor does it summarize conclusions, nor detail whether irregularities were detected or whether corrections were implemented as a direct consequence of an audit.

Given Deloitte’s profile and the type of entity—a sanctuary with civil recognition as a religious association and a high volume of resources—the audit likely included a review of financial statements and income from donations, sales in shops and collection boxes, the main sources of resources for the Basilica, rents from premises and sales spaces to souvenir or restaurant companies, trusts such as the one that administers the Cerrito and spaces of the complex, as well as expenditures such as the titanic task of maintenance, pastoral work, personnel and operations, in addition to the control of the Basilica’s properties such as the priestly houses and other properties it owns.

The evaluation of internal controls, especially regarding cash collection, the collection boxes and systems for gathering coins and bills that generate significant daily volumes, their handling, accounts and donations in other currencies, especially in dollars, and whether their conversion has been to Mexican currency.

The analysis of contracts and acquisitions flagged as problematic by the chapter. Review of regulatory compliance, canon law on temporal goods, and Mexican legislation applicable to religious associations regarding tax obligations before the SAT and due transparency as applicable. Possible forensic component or investigation of irregularities if the initial complaints justified it due to diversions, embezzlement, control weaknesses or irregular and even illicit handling of the entity’s resources and how the economy of the Archdiocese of Mexico has participated.

The Basilica receives tens of millions of pilgrims per year. Although it does not publish official detailed figures on its direct income, indirect estimates and journalistic reports speak of flows of hundreds of millions of pesos annually in offerings and donations alone, in addition to a much larger tourist economic impact, which in peak periods such as December exceeds 20 billion pesos. This makes an external audit especially relevant due to the volume of cash transactions and the sensitivity of the spiritual and material heritage. Perhaps one of the main sources, one of the most reliable, for knowing the financial estimates is from the period of the previous rector, Father Salvador Martínez Ávila, who faced truly extraordinary circumstances such as those of COVID-19, which put the site in financial difficulties due to the drop caused by the pandemic.

The decision not to make the results public, not even an executive summary or the opinion with qualifications, is the most criticized aspect and has direct consequences such as the erosion of trust: the faithful, donors, canons, and external observers cannot verify whether the denounced practices of economic management irregularities or lack of control were corrected. The rector’s reinstatement without public explanation generated the perception that the audit served more as a formality than as an instrument of accountability.

No less important is institutional legitimacy. In canon law, decisions on removal or reinstatement of offices must be based on evidence. The formula used by the archbishop, “there being no cause that prevents it,” was weaker than a declaration of innocence or that “no irregularities were proven.” The absence of transparency weakens the moral authority of the decision.

There is a risk to the credibility of the Church. The Basilica is one of the most important Marian shrines in the world. The opacity fueled by Aguiar Retes has fed speculation and rumors, some of them serious and unverified in serious sources, but present in the sensationalism of likes and subscriptions on social media. This contrasts with the transparency standards that the Church has promoted in recent years at the universal level.

There are also consequences in the canonical and civil dimensions. While internal processes may have confidentiality reservations, the management of the Church’s temporal goods must be prudent, transparent, and ordered to the mission in accordance with canons 1254-1310 of the Code of Canon Law. In the legal sphere, religious associations have obligations of accountability to civil authorities.

Since the report is not public, it is not possible to answer with certainty essential and necessary questions. Was Deloitte’s opinion clean, qualified, adverse, or with disclaimers? Were material weaknesses in internal controls, irregularities in contracts, or in the handling of resources identified? What recommendations were issued and what is their degree of implementation? Are there findings that justify additional supervisory measures or structural reforms in the governance of the sanctuary?

Although the Deloitte audit was a positive step in the intention to bring order and to affirm or dismiss the chapter’s accusations, incorporating an international firm of prestige to provide technical rigor and impartiality to the canonical investigation should endorse a positive aspect in the government of Carlos Aguiar, but it is not so. The lack of publication of its results has transformed the audit into a new element of the crisis instead of a mechanism for resolution. 

As long as the results remain reserved, the crisis of the Basilica of Guadalupe can hardly be considered overcome, regardless of the administrative reinstatement of the rector or the proposal that, in the coming days, there will already be the appointment of a new rector with the approval of the Mexican Episcopal Conference.

If summaries, opinions, or official statements are published in the future, it will be possible to carry out a more technical and precise analysis. But now, the main public finding is the absence of transparency surrounding an audit that, paradoxically, was requested precisely to generate clarity, certainty, and, above all, as the Gospel affirms, because there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed; nor hidden, that will not come to light. (Lk 8, 17)

Alleged Prophecy of Padre Pio Against Archbishop Lefebvre: An Old Legend Resurfaces

With each significant event concerning the Society of Saint Pius X, the same story resurfaces. 

After the episcopal consecrations of July 1, 2026, several websites and social networks once again circulated the alleged "prophecy" of Padre Pio announcing to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that he would disobey the Pope and cause division in the Church.

Presented as irrefutable testimony, this story is nevertheless devoid of any serious historical basis. Its origin is late, its source is extremely questionable, its sole witness is unknown to Padre Pio specialists, and above all, it is categorically denied by Archbishop Lefebvre himself in a handwritten letter from 1990.

An Authentic Encounter

No one disputes that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre met Padre Pio; the meeting took place on March 27, 1967, Easter Monday, in San Giovanni Rotondo. 

The Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Archbishop Lefebvre, came to ask the famous Capuchin to pray for the extraordinary general chapter that the Spiritans were preparing to hold in the context of the application of the reforms stemming from the Second Vatican Council. 1  The "aggiornamento" was then required in all religious institutes and the archbishop already feared the serious consequences that these transformations could entail.

This concern did not go unheard by Padre Pio. Shortly before, the Capuchin superior general had also come to ask him to pray for the general chapter of his order, which was tasked with drafting new constitutions. 

According to several witnesses, the holy friar reacted sharply, declaring: “This is nothing but talk and ruin!” Later, upon learning that new constitutions were being prepared, he reportedly gave vent to his grief again, exclaiming: “But what are you doing in Rome? What are you plotting? You want to change even the rule of Saint Francis!” 2

The meeting between Archbishop Lefebvre and Padre Pio was, however, extremely simple. The archbishop was accompanied by Father Barbara and Brother Félin, a Spiritan friar, while Padre Pio, supported by two Capuchins, went to the confessional. After briefly explaining the reason for his visit, Archbishop Lefebvre asked the holy friar to pray for the Spiritan chapter.

When he then asked for his blessing, Padre Pio replied with profound humility: "No, Monsignor, it is you who should bless me!"

Archbishop Lefebvre then gave him his episcopal blessing, Padre Pio kissed his ring and continued on his way to the confessional.

A now-famous photograph immortalizes this moment.

While the meeting is beyond doubt, the content of the alleged "prophetic dialogue" rests exclusively on a late testimony, not corroborated by other sources and explicitly contradicted by Bishop Lefebvre himself.

A Story That Emerged Sixteen Years Later

The account of the alleged prophecy only appeared publicly in 1983, sixteen years after the events and fifteen years after Padre Pio's death. It was published in La Domenica del Corriere on April 23, 1983, by Pier Carpi, who claimed to have heard the story from a certain Professor Bruno Rabajotti, presented as a direct witness to the scene.

However, no document dating from 1967 mentions this conversation, no independent witness confirms it, no known associate of Padre Pio refers to it, and above all, it only surfaced after the crisis between Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome was already widely known to the public. This simple observation alone warrants the utmost suspicion.

Unreliable Sources

The very personalities of the authors of this account reinforce these reservations: Pier Carpi was neither a Church historian nor a scholarly biographer of Padre Pio. A prolific writer, he was primarily known for his works on esotericism, occultism, secret societies, theosophy, and alleged prophecies. His name also appears on lists linked to the P2 Masonic lodge, even though he denied ever having actually belonged to this organization.

The alleged witness, Bruno Rabajotti, also raises many questions. Padre Pio specialists find no trace of this mysterious "favorite spiritual son" outside of the books in which he himself recounts his memories, and none of Padre Pio's closest actual spiritual sons seem to have ever heard of him.

A Testimony Riddled with Implausibilities

In 1987, Franco Fede's The Secret of Padre Pio was published in Italy , reproducing in about thirty pages the complete testimony attributed to Bruno Rabajotti. Reading this text reveals numerous assertions irreconcilable with Catholic teaching. 

Rabajotti attributes to Padre Pio, in particular, that the gift of tongues is not a supernatural charism exceptionally granted by God, but a capacity accessible to all those who know how to "speak the language of the spirit." He also ascribes to the Capuchin saint remarks suggesting that people could somehow "save themselves" or "heal themselves" through a simple inner balance.

Specialists in the cause of Padre Pio's beatification were not mistaken; this testimony was never included among the official documents of the trial.

Archbishop Lefebvre's Response

Faced with the persistent spread of this story, Archbishop Lefebvre personally responded on August 8, 1990, to a priest of the Society who asked him what to think of this alleged prophecy.

Here is the letter.

"This slander, this complete fabrication, has been circulating in Italy for several years. I have already denied it, but lies die hard. There is not a single word of truth in the page of this magazine of which you sent me a photocopy.

The meeting, which took place after Easter 1967, lasted two minutes. I was accompanied by Father Barbara and Brother Félin, a Spiritan friar. I met Padre Pio in a corridor, as he was going to the confessional, supported by two Capuchin friars.

I explained to him in a few words the purpose of my visit: to ask him to bless the Congregation of the Holy Spirit which was about to hold an extraordinary general chapter, like all religious congregations, under the sign of aggiornamento, a chapter which I feared would cause serious difficulties.

Then Padre Pio exclaimed: “Me, bless an archbishop? No, no! It is you who must bless me!”

And he bowed to receive my blessing. I blessed him. He kissed my episcopal ring and continued on his way to the confessional.

That was the whole encounter, nothing more, nothing less.

Inventing a story like the one you sent me a copy of requires a satanic imagination and a genuine will to lie. Its author is a son of the father of lies.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set the simple truth straight once again.

With warm regards in Christ and Mary.

✠ Marcel Lefebvre"

The clarity of this denial leaves no room for ambiguity; Bishop Lefebvre describes this account as "slander," "a complete fabrication," and a "lie."

A Legend Perpetuated by Repetition

Despite this explicit denial, the story continued to circulate, it was taken up in several popular works devoted to Padre Pio, particularly in the English-speaking world, where the book Padre Pio Gleanings reproduces the dialogue without any critical analysis.

The canonization of Padre Pio in 2002 gave new visibility to this legend, which has been regularly relayed on the Internet ever since; the consecrations of July 1, 2026 have given it a new resurgence in relevance.

A lie can travel the world in moments. The truth sometimes takes years to establish, but it always prevails in the end for those who sincerely seek it.

Czech court to weigh clearing cardinal jailed by communists

A second cardinal and a third senior churchman may be rehabilitated this year for mistreatment under the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. 

The District Court in Litoměřice, in what is now the Czech Republic, will consider a proposal for the rehabilitation of Cardinal Štěpán Trochta, the former bishop of Litoměřice, over his internment between 1950 and 1953.

The public prosecutor asked the relevant authorities to carry out an investigation into the archives and, based on the outcome, found the initiative reasonable. He has already submitted a proposal for the judicial rehabilitation of Trochta over the illegal deprivation of his personal freedom. A date for consideration of the proposal has not yet been set.

“I firmly believe that the name of Štěpán Trochta, my predecessor in Litoměřice, will be cleared through the courts,” said Archbishop Stanislav Přibyl of Prague, who is also apostolic administrator of Litoměřice.

The verdict that sent Trochta to prison, handed down in a political trial for “treason and conspiracy,” was overturned in 1968, but the Czech courts have not dealt with his earlier illegal internment. The initiative for full rehabilitation came from Jan Kratochvil, director of the Museum of Czech, Slovak, and Ruthenian Exile of the 20th Century, and the lawyer Lubomír Müller.

It is “important to clean his name in this way as well,” said Kratochvil, whose family was friends with the prelate.

Salesian, prisoner, cardinal

Štěpán Trochta (1905–1974) was one of the first Czech members of the Society of St. Francis de Sales, the so-called Salesians. He studied in Turin, Italy, where he obtained a doctorate in theology. He returned to Czechoslovakia, and when Nazi Germany occupied the country, he was arrested for his contacts with and support for the resistance and was sent to several concentration camps.

He was “ready to work, full of energy, enthusiasm, and willing to work hard.” Trochta was also a good organizer and a gifted speaker and writer who “enjoyed being among the boys, even though he gradually had to spend more time in administration,” according to “Life and Legacy,” a booklet published by the Salesians on the 50th anniversary of the prelate’s death.

Shortly before the communists took over in Czechoslovakia, he was appointed bishop of Litoměřice. He became the spokesman for the episcopate of Czechoslovakia in difficult negotiations with the new government. 

In the end, the regime interned him in his residence and later imprisoned him. Although he was released sooner than expected, he was not allowed to continue as a bishop and had to work as a manual laborer.

In 1969, when he was already back in the Diocese of Litoměřice, Pope Paul VI created him a cardinal “in pectore” — that is, secretly.

When Trochta died five years later, the funeral was attended by many of the faithful, including cardinals from Berlin, Krakow, and Vienna. 

Archbishop Karol Wojtyła of Krakow, who later became Pope John Paul II, reportedly asked to concelebrate but was not permitted to do so. Wojtyła then defied the ban on foreign participants speaking, delivering a short address over the coffin in which he called the deceased prelate a martyr. 

The funeral Mass was celebrated by the Czech bishop and future Cardinal František Tomášek.

A series of Czech rehabilitations

The case may become one more in a recent series of rehabilitations in the Czech Republic.

In February, the District Court of Prague recognized the unjust treatment of Cardinal Josef Beran, the former archbishop of Prague, who was interned in several locations. 

Last month, the District Court in Olomouc rehabilitated Archbishop Josef Karel Matocha of Olomouc, also over his internment.

In 2024, the Regional Court in Hradec Králové rehabilitated Father Josef Toufar, who was illegally arrested and tortured to death.

At lunch with the poor, Pope Leo XIV calls on society to eliminate the causes of poverty, injustice

Pope Leo XIV on July 11 expressed a “hunger for justice [and] authentic charity” while attending a lunch with poor people at Castel Gandolfo outside of Rome.

“[I have] a hunger for a Church that truly knows how to open its doors and receive everyone — where there is love for all and no one is an enemy, where we all know how to live out reconciliation, forgiveness, and peace,” the pope told the crowd at the lunch, hosted in the gardens of the Borgo Laudato Si’.

Leo pointed out that the historic papal title of “pontiff” means “a builder of bridges.”

“Today, we too wish to build a bridge with all of you, with your families, and with the society in which we want to live — but to live with justice, to live where the causes of poverty can be eliminated, where the causes of the injustices that still exist in our world can be removed,” he said.

“This is the Church we want to be,” he said while thanking the organizers of the lunch, the second such event the pope has hosted since his pontificate began.

“When we gather together, when we experience this spirit of encounter around the table — the very table where Jesus is present with us — we are truly building a different world, a world of hope. Let us strive always to embody this experience of a Church of justice, peace, and love,” he said.

Before the pope spoke, Cardinal Fabio Baggio — the incoming pro-prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development — had addressed the gathering.

“At a time when the ‘throwaway culture’ risks relegating many people to the margins, this place seeks to be a small sign of hope,” the cardinal said. “Here, we wish to remind everyone — through our lives rather than just our words — that no one is superfluous in the eyes of God and that every person is a gift to the entire community.”

About 200 people facing social vulnerability from the Diocese of Rome attended the lunch with the pope.

On Aug. 17, 2025 the pope hosted a similar lunch with people living in poverty from the Diocese of Albano; he held another such luncheon on Nov. 16 of that year.

Fiat Donates 30 Electric Vehicles to Vatican in Sustainability Push

Fiat will donate 30 electric vehicles to Vatican City State to support the daily operations of employees of the governorate as part of efforts to advance more sustainable mobility and reduce the environmental impact of its fleet.

The Italian automaker said the vehicles will be used for internal operations and will help improve transportation within the Vatican through low-emissions mobility.

The initiative is part of the Ecological Conversion 2030 program launched by the Governorate of Vatican City State in 2023. The plan calls for the gradual decarbonization of the Vatican’s official fleet, with the goal of reaching zero emissions by the end of the decade.

The first phase of the project took place June 30 with the delivery of 20 Fiat Topolino vehicles. 

The handover was held on the esplanade in front of the Governorate Palace and was attended by Archbishop Emilio Nappa and lawyer Giuseppe Puglisi-Alibrandi, secretaries-general of the governorate, as well as Olivier François, CEO of Fiat and chief marketing officer of Stellantis.

The fleet will be completed with the addition of 10 Fiat TRIS vehicles, also fully electric.

The Ecological Conversion 2030 plan goes beyond the renewal of the Vatican’s vehicle fleet. The project includes a range of measures aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the Holy See’s activities, including the responsible use of natural resources, improved energy efficiency, and the modernization of technological infrastructure.

The initiative also seeks to promote cleaner energy sources for transportation, strengthen waste management policies, and support future reforestation projects as Vatican City State works toward climate neutrality.

After launching the program in 2023, the Governorate of Vatican City State said it intended to place itself among the leading states in sustainability by adopting innovative solutions that contribute both to care for the environment and to the transformation of its work and management practices.

Vatican Commission Seeks to Address Legal Loophole Facing Women Religious Suffering Abuse

Consecrated women and women religious who have suffered abuse face a significant legal loophole: Canon law and specialized commissions focus primarily on minors and adults with disabilities, leaving these women outside their scope of protection.

In practice, this means that if the victim is an adult who has received formation, it is assumed she can defend herself or that she consented. However, signs of change are beginning to emerge from the Vatican.

In addressing this issue, “it cannot simply be a label of ‘vulnerable adult,’” said Claudia Giampietro, an Italian canon lawyer working at the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM).

“We must understand that there are situations of imbalances of power … and situations involving abuse, and so it is these situations of vulnerability that we need to examine more deeply,” she told EWTN News on July 1.

One of the functions of the PCPM is to collaborate with the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the conferences and unions of religious men and women, and the institutes of consecrated life.

This enables them to gain firsthand knowledge of a complex reality: “There are a great many circumstances, situations, and people that can also affect women religious, including older ones, and so it is necessary to understand the contexts in which they work and carry out their ministry, both within their communities and also outside them,” Giampietro said.

The situation in Latin America

The Vatican helped break the taboo surrounding abuse against women religious by dedicating an extensive report to it in January 2020, published in “ Donne, Chiesa, Mondo” (“Women, Church, World”), the monthly women’s supplement to L’Osservatore Romano. Issues covered include abuse of power, sexual abuse, and the difficulties faced by many nuns both within and outside consecrated life.

In subsequent years, there has been a proliferation of studies aimed at gauging the scale of a phenomenon that was traditionally hidden. Notable among them is the research published in 2022 in the Spanish-language book “ Vulnerability, Abuse, and Care in Women's Religious Life,” edited by Sister María Rosaura González Casas, who at the time was coordinator of the Commission for the Care and Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons for the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious.

Based on a survey of 1,417 women religious, the study revealed that 19.8% reported having suffered sexual abuse, and more than half stated they had experienced some form of abuse of power at the hands of superiors, priests, formators, or bishops. Additionally, 14.3% of respondents indicated having been harassed by a priest, 9.7% by laypeople, and 8% by other religious women, figures that highlight the scope and complexity of an issue that remained largely silenced for decades.

González Casas, dean of the Institute of Anthropology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, explained that since the study was published four years ago, "greater awareness of what abuse entails has grown at all levels" in the region.

“The sisters are more aware, and bishops and priests are also more alert to it. When we conducted the survey, many women religious did not want to respond, even though it was anonymous. There was fear of speaking out. Now there is greater awareness, although clear codes of conduct are still lacking. Unconscious and internalized machismo persists in society and has permeated religious and priestly life,” she explained in comments to EWTN News.

A conference in Rome on abuse prevention

In order to promote dialogue to prevent abuse against women religious, the PCPM will organize the second annual Meeting on Abuse Prevention, focusing on consecrated life. It will be held in Rome on Dec. 9–11, centering on the theme “Communion, Care, and Justice: Mutual Relationships for a Shared Mission.”

This is not an academic conference but a synodal "learning lab" geared toward concrete results. Over the course of three days, bishops, representatives from institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life, conferences and unions of major superiors, officials from Roman Curia dicasteries, and experts in abuse prevention will collaborate through roundtables, sessions on canon law, and working groups.

“The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has already taken up this issue, and with their involvement, superiors and women religious will take it more seriously,” said Sister Jacinta Ondeng of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Kenya, who has been invited to participate in the forum.

“Safeguarding must be an essential part of community life,” emphasized the religious sister, director of the Safeguarding Initiative for Catholic Sisters, a project based at Tangaza University in Nairobi that provides training on abuse prevention across various African countries.

Many situations are covered up due to a lack of oversight

Ondeng emphasized the need for effective case follow-up. “It’s important for the relevant Vatican offices to oversee these situations because cases from Africa, and perhaps other parts of the world, are often covered up precisely due to a lack of oversight. If the relevant bodies of the Holy See intervene and evaluate cases when congregations fail to resolve them, that will help.”

She also proposes developing clear guidelines for handling abuse cases within consecrated life — similar to those established by Pope Francis in Vos Estis Lux Mundi for allegations of abuse against minors — which require bishops and superiors to take action when faced with complaints or concerning indications.

“Once it becomes clear that the Vatican is involved in matters affecting members of consecrated life, there will be changes. Human nature responds to clear rules: when they exist, people tend to act with greater prudence,” she observed.

The sister also led a revealing, as-yet-unpublished study in Africa that brought to light harrowing testimonies from consecrated women, such as:

• “Sisters leave not because they lack a vocation, but because of abuse; superiors are abusing their authority.”

• “Sisters suffer in silence rather than reporting it because they love the Church and fear damaging the reputation of a priest, bishop, or superior.”

• “I told my superior what was happening, and since the sister in question was her friend, she did nothing.”

The study’s results were presented at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome during the 2026 International Safeguarding Conference, held June 16–19 under the theme "One Commitment, Many Contexts: Safeguarding Across Cultures." The study was based on an anonymous online survey conducted between February and March in which more than 140 religious sisters from various African countries participated.

Fear of stigma and self-blame

The findings are revealing: 35.5% of congregations lack a formal safeguarding policy; 67.4% of those surveyed identify fear of stigma and self-blame as the main obstacles to reporting abuse; and 60.3% point to the absence of confidential reporting channels.

Personal factors such as “shame, guilt, and self-reproach are very prevalent among many women religious who wish to take the step of reporting abuse,” explained Ondeng, who dedicates her ministry to conducting workshops and training on safeguarding in Africa, with a particular focus on Catholic women religious.

Her goal is to raise awareness about abuse and its consequences, empower consecrated women to break the culture of silence, and promote safe environments for all. She also emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability as fundamental pillars for the success of safeguarding policies within the Church.

The religious also warned of the tendency toward cover-ups that can arise in certain ecclesial contexts.

“As numerous studies on abuse and the abuse of authority have shown, the Church hierarchy commands immense respect in many African societies,” she noted. While this is a positive cultural value, it also helps explain why individuals in positions of authority are rarely reported when involved in abusive behavior.

This phenomenon is reflected in several of the testimonies gathered during the investigation:

• “Many sisters do not want to air dirty laundry. They do not wish to publicly expose these problems, in order to protect the institute’s reputation.”

• “Some fear that if they speak out, they will be expelled from religious life, and they do not want to leave,” Ondeng added.

Lack of training in abuse prevention

Ondeng’s study also reveals that, when faced with situations of injustice or abuse, some women religious choose to leave consecrated life. Abuse can take many forms — sexual, spiritual, physical, emotional, or institutional — and, in certain cases, becomes unbearable.

However, the majority of victims remain in their communities, often out of fear of the social stigma or rejection they might suffer if they returned to their families.

Others are aware that leaving the convent could entail serious financial difficulties, as they lack employment or the means to support themselves, the religious explained.

Of the 141 women religious surveyed, more than 95% stated they had received some form of training on the prevention of sexual abuse. However, in many cases, this preparation proves insufficient.

“Most have taken short courses, but we cannot say that this 95% has received comprehensive training in safeguarding. At most, some have participated in one- or two-day sessions. That is very little, and it poses a problem,” the Kenyan religious sister noted in a statement to EWTN News.

For this reason, she insists on the need to strengthen safeguarding training as a true ministry within the Church.

“Much more preparation is needed for Catholic women religious to have the courage to speak about their experiences in their communities. Currently, training is very limited and must be ramped up to empower consecrated women,” she stated.

Added to this challenge is a significant cultural component. “People do not want to make their problems public. It is something deeply rooted in African culture, although it also occurs in European and American contexts,” she stated.

For its part, the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life does not publish aggregate figures on apostolic visitations conducted worldwide, as these are carried out on an occasional rather than a systematic basis.

The only large-scale investigation for which detailed data exist was the one conducted in the United States from 2008 to 2014, which involved 341 institutes of consecrated life and about 50,000 religious women.

“The entire Church must understand that safeguarding is a Gospel value. It’s not something imposed from the outside. The Gospel calls us to promote the dignity of every person, support those who suffer, and care for those who are hurting,” Ondeng pointed out.