High Court to consider releasing Enoch Burke despite refusal to purge contempt

A High Court judge has said he will consider whether to release Enoch Burke from prison despite the schoolteacher’s ongoing refusal to comply with a court order not to trespass at his former place of work

Justice Brian Cregan on Wednesday also considered evidence relating to fines accrued by Enoch Burke over the course of the teacher’s long-running dispute with Wilson’s Hospital School.

Lawyers for the school submitted that Burke owed some €452,100, but were asked by the judge to recalculate the figure after he raised an issue with it and indicated it should be lower.

Burke has spent over 700 days in jail across different spells over his contempt of court orders banning him from his former workplace, Wilson’s Hospital School.

The school is currently closed for summer break. 

The High Court has previously released Mr Burke from prison during school holidays, despite the teacher’s refusal to give a court undertaking not to trespass at the school.

The school suspended and later dismissed Enoch Burke over his conduct towards then-principal Niamh McShane at a school religious event in June 2022.

The confrontation arose in circumstances where McShane had earlier directed teachers to address a student by a new name and with the pronouns “they” and “them”.

Burke, an evangelical Christian, has maintained this request went against his religious beliefs.

When he continued to trespass at the school following his suspension, the school sought court orders banning him from the premises.

Enoch Burke was formally let go from his position at the school last month after a disciplinary appeals panel (Dap) threw out his appeal to his dismissal. 

Burke has indicated an intention to challenge the Dap’s finding.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Cregan reviewed several matters arising in Mr Burke’s near-four-years-long dispute with Wilson’s Hospital School.

Responding to the judge’s question about Burke’s potential release from Castlerea Prison, barrister Rosemary Mallon, for the school, said her client’s position has always been that it has no desire for him to be in prison.

However, she said the school had a “real apprehension” – given Mr Burke’s previous conduct and the fact that he maintains he is still an employee of the school – that should he be released, he would trespass again at the school when it reopens after summer.

Counsel said that at this point in time, it seemed the only way to prevent this occurring was, “unfortunately”, through Burke’s imprisonment.

Counsel said the school accepted that the case is “extraordinary and unprecedented”, and was cognisant of the difficulty it has caused the courts.

The judge said he would reflect on the matter and give judgment next week.

The judge also said he was considering making an order against three of Enoch Burke’s family members – brother Isaac, mother Martina and sister Ammi – preventing them from attending court in-person. 

The trio have been removed from several hearings in Burke’s various cases on account of disruptive behaviour.

The judge said that if they wished to make submissions on the matter, they should do so by next week.

The judge reviewed evidence submitted to the court relating to fines owed by Burke, arising from penalties imposed by various judges over his contempt of court.

According to their calculations, Enoch Burke had accumulated fines of €452,100 over the course of the dispute, Counsel for the school said.

However, the judge asked that a further affidavit on the issue of fines be filed after raising issues with how the figure was calculated.

Barrister Niall Ó hUiginn, appearing for a receiver appointed to Burke’s Department of Education salary, said his client had collected some €51,000.

Some of this money had been paid forward to the school to satisfy debts, while the rest of the money went to the Court Service’s fines office.

There was an overpayment of about €700 to the school, the court heard. Mallon said the overpayment will be repaid.

Enoch Burke was removed from the Department of Education’s payroll last month following his formal dismissal from Wilson’s Hospital School, the court heard.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Burke refused to give a court undertaking not to trespass at the school.

Throughout the hearing, he appeared via video-link, repeated arguments relating to what he claimed was the court’s failure to address the legality of the request to address a student by gender-neutral pronouns, and his subsequent suspension.

“My religious belief is ‘He made them male and female’, that’s from the gospel of Matthew,” he said. “I’ve a constitutional right to that belief.”

The judge told Burke if he wanted to bring a constitutional case, he should do so. The judge said the court can only deal with the issue in front of it.

The case returns next week.

‘Rough’ figure on Enoch Burke fines above €268,000, judge indicates

A judge is to rule next week on potentially hundreds of thousands of euros in fines accrued by dismissed teacher Enoch Burke.

The fines have arisen from breaches of court directions ordering him not to trespass at Wilson’s Hospital School.

The High Court heard on Wednesday the board of management of the Co Westmeath school had put the level of fines at €452,100 – while a judge’s “rough” calculations on “fairer” criteria landed at €268,600.

The final judgment is due to be made next week.

The former history and German teacher has been engaged in a high-profile legal dispute with the school since 2022.

He was suspended following incidents arising from a request from the school’s then-principal to address a student by a new name and pronoun, and later dismissed from his position.

Burke has repeatedly argued the direction was unconstitutional and went against his right to express his religious beliefs.

He has spent more than 700 days in prison over different periods of detention after he was found to have violated court orders instructing him not to trespass at the school – and judges have also made orders relating to fines for such breaches.

On Wednesday, Rosemary Mallon, for the school’s board of management, told the High Court it had calculated a total figure of about €452,100  in fines.

This was based on orders relating to the number of days Burke refused to purge his contempt of court and the different level of fine which have applied over the past four years – which had increased from €700 to €1,400 and €2,000 per day following subsequent orders from judges.

She said the school had taken a conservative approach to calculating the figure as there had been a lack of clarity over a change of personnel throughout that period.

However, Justice Brian Cregan took issue with the calculations and said he did not believe it was the intent of the orders to include school holidays and weekends.

He said Burke could only trespass at the school on days it was sitting and it was the “import” of the orders that he would be fined for breaches of court orders by trespassing.

Outlining the school’s figures, Mallon said a fine of €23,800 was previously fixed for a period between January 27th and March 1st, 2023.

This was calculated at 34 days on a €700 rate – which would include weekends and holidays.

Mallon said the next period related to March 2nd and May 19th, 2023 – amounting €55,300 for a total of 79 days.

This would put the total fines for the year at €79,100.

Justice Cregan said he was “reluctant” to amend the first 23,800 fine but asked the school to recalculate excluding holidays and weekends.

On the next period from March to May in 2023, the judge said he had arrived at an approximate figure of 28,000 when his exclusions for weekends and holidays were considered.

There were no fines for 2024, the court heard.

Mallon calculated fines between February 21st, 2025, and September 3rd at €225,000 – in light of an increase in the rate of the fine.

However, the judge argued the increased rate had been in effect since January 6th and said that, on his “rough calculation”, the fine should total €212,800 between January and November of last year.

The court also heard there were two further days in January of this year that Burke attended the school, which would have been after a €2,000 rate was ordered.

Including the €23,800 that the judge was “reluctant” to change but had asked the school to examine, his “rough” calculations add up to €268,600.

Justice Cregan asked the school to recalculate its figures excluding school holidays and days Burke was in court.

He said this “should yield a more accurate figure and a fairer figure” for Burke.5

Mallon said the school was “acutely aware of the significant sums in these fines regardless of how they are calculated”.

Burke, who appeared by videolink from Castlerea Prison, said the only relevant period of calculation was the “four long years that the court has remained silent” on issues relating to his freedom of religious expression relating to not using the “they” pronoun.

The judge told him he was a “highly experienced litigant” who “must understand” the court deals with issues put in front of them.

He said Burke had previously brought a counter-claim against the school which would have been the “critical point” to argue his constitutional case, but said he had instead committed repeated breaches of court rulings and failed to reappear.

He said the matter had been struck out because he did not prosecute his counter-claim.

He said he had been repeatedly telling Burke that: “If you want to bring a constitutional case, bring a constitutional case and then the court will deal with that matter – but to date you have failed to do so.”

During the hearing, the court also heard Burke is no longer receiving a salary from the Department of Education and had received his final payslip.

However, the court was told Burke was challenging this.

Justice Cregan said he is also considering making an order preventing Dr Isaac Burke, Martina Burke, and Ammi Burke from attending the proceedings in person and instead limiting them to remote attendance.

He told Burke to tell them they could make further submissions before his decision next week.

Justice Cregan also gave Burke three opportunities to give an undertaking not to trespass at the school.

Burke again questioned whether the court would deal with the issue of the “they pronoun”.

He said he had “done nothing wrong” and described himself as a “teacher of German and history at Wilson’s Hospital School”.

Justice Cregan said he had given Burke opportunities to purge his contempt and adjourned the matter until next Wednesday.

On the issue of Burke’s ongoing imprisonment, the judge asked Mallon for the school’s view.

She said it had no desire for Burke to be in prison but said it had a “real apprehension” that he would “trespass yet again” after the summer break.

She said it appeared at this moment in time that the only way to prevent that was “unfortunately through his imprisonment”.

The judge said he would reflect on the matters over the next week and give a judgment at 10am on Wednesday.

Gardaí issue appeal for victims of abuse by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland

Gardaí are appealing to anyone resident in Ireland who believes they are a victim of a criminal act relating to the Presbyterian Church to contact them.

Police in Northern Ireland launched a criminal investigation last November into allegations of abuse within the church.

Gardaí said they have been liaising "with the PSNI on this matter since late 2025".

There are over 185,000 members of the Presbyterian Church in 500 congregations on both sides of the border.

An Garda Síochána urged people who wish to speak to them to contact their local garda station or the Garda National Protective Services Bureau.

"Your contact will be handled with sensitivity and empathy," a statement said.

It added: "An Garda Síochána will deal with any matters reported by complainants in a sensitive manner and will, where possible, progress matters through investigation.

"An Garda Síochána will endeavour to effectively deal with all contacts, however there may be limitations as to the action that could be taken in some cases due to matters such as the unavailability of evidence over time or suspects and/or witnesses being deceased."

Gardaí also said that they have not received any complaints relating to abuse in the Presbyterian Church to date.

Last November, the church's moderator, Rev Trevor Gribben, resigned after an internal report found "serious and significant failings" in safeguarding within the church between 2009 and 2022.

At the time, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland said it would be co-operating fully with the PSNI investigation.

For the purpose of reporting to An Garda Síochána, the following options are available:

By emailing GNPSB_SCMU@garda.ie

By phoning the Sexual Crime Management Unit on (01) 666 3430 or (01) 666 3435

By phoning the Garda Child Sexual Abuse Reporting Line on 1800 555 222. This is a confidential and free service available 24/7

Calling to your local Garda Station

CW Investigates

On Sunday 21st last, we published a post in which we indicated that we would start to begin the publishing of information which involves - but not totally exclusive to - Ms Karen IEVERS, based in Sixmilebridge, County Clare.

And so we will begin with this piece, and rest assured there will be ever so much to follow in the times ahead....all evidenced.

Ms IEVERS took it upon herself to recently compose a very nasty - and untrue - piece following the death of a person located in the county of Clare, and we quote her....

 ''threatening to shoot me....court case against him for trespassing and assault was struck out b/c I had to fly to U.S. to take care of my dying mother and could not appear in court to testify against him. He was already in jail for something else and then got sick.'' (unquote)

So, due to the name and nature of the person we are dealing with here, we decided to engage our solicitors, who duly got to work to investigate these allegations made by Ms IEVERS, and surprise, surprise....not a word of truth to any of it.

Court records were thoroughly investigated going back 15 years and there is NO record in existence of any such case being brought before the courts in either your name Ms IEVERS, nor of the now deceased person against whom you have made this false and defamatory accusation....

....but that is you all over isn't it Karen?

Discreet, lawful enquiries were also made with members of An Garda Síochána, solicitors and other court officers....and not one single person could verify your claims against this deceased person whether it be via formal statement to a member of An Garda Síochána or a case being processed for court hearing etc.

So Ms IEVERS, why have you made yet another of your countless and baseless false allegations against another person?

Is it because they are not here to defend themselves and you feel you can make such disgusting and false claims without any form of retribution or response?

It may have worked for you before courtesy of  Mr Fintan Monahan, Mr Ger Jones and Ms Cleo Yates (who passes herself off at times as a p(r)oxy bangharda), and more of that anon....but not any more Ms IEVERS.

When you were writing such vile words, were you enjoying a spliff (as heretofore) or is it a side effect of all the botox you have injected yourself with - at the expense of food for the family table...as admitted by you in a courtroom some time ago?

If you feel that anything we have posted here is untrue, please do engage with us with what you perceive to be the truth and we will happily have it investigated....as we have down the years with other false allegations you have made against others.

You have to understand that there comes a time when such nastiness has to be challenged and called out....and we are going to start taking this public and in such a way that you cannot portray yourself as a 'victim' of your own immoral and illegal behaviour (search Coco's Law). 

In relation to your false narrative about your case not proceeding as you were to be elsewhere, perhaps you should fact check a few things before being so quick to publish your lies - quote

''A court case is adjourned - or postponed to a later date - to ensure a fair trial, manage court dockets, or handle unforeseen emergencies. Common reasons include needing more time to prepare or gather evidence, the sudden illness of a judge or lawyer, a lack of legal representation, or delays in the discovery/disclosure process.

Common reasons for a court adjournment include:

Unforeseen Emergencies: Sudden illness of a party involved (e.g., the defendant, judge, or a key witness) or unavoidable scheduling conflicts.'' (unquote)

 

As we have stated, and indeed, we invite you, Ms IEVERS, to get in touch with us, directly, if we have published anything incorrect in fact, and we will engage.

 

If you decide to report us to An Garda Síochána or a solicitor, be assured we will be only too happy to engage with them, and happy to go to any court you may threaten us with, and we will be happy to hand over every iota of evidence we have - and be aware it runs to a few thousand pages. 

 

We look forward to hearing from you. 

Mise,

AODHÁN DE FAOITE

Eagarthóir / Editor

Leo XIV is the first Pope who does not even receive the FSSPX

Since the a divinis suspension of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1976, successive pontiffs have managed crises with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) by resorting, at decisive moments, to personal audiences with its leaders. 

In the face of the announcement of possible new episcopal consecrations and the Vatican warning of a potential schism, the pontificate of Leo XIV has handled the matter, to date, through the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, without any record of a direct papal audience with the Fraternity’s superiors. 

What follows is the chronology of those contacts.

1976: Paul VI receives Lefebvre at Castel Gandolfo

The tensions were formalized with Lefebvre’s a divinis suspension in 1976, after he repeatedly disobeyed the Holy See’s decisions regarding the seminary in Écône and celebrated a large public Mass in Lille despite the sanctions.

On 11 September 1976, Paul VI personally received the French archbishop at Castel Gandolfo. 

According to accounts of the meeting, the conversation was tense: the Pope reproached him for acting as if he were an “antipope” and for judging the successor of Peter as unfaithful to the faith, while Lefebvre insisted on denouncing what he considered a doctrinal and liturgical crisis following the Second Vatican Council. 

No agreement was reached, but exchanges between the two sides continued.

1988: John Paul II, the 5 May protocol and Ecclesia Dei

After months of negotiations led by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Rome and Lefebvre signed a protocol on 5 May 1988 that provided for the regularization of the Fraternity and the possibility of a bishop from its ranks. 

Lefebvre retracted the following day and, weeks later, consecrated four bishops without a pontifical mandate.

John Paul II described the consecrations as an act gravely contrary to ecclesial communion and promulgated the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. 

At the same time, he established a specific commission for the reconciliation of those attached to the traditional liturgy and kept open the path to a future regularization. 

During the Jubilee of the year 2000, he personally received Bishop Bernard Fellay.

2005–2013: Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the excommunications

Benedict XVI received Bishop Fellay at Castel Gandolfo a few months after his election. His pontificate included several decisions relevant to the case:

In 2007 he promulgated Summorum Pontificum, which recognized that the 1962 Roman Missal had not been juridically abolished and expanded the celebration of the traditional liturgy.

In 2009 he lifted the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated in 1988.

He promoted official doctrinal discussions between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Fraternity on issues such as religious freedom, ecumenism, episcopal collegiality and the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

2013–2025: Francis maintains contacts and expands faculties

In April 2016, Francis received Bishop Fellay at the Casa Santa Marta for about forty minutes, in a meeting described as cordial and with a commitment to continue the exchanges. 

On a practical level, he granted the priests of the Fraternity the ordinary faculty to validly absolve in confession and facilitated the canonical recognition of marriages celebrated by FSSPX priests. 

The underlying doctrinal problem remained unresolved.

December 2025: the Fraternity raises the possibility of new consecrations

In December 2025, the Superior General of the FSSPX, Father Davide Pagliarani, described the question of future bishops as “the million-dollar question.” 

Without mentioning dates or names, he indicated that the possibility was being considered and maintained that the “state of necessity” invoked by Lefebvre in 1988 would remain in force and would, in his view, be more evident than at that time, thus resuming the reasoning that preceded those consecrations.

12 February 2026: meeting at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith

On 12 February 2026, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández received Father Pagliarani at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the express approval of Leo XIV. 

The meeting was officially described as “cordial and sincere.”

According to the communiqué, Rome proposed a path of formal theological dialogue on the pending doctrinal questions - including the interpretation of various texts of the Second Vatican Council and the degrees of adherence required by the magisterium - and suggested that this process could lead to the definition of a canonical statute for the Fraternity. 

The proposal included a prior condition: the suspension of the announced episcopal consecrations.

Unlike his predecessors, the handling of the matter was entrusted to the Dicastery, without a personal audience of the Pontiff with the leaders of the Fraternity.

13 May 2026: the Vatican warns of a “schismatic act”

On 13 May, Cardinal Fernández issued a statement on behalf of the Dicastery reiterating that episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate would constitute “a schismatic act.” 

The note cited the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and recalled the canonical consequences foreseen for those who formally participate in a schism. 

The communiqué added that Leo XIV continued to ask the leaders of the Fraternity to reconsider their decision.

June 2026: a possible new appeal

Questioned by journalists about the ordinations scheduled for 1 July, Leo XIV indicated that he was considering issuing a new appeal to the Fraternity:

“I am considering making another appeal and saying ‘do not do this, let us try to live the communion of the Church.’ But it is their choice.'

The Pontiff reiterated that the Fraternity continues to reject elements he considers fundamental to the life of the Church, in particular various aspects of the Second Vatican Council, a diagnosis substantially shared by his predecessors.

Current situation

Over half a century, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis maintained personal audiences with the leaders of the Fraternity, even in moments of greatest tension. 

In the current crisis, dialogue has been channeled through the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, without any record to date of a direct meeting between Leo XIV and its superiors.

The episcopal consecrations are scheduled for 1 July. 

If they take place and the Holy See responds with a formal declaration of schism, the outcome would have been reached through a procedure different from that of previous crises: with dialogue delegated to the Curia and without the direct personal intervention of the Pope that characterized preceding pontificates.

Doubts grow over the murder of the bishop of Mozambique: "He was an uncomfortable voice for many interests"

More than two weeks after the assassination of Mozambican bishop Osório Citora Afonso, authorities continue to investigate the crime without yet clarifying who ordered his death or what the motives were. 

Meanwhile, voices close to the prelate are beginning to question the official version and point to possible political, economic, and even ecclesial interests behind the murder.

According to Vida Nueva, religious sister María Gómez-Lechón, a missionary in Mozambique for decades, described the bishop as an uncomfortable figure for numerous sectors of power due to his denunciations of corruption, social injustices, and certain entrenched structures both in society and within the Church itself.

A bishop assassinated in cold blood

Osório Citora Afonso, a member of the Missionaries of the Consolata and bishop of Quelimane since 2025, was found dead on June 6 at the episcopal residence. He was 54 years old.

According to the investigations, the attackers managed to bypass the residence’s security system and took his life using an AKM assault rifle. From the very beginning, authorities treated the case as a homicide.

The prelate’s death caused deep shock in the African Church. 

In addition to leading the diocese of Quelimane, Afonso served as administrator of Beira and held the position of secretary general of the Episcopal Conference of Mozambique.

A critical voice against corruption and abuses

Those who knew the bishop agree in highlighting his firm commitment to justice and transparency.

Religious sister María Gómez-Lechón stated that Afonso openly denounced abuses of power, political corruption, and certain economic interests present in the country. 

His interventions were especially forceful regarding the situation in Cabo Delgado, the troubled northern region of Mozambique marked for years by jihadist violence and instability.

However, his criticisms were not limited to the political sphere. 

According to the missionary, the bishop also decisively addressed internal Church problems, including financial irregularities and governance structures he considered detrimental to the ecclesial mission.

This stance earned him respect among many of the faithful, but also enemies both inside and outside ecclesiastical circles.

Suspicions about the official version

One of the aspects raising the most questions is the hypothesis initially considered by some investigators, according to which a priest could be directly involved in the crime.

Gómez-Lechón finds this explanation unconvincing. In her view, both the weapon used and the planning of the operation point to a much more complex operation than the isolated action of a single person.

The religious sister maintains that behind the assassination there could be organized structures with sufficient logistical capacity and resources to carry out an attack of this nature. 

Therefore, she does not rule out that some suspects may have been used as secondary pieces within a broader plot.

“A martyr for justice”

Suspicions that the murder may be linked to the bishop’s pastoral and public activity have also been shared by people who worked closely with him.

In statements to the missionary agency Fides, Father Stefano Camerlengo, former superior general of the Missionaries of the Consolata, described Afonso as “a martyr for justice.”

The priest recalled that the bishop frequently insisted on the moral obligation to denounce injustices and not remain silent in the face of abuses of power. He also portrayed him as a pastor committed to reconciliation, dialogue, and the Church’s social responsibility.

An investigation still open

Mozambican authorities have questioned various people connected to the bishop’s circle, including a diocesan priest and several employees of the episcopal residence. Forensic analyses and other inquiries have also been ordered to clarify the facts.

For the time being, none of the hypotheses have been officially confirmed, and investigators have not disclosed what the motive for the crime might be.

The death of Osório Citora Afonso adds to the long list of pastoral agents and African religious leaders who have suffered threats or attacks for denouncing corruption, violence, and social injustices. 

As the investigations move forward slowly, in Mozambique there is growing demand for a full clarification of who ordered the killing of one of the country’s most influential and respected bishops.

Pope receives around twenty major writers to celebrate the centenary of the Vatican publishing house

Pope Leo XIV will receive on June 24 at the Vatican a score of some of the most recognized writers of contemporary literature on the occasion of the centenary of the Vatican Publishing House (LEV), the official publishing house of the Holy See.

The audience will feature the participation of twenty writers from different countries, cultural traditions, and religious sensibilities. 

Among the guests stands out the 2023 Nobel Prize in Literature winner, Jon Fosse, considered one of the most important voices in contemporary European literature.

Alongside him will be the American novelists Marilynne Robinson and Elizabeth Strout, the French writer Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt, the Romanian Mircea Cărtărescu, Jonathan Safran Foer, Colum McCann, Sorj Chalandon, Vittorio Lingiardi, Daniele Mencarelli, Enrico Brizzi, and the Spanish writer Julia Navarro, one of the most widely read authors in the Spanish language in recent decades.

The meeting will also include the presence of several authors closely linked to the Vatican Publishing House, among them the French Dominican Adrien Candiard, as well as Eraldo Affinati and Paolo Malaguti, whose works have been published by the publishing house of the Holy See.

A key institution for the dissemination of papal teaching

The meeting will serve to commemorate the one hundred years of the Vatican Publishing House, founded in 1926 during the pontificate of Pius XI with the mission of officially publishing and disseminating the documents of the Holy See.

Over the course of a century, LEV has become the Vatican’s main publishing instrument, responsible for the publication of encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, papal speeches, documents of the Roman dicasteries, conciliar acts, and numerous works of a theological, historical, and spiritual nature.

The publishing house has also been responsible for the publication of the writings of the last pontiffs, from Pius XII to Leo XIV, including Saint John Paul II, whose extensive magisterium decisively contributed to the international projection of the institution.

Currently, its publications are translated into numerous languages and constitute a regular reference for Catholic universities, seminaries, and research centers around the world.

The first major cultural gesture of the pontificate

The selection of writers from very diverse religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions has particularly caught the attention of Vatican observers.

Beyond the publishing commemoration, the audience seems to convey a message about the place that Leo XIV wishes to give to culture in his pontificate. 

Since his election, the Pope has repeatedly insisted on the need to build bridges with the contemporary world without renouncing Christian identity.

Literature thus appears as a privileged space for encounter between believers and non-believers, as well as for reflection on the great human questions that continue to challenge today’s society.

The intellectual tradition of the Church

The initiative is also part of a long tradition of dialogue between the Church and the world of letters. 

From the medieval monasteries that preserved the European cultural heritage to the universities born under ecclesial impetus, the transmission of knowledge has been an essential part of the Church’s mission.

In this context, the celebration of the centenary of LEV is not limited to commemorating a publishing institution, but rather affirms the value of the written word as an instrument for the search for truth, the transmission of faith, and the construction of culture.

Damián María Montes leaves the priesthood and announces a new stage in life

Damián María Montes, a Redemptorist priest known for his participation in La Voz España, his presence on social media, and for having received the 2016 Bravo Music Award from the Spanish Episcopal Conference, has announced that he is definitively leaving the exercise of priestly ministry.

Montes communicated the decision through a video posted on his social media, in which he states that it is a determination made after “nearly three years of questions, searching, silences, and a deep inner struggle.” “I have decided to withdraw definitively from the exercise of priestly ministry,” he affirms at the beginning of the message.

Born in Granada in 1986 and ordained a priest in 2013, Montes was until now superior of the Redemptorist community at the Parish of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Granada. Previously, he had served in various pastoral assignments both within and outside Spain, including Madrid, Italy, India, Honduras, Thailand, Colombia, and several Spanish cities.

In his message, the religious acknowledges that there are “weighty reasons” he prefers not to detail and that made the last years of his ministry especially difficult. Nevertheless, he states that he views the future “in deep continuity” with what he has lived and expresses gratitude for his priestly and missionary journey.

A public trajectory also marked by doctrinal controversies

In addition to his musical and pastoral activity, Montes maintained a notable public presence on social media for years, where some of his statements on sexual morality, homosexuality, and the renewal of the Church’s moral teaching drew criticism from priests and Catholic communicators.

In various public interventions, he defended the need for a new approach to sexual morality and expressed support for blessing formulas for same-sex couples—positions that several priests flagged as ambiguous or distant from the Church’s Magisterium.

He was also co-founder of digital evangelization initiatives such as iMission, linked to the use of social media for a Catholic presence on the internet. Some of these proposals received criticism from priests who warned of the risk of doctrinal confusion in certain content.

New stage in the educational and cultural sphere

Montes has explained that he has already begun a new professional stage linked to education and culture. 

According to his website, he currently works as a Language and Literature teacher at the Liceo Europeo in Madrid and serves as academic vice-director of the Ernesto Cardenal Foundation.

In the video, he states that he hopes this new stage will allow him to develop projects related to literature, poetry, theater, communication, and content creation. He also acknowledges that he contemplates the possibility of a shared life or of forming his own family.

His departure adds to that of other priests and religious with a public presence on social media who in recent years have announced their abandonment of the ministry or religious life, such as Daniel Pajuelo, known as smdani, the French priest Matthieu Jasseron, or the Italian Alberto Ravagnani.

McAleese pays tribute to ‘courageous’ Pope Leo

Former president of Ireland, Dr Mary McAleese, has paid tribute to Pope Leo saying, “He is beginning to find his voice, and we are beginning to see the emergence of a courageous pope.”

Speaking to The Tablet about the Pontiff’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Dr McAleese noted that in the encyclical, the Pope talks about the excluded and particularly references women’s exclusion, calling for “concrete decisions” in their favour regarding laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, so that so that society truly and fully recognises that women have the same dignity as men.

“Maybe there is a door of discussion opening up here,” she said. 

She also praised him for his treatment of the issue of immigrants and his courage in “pitting himself against some of the people and constituencies that he grew up with” telling them, “If you are pro-life, you cannot be pro capital punishment.”

Her praise was echoed by well-known campaigner for the abolition of the death penalty, Sr Helen Prejean. Dr McAleese, who is currently Chancellor of Trinity College Dublin, took part in a conversation at TCD on “The Future of Justice in an Age of Uncertainty” with UK human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy and Sr Prejean.

Speaking to The Tablet, Sr Prejean regretted the rise in the number of executions in the US under the Trump administration. She said support for the death penalty was mainly “in a pocket in the Deep South, all ex-slave states. It is not among the people at large”.

“Pope Leo is giving leadership,” the 87-year-old said. She praised the Pontiff’s April message to those gathered at DePaul University to mark the 15th anniversary of Illinois’s abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty, the Pope said, is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.

On the issue of social media and the concerns over its negative impact and the need for better regulation, Sr Prejean urged people to “look at the good that you can do on social media” by highlighting miscarriages of justice.

Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter reaches a historic record with new priests ordained in 2026

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) has reached this year the highest number of priestly ordinations in its history. 

With the thirteen new priests ordained last June 20 in Germany and the twelve ordained weeks earlier in the United States, the community adds 25 new priests in 2026 and already surpasses 400 priests worldwide.

The latest ceremony took place at the parish church of Lindenberg, in Bavaria, where Bishop Marc Aillet of Bayonne, Lescar and Oloron conferred the priesthood on thirteen seminarians from various European countries.

The Fraternity announced the news through its official channels, highlighting the record number of ordinations achieved this year and expressing its gratitude to God for the new vocations.

Thirteen new priests of ten nationalities

The ordinations celebrated in Lindenberg reflect the international character of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.

Among the new priests are three Frenchmen, two Portuguese, two Czechs, one Austrian, one Croatian, one Hungarian, one Italian, one Pole and one Swede.

These additions join the twelve priestly ordinations celebrated last May 28 at the cathedral of Omaha, Nebraska, where the Fraternity has the Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary.

With this, the FSSP reaches 25 priestly ordinations in a single year, the highest figure since its foundation in 1988.

A historic year for the Fraternity

The ceremonies held in Omaha and Lindenberg mark a milestone for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which had never before recorded such a high number of priestly ordinations in the same year.

In announcing the news, the Fraternity commended all its priests to the prayers of the faithful and gave thanks for the new vocations received.

«Deo gratias», concluded the message released after the ordinations.

Melina dismantles Paglia’s account of the John Paul II Institute: “It was an ideological operation”

The statements recently made by Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia regarding the disappearance of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family continue to generate reactions. 

After the Italian prelate claimed his role in the reform of the institution and defended the need for a profound doctrinal transformation of Catholic morality, one of the main figures affected by that decision has responded sharply.

It is Monsignor Livio Melina, president of the Institute from 2006 to 2016 and one of the most prominent figures in moral theology linked to the legacy of Saint John Paul II. 

In an extensive analysis published in The World Catholic Report, Melina maintains that the suppression of the Institute was not due to academic or theological reasons, but to an “ideological operation” aimed at replacing the vision of Catholic morality.

The controversy comes weeks after Paglia stated in an interview that Pope Francis desired an update of the encyclical Humanae vitae and defended the reforms introduced both in the John Paul II Institute and in the Pontifical Academy for Life.

“It was not a desk theology”

Melina begins by questioning the portrait Paglia has painted of the former Institute. According to the Italian archbishop, the institution founded by Saint John Paul II would have remained anchored in a rigid understanding of natural law, built on abstract principles and detached from people’s concrete experience.

For the one who led the Institute for a decade, that description does not correspond to reality.

Melina recalls that Saint John Paul II himself promoted the creation of the center because he considered the traditional models with which moral theology was addressing the challenges posed by the sexual revolution and the controversies that arose after the publication of Humanae vitae to be insufficient.

Then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyła was convinced that the Church needed more than a legal defense of moral norms. It was necessary to develop an authentic anthropology of love and a theology of the body capable of explaining the beauty and rationality of Christian teaching on marriage and the family.

According to Melina, that was precisely the mission the Institute assumed for more than three decades.

“What emerged was precisely a theology of love,” the Italian theologian states in summarizing the work carried out during those years.

That is why he considers the accusation that the Institute practiced a “desk theology” disconnected from real life to be unjustified. In his view, exactly the opposite occurred: the goal was to understand the human experience of love in order to illuminate it from faith and accompany people on their journey.

The institution that Paglia decided to dismantle

Far from being a small structure specialized in internal debates of moral theology, the center had developed a broad international academic network. It maintained stable relations with civil universities, collaborated with sociologists and psychologists, promoted meetings with representatives of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, and had sections spread across different continents.

Melina also mentions dozens of congresses and research projects dedicated not only to marriage, but also to issues such as education, intergenerational transmission, fatherhood, the social dimension of the family, or evangelization.

If the Institute was truly a structure incapable of dialoguing with the contemporary world, how can one explain the breadth of its academic and pastoral activity?

The institution founded by Saint John Paul II was born precisely to overcome the limitations of certain manualistic approaches to moral theology and to develop an anthropology capable of explaining the human vocation to love, marriage, and the family.

“What emerged was precisely a theology of love,” Melina affirms, maintaining that the academic work carried out over more than three decades was aimed at illuminating concrete human experience and accompanying families, not at formulating abstract principles detached from reality.

That is why he considers the accusations made by Paglia to be “ideological and superficial,” because, in his view, they do not correspond to the actual content of the research, publications, and academic programs developed by the Institute during its 36 years of existence.

The true reason for the conflict

However, for Melina the issue is not limited to a discussion about the Institute’s past. What he considers truly relevant is that Paglia has openly acknowledged that the reforms promoted in recent years pursued a doctrinal transformation.

According to him, for a long time the reforms were presented mainly as pastoral adjustments or methodological changes. 

Now, however, Paglia himself admits that the goal was deeper: While the Catholic tradition has understood natural law as a reality inscribed in human nature itself and accessible to reason, Paglia proposes an interpretation linked to the historical and cultural discernment of human experiences.

In the former president of the Institute’s view, this approach implies shifting the center of gravity from objective truth about the person to the interpretation that each era makes of human experience.

And there, he maintains, the real debate begins.

Two opposing visions of Catholic morality

Melina sees a close connection between this new interpretation of natural law and the role Paglia attributes to conscience.

According to him, the proposal promoted by the Italian archbishop starts from a reinterpretation of natural law based primarily on historical and cultural discernment, as well as an expansion of the role of subjective conscience in determining universal moral norms and intrinsically evil acts—that is, behaviors that cannot be justified by circumstances or intentions.

According to the Italian theologian, this approach entails abandoning central elements of the teaching developed by Saint John Paul II in the encyclical Veritatis splendor. In particular, it questions the idea that negative moral norms can be subordinated to concrete circumstances or to the subjective assessment of each situation.

For Melina, behind this change lies a genuine “paradigm shift” that affects not only the Church’s pastoral action, but also its moral doctrine and two different ways of understanding the relationship between truth, freedom, and conscience.

Precisely for this reason, he considers Paglia’s recent admission that the reforms promoted during the years of Pope Francis’s pontificate had a doctrinal rather than merely pastoral scope to be significant.

The debate on the “possible good”

Another point questioned by Melina is the concept of the “possible good,” used by Paglia as a criterion for addressing certain complex moral situations.

The former president of the Institute warns that an extensive interpretation of this principle could end up lowering the moral demands of the Gospel and transforming doctrine into an unattainable ideal that must constantly adapt to people’s concrete limitations.

Against that perspective, he recalls that the Catholic tradition has always affirmed that God does not command anything impossible and that grace makes it possible to follow a path of conversion even when the goal seems distant.

For this reason, he recalls the teachings of the Council of Trent and, explicitly citing Saint John Paul II, insists that the pastoral response to fragilities cannot consist in reducing the demands of the Gospel, but in accompanying people so that they can fully live their Christian vocation. 

Thus, he rejects the idea that the Church’s moral doctrine should be understood as an unattainable ideal that later needs to be lowered to fit concrete reality.

A fundamental accusation

If the Institute had developed an intellectual proposal inspired by Saint John Paul II, if it had shown the capacity to dialogue with contemporary culture, and if it had given rise to an extensive international network of research and formation, then the reason for its suppression cannot be found—according to Melina—in any supposed academic insufficiency.

“Paglia’s actions were not motivated by theological reasons but by an ideological critique of the Institute,” he states.

In his view, behind the decision was the will to replace one particular understanding of Catholic morality with another.

A substitution that would not affect only an academic institution, but the very way in which the Church today presents issues such as marriage, sexuality, the family, or the real possibility of living the demands of the Gospel.

A controversy that remains open

While Paglia presents the transformations as a necessary theological update capable of responding to contemporary challenges, Melina maintains that the disappearance of the former John Paul II Institute meant the closure of an academic experience that had sought to show the reasonableness and viability of the Church’s moral teaching in continuity with the magisterium of Saint John Paul II.

Five years after its suppression, the debate no longer revolves solely around an academic institution. What is at stake is the meaning of the reforms promoted in recent years and the direction Catholic moral theology should follow.

Consecration of the new bishops of the SSPX will take place according to the traditional rite

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) will celebrate the consecration of new auxiliary bishops on 1 July in Écône, a ceremony that has aroused interest in various ecclesiastical circles both because of its significance for the Fraternity and the particular canonical situation that continues to mark its relations with the Holy See. 

With a view to this event, Father Nicolas Cadiet has published a detailed explanation of the ancient rite of episcopal consecration that will be used during the ceremony.

The celebration will follow, according to Cadiet, the 1962 Roman Pontifical in its entirety, preserving a ceremonial that is scarcely seen today in the ordinary life of the Church and that reflects a liturgical tradition developed over the centuries.

The incorporation into the episcopal college

Episcopal consecration represents the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders and the incorporation of a new bishop into the college of the successors of the Apostles. For this reason, the tradition of the Church provides for the participation of three bishops in the ceremony: a principal consecrator and two co-consecrators.

Before the Mass begins, the rite includes the reading of the apostolic mandate and a public examination of the candidates. During this interrogation, the future bishops profess the Catholic faith and express their willingness to assume the responsibilities proper to the episcopal ministry.

Although historically the election of bishops took various forms in the life of the Church, the reading of the pontifical mandate became over time an essential element of episcopal consecration ceremonies.

The central moment of the consecration

After the Mass has begun, the ceremony follows its usual course until after the Alleluia. It is then that the rites proper to episcopal ordination begin.

The consecrating bishop briefly recalls the functions of the episcopate: to teach doctrine, to govern the Christian people, to administer the sacraments and to safeguard the life of the Church.

The Litany of the Saints is then sung, invoking the intercession of the entire heavenly Church upon the candidates.

Cadiet recalls that one of the most characteristic gestures of the traditional rite is the placing of the Book of the Gospels upon the head and shoulders of the future bishops. This gesture symbolises that their entire life and ministry must be conformed to the Gospel they are called to proclaim.

While the Evangeliary remains upon them, the three bishops lay hands on them, pronouncing the words «Accipe Spiritum Sanctum» («Receive the Holy Spirit»). Together with the consecratory prayer, this gesture constitutes the sacramental core of episcopal ordination.

The anointing and the symbols of the episcopate

After the laying on of hands, the ceremony continues with the anointing of the heads of the new bishops with the Holy Chrism while the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus is sung.

The consecratory prayer asks for them the virtues necessary for the exercise of their ministry: fidelity in preaching, apostolic zeal, prudence in governance and strength to guide the faithful.

Subsequently, the anointing of the hands and the presentation of the principal episcopal insignia also take place.

The crozier symbolises the pastoral mission of leading the people of God. The ring represents the spiritual bond between the bishop and the Church, while the Book of the Gospels recalls the obligation to transmit Christian doctrine faithfully.

These rites outwardly express the mission that the Church entrusts to those who receive the fullness of the priesthood.

The concelebration and the enthronement

Once the consecration is completed, the new bishops join the consecrator in the continuation of the Mass.

The traditional liturgy provides that they all consecrate one and the same host and one and the same chalice, visibly underscoring the unity of the episcopal priesthood.

After the final blessing they receive the mitre and other pontifical vestments, and are then enthroned in a ceremony that symbolises the pastoral authority received.

The celebration concludes with the singing of the Te Deum, the blessings imparted by the new bishops and various traditional gestures of gratitude towards the consecrating bishop.

A ceremony marked by tension with Rome

The consecrations scheduled for 1 July will take place amid growing tension between the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and the Holy See.

The Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, stated in April that he already has a decree prepared in the event that the Fraternity proceeds with the consecrations. Subsequently, Leo XIV publicly urged the FSSPX to desist from this step and issued an appeal to preserve ecclesial communion: «Do not do this. Let us try to live the communion of the Church».

One week before the ceremony, the Fraternity continues its preparations with no public indication of a reversal. The event in Écône will be observed with particular attention both in Rome and in traditional circles, in view of the possible canonical consequences that could arise from its celebration.

A family turns to the Vatican after being denied Communion for receiving it on their knees in Charlotte

A family from the Diocese of Charlotte has brought its case before the Vatican after reporting that it was denied Holy Communion on several occasions for receiving it kneeling. 

The appeal, addressed to Cardinal Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, marks a new chapter in the growing liturgical controversy that has affected this U.S. diocese since the arrival of Bishop Michael Martin.

The information, published exclusively by AdVaticanum, reveals that the appeal was filed on June 20 and requests Rome’s intervention to examine what the family considers a violation of their rights as Catholic faithful.

Three refusals to administer Communion

According to the document sent to the Vatican, the father of the family states that he, his wife, and their two children were denied Communion on three separate occasions—April 30, May 10, and May 17—at Our Lady of Grace parish in Greensboro.

The appeal maintains that the family approached to receive the Eucharist in exactly the same manner they had done for years: kneeling at the communion rail. However, it claims that on each of those occasions the minister of Communion passed by without administering the Sacrament.

The petitioner further emphasizes that all members of the family are Catholics in full communion with the Church and that none is subject to canonical censure or any impediment to receiving the sacraments.

A controversy rooted in restrictions imposed by the bishop

The controversy stems from a pastoral letter issued by Bishop Michael Martin in December 2025. Through that directive, the diocese prohibited the use of communion rails, kneelers, and other aids that facilitate receiving Communion kneeling.

The measure provoked a strong reaction among many of the faithful, especially in parishes where the practice of receiving Communion kneeling was deeply rooted.

According to the appeal presented in Rome, the consequences of that policy began to surface when some of the faithful continued to approach to receive the Eucharist in their customary manner and were met with refusals by the ministers distributing Communion.

The appeal cites the Church’s universal law

The father invokes Canon 912 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that every baptized person not prohibited by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. He also cites Canon 843 §1, which forbids denying the sacraments to those who request them at an appropriate time and are properly disposed.

The appeal further recalls number 91 of the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which expressly states that it is not lawful to deny Communion to a member of the faithful solely because he or she wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling.

It also mentions a 2002 response issued by the then Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which described as a grave violation of the fundamental rights of the faithful the denial of Communion based solely on the kneeling posture.

A situation aggravated by the mother’s pregnancy

The appeal also includes a particularly sensitive element. The petitioner’s wife is pregnant with their third child, and, as the document explains, as the pregnancy progresses it will become increasingly difficult for her to rise from a kneeling position without physical assistance.

Therefore, the removal of communion rails and other supports affects not only a matter of personal devotion but also concrete circumstances that physically hinder receiving Communion in the accustomed manner.

Rome must issue a ruling

After submitting various petitions to the diocese and receiving negative responses, the family decided to appeal formally to the Holy See through the procedure provided by Canon Law.

Among other measures, the appeal asks Cardinal Roche to provisionally suspend the directive issued by Bishop Martin while the case is under review, to examine whether the reported refusals violated Church law, and to state explicitly that no member of the faithful may be denied Holy Communion solely for choosing to receive it kneeling.

The Dicastery for Divine Worship has not yet indicated whether it will formally accept the appeal. Nevertheless, the case highlights an issue that has generated growing concern among many Catholics: the possibility that fully disposed faithful may be denied the Eucharist because of a posture that the Church’s universal law expressly recognizes as legitimate.

Vatican official in charge of interreligious dialogue rejects the idea that visiting mosques implies religious relativism

Cardinal George Jacob Koovakad, prefect of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, has defended that papal visits to mosques, synagogues, and other non-Christian places of worship should not be interpreted as a form of religious relativism or as an equivalence among all religions. 

He made this statement in an interview given to AdVaticanum, in which he addresses some of the most debated issues regarding the interreligious dialogue promoted by the Holy See.

Koovakad, appointed prefect of the dicastery in 2025 and considered one of the emerging figures of the Roman Curia, responds in the interview to questions about evangelization, dialogue with other religions, his meeting with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, and the recent visit of Leo XIV to the Grand Mosque of Algiers.

“Dialogue does not replace the proclamation of Christ”

Throughout the interview, Koovakad insists on an idea he considers fundamental: interreligious dialogue cannot be understood as an alternative to evangelization or as a renunciation of the Church’s missionary mandate.

Drawing on the document Dialogue and Proclamation, the prefect recalls that the Church considers both realities as complementary dimensions of the same mission. “Dialogue does not replace proclamation, and proclamation must be carried out in a spirit of dialogue,” he states.

According to him, the Church recognizes the existence of “seeds of the Word” in other religious traditions, but this openness does not imply placing all religions on the same level or relativizing the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he maintains that authentic dialogue can only develop from a clear Christian identity and from the conviction that Christ is the only Savior.

Koovakad admits that tensions may arise in practice. The explicit proclamation of the Gospel may be interpreted as a form of proselytism, while an excessive emphasis on dialogue may give the impression that the Church is renouncing the proclamation of revealed truth. For this reason, he advocates a balance based on discernment, respect for religious freedom, and fidelity to the Gospel.

Dialogue even amid conflicts

The prefect also addresses a particularly delicate issue: the advisability of maintaining relations with religious or political leaders linked to controversial situations or accused of violating human rights.

Far from considering that dialogue implies approval of all their actions, Koovakad maintains that the Church distinguishes between the respect due to persons and the moral judgment on certain policies or decisions.

In his view, the Church is called to keep spaces for encounter open even when there are deep disagreements, because dialogue is part of what he calls the “dialogue of salvation” initiated by God with humanity.

This same logic is what he uses to justify the meeting he held in 2025 with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, whose closeness to the Kremlin and his support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been harshly criticized in various ecclesial and political circles.

Recalling the attitude maintained by Pope Francis, Koovakad argues that completely breaking off communication rarely favors peace and that dialogue remains necessary even when there are serious moral disagreements.

“The Church does not abandon its moral principles when it engages in dialogue,” the cardinal maintains, but rather seeks to uphold both fidelity to the truth and commitment to peace and reconciliation.

Dialogue in contexts of persecution

Asked about the situation of Christians living in countries marked by religious persecution or distrust toward Christianity, the prefect proposes a less institutional and more everyday vision of interreligious dialogue.

According to him, in these contexts dialogue does not usually begin with major theological encounters or solemn declarations, but through concrete gestures of coexistence, solidarity, and mutual assistance.

Jointly defending religious freedom, collaborating for the poorest, or rejecting the logic of revenge are, for Koovakad, real expressions of a dialogue that can help reduce tensions and build relationships of trust even in hostile environments.

In his view, Christian witness in these contexts also involves the capacity to forgive, to understand the other, and to remain open to encounter even when there are deep wounds or situations of suffering.

Papal visits to mosques and the risk of relativism

Asked about the recent visit of Leo XIV to the Grand Mosque of Algiers, Koovakad explained how the Holy See interprets this type of gesture within the framework of interreligious dialogue.

The prefect rejects the idea that these visits should be understood as a form of syncretism or relativization of the Catholic faith.

“Catholics should understand these gestures as symbolic acts of encounter and dialogue, not as a denial of the uniqueness of Christ or as an approval of all religious beliefs equally,” he states.

The cardinal also recalls that the Church distinguishes between “praying together” and “being together for prayer,” a difference he considers essential for understanding this type of encounter.

Therefore, he maintains that when a Pope visits a mosque, a synagogue, or a non-Christian temple, he is not participating in an act of religious indifferentism, but rather expressing respect for those who sincerely seek God and promoting peaceful coexistence among peoples.

At the same time, he warns that these initiatives must always be carried out with prudence to avoid any appearance of relativism or doctrinal confusion.

A cardinal with diplomatic and pastoral experience

Born in India and belonging to the Syro-Malabar Church, George Jacob Koovakad entered the diplomatic service of the Holy See in 2006 after training at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy.

Throughout his career, he carried out diplomatic missions in Algeria, South Korea, Iran, Costa Rica, and Venezuela. He was later incorporated into the organization of Pope Francis’s apostolic journeys, participating in the preparation of some of the most complex international visits of the pontificate, including the historic trip to Iraq in 2021.

Created a cardinal in 2024 and appointed prefect of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue in 2025, he became the first member of the Syro-Malabar Church to head a dicastery of the Roman Curia and one of the youngest figures in the College of Cardinals.

New evidence points to Bertomeu: broken confidentiality and a false excommunication used as spiritual abuse

Bertomeu acknowledged that he leaked to two journalists —Pedro Salinas and Paola Ugaz— the content of the reserved statements made by two Peruvian laypeople, Giuliana Caccia and Sebastián Blanco, before the special mission sent by Rome for the Sodalicio case. 

When they reported him for breaching confidentiality, Bertomeu responded with a penal precept that threatened them with excommunication to force them to withdraw the complaints against him and demanded money from them for a diocesan institution. 

It has now emerged that there are notarized WhatsApp messages in which Bertomeu himself admits to the leak.

The new evidence has now come to light through an extensive interview given by Giuliana Caccia and Sebastián Blanco to journalist Vanya Thais, broadcast on her YouTube channel. 

 In it, both recount in detail the sequence of events that followed their statements before the special mission sent by Rome to investigate the Sodalicio case and provide new information about Jordi Bertomeu’s subsequent actions.

Of particular relevance are the references to a series of WhatsApp messages that the interviewees claim to have had notarized and in which Bertomeu himself would acknowledge having passed on to journalists Pedro Salinas and Paola Ugaz information from the reserved statements made before the mission. 

According to Caccia and Blanco, those messages would constitute direct proof of a leak that for years had been denied or presented merely as a suspicion on the part of those affected.

The interview also provides new details about the steps taken by both to request explanations for the breach of the promised confidentiality, the complaints they subsequently filed in both civil and canonical forums, and the circumstances under which they were notified of the controversial penal precept that threatened excommunication if they did not withdraw the actions taken against Bertomeu. 

The testimony of the interviewees thus offers a complete reconstruction of the events from their perspective and constitutes the main source of the revelations that once again place the case at the center of debate.

The entire matter stems from a promise that, according to the account of both declarants, was expressly and repeatedly made to them: that whatever they said before the mission entrusted to Charles Scicluna and Jordi Bertomeu would remain under reserve and would reach only the knowledge of the Holy Father, without any intermediate dicastery even being able to know it. 

Whoever comes forward to recount intimate or painful facts does so trusting in the secrecy of office, and without that trust the entire institution makes no sense.

What is now confirmed is that the content of those reserved statements did not remain within the scope that had been promised, but ended up in the hands of two journalists —Pedro Salinas and Paola Ugaz— who at the same time maintained a notorious public hostility toward the declarants, and that from that leak was born the first defamatory article, signed by Raúl Tola, which launched a smear campaign that has lasted years and has been replicated in numerous media outlets inside and outside Peru.

Until now, it could be maintained, as Bertomeu’s media defense did, that it was merely a conjecture of those affected; what is decisive is that Bertomeu himself acknowledged it in writing in a series of messages that the complainants have notarized, and in which, sent from the phone of the then secretary of the Nunciature, he admits having passed on to Salinas and Ugaz the content of what was declared, including the exact question of whether one of them would enroll their child today in a Sodalicio school. 

The fact that the leak was directed precisely at those who were already attacking the declarants strips the act of any appearance of carelessness and turns it into an act whose harmful result —the reputational lynching of two laypeople who had trusted in confidentiality— was entirely foreseeable to the one who opened the source.

The response of those affected to that breach was, at first, strictly private and measured. They limited themselves to sending notarial letters requesting that what had been disseminated be rectified and that they be explained how the press could have accessed the details of confidential meetings. They received only informal responses and a refusal to provide them with any signed document to repair the damage. 

It was only after exhausting that avenue, and after consulting —according to their account— with more than a dozen canon lawyers and several civil attorneys, that they decided to file a criminal complaint with the Peruvian Prosecutor’s Office, as this was the forum where the damage had occurred, and to prepare in parallel a canonical complaint before the Rota. 

A decision that any legal system recognizes as the legitimate exercise of a fundamental right and which, far from being reprehensible, is exactly what the Church itself has been demanding.

The reaction triggered by that complaint is what places the case in uncharted territory in recent years. 

In September 2024, the complainants were urgently summoned to the Nunciature with the announcement that they would receive “good news” from the Holy Father. What was read to them instead was a penal precept that threatened them with latae sententiae excommunication and conditioned the lifting of that penalty on compliance, within a strict forty-eight-hour deadline, with a list of obligations: immediately withdraw the criminal complaint filed with the Peruvian prosecutor’s office, offer public apologies to the members of the mission, issue corrections to all media outlets they had contacted, and refrain in the future from any public statement or complaint regarding the facts under investigation by the mission.

All of this under the additional warning of a payment of one hundred thousand soles each and a prohibition on ever again presenting themselves publicly as Catholics.

It is worth noting what this set of demands means when stripped of the solemnity of canonical language, because what the document did, in plain terms, was to use the most serious spiritual sanction the Church can impose on a faithful —the rupture of their communion— as a means of pressure to make two citizens renounce recourse to the courts of their own country in defense of their honor.

The use of a medicinal penalty for a purpose entirely foreign to the salvation of souls, which is the only cause the Church’s law recognizes for this type of sanction, constitutes spiritual abuse in its most naked form, insofar as it instrumentalizes a person’s ecclesial communion as a bargaining chip to protect an official from the consequences of his own actions.

That same conduct is, at the same time, a fraud on the law, because the canonical penal precept exists to prevent or correct canonical crimes and not to shield an agent of the Holy See from a criminal proceeding conducted in civil court, so that diverting it to that end amounts to using the instrument against the purpose for which the legal system provided it; and it is, moreover, a textbook abuse of authority, because the burdens imposed exceed any imaginable corrective purpose and, by their very disproportion, reveal that their true object was the impunity of the accused.

There remains to consider the darkest aspect of all. The document appeared attributed to Francis and headed with his name, but it lacked —and this is a verifiable fact on the document itself, not a mere assertion by those affected— a protocol number, a folio, and any reference to a case file, an absence that is simply unthinkable in an authentic act of the Holy See, where, as those familiar with the workings of the curia recall, even the most routine request leaves a registration trail.

To that formal anomaly is added the account of the audience that Francis himself granted them in November 2024, which fits in a disturbingly consistent way with that material fact: according to their account, the Pontiff, upon reading the document they themselves handed him, called it an error, asked whether they had been the ones who had made it, and ultimately revoked it in his own hand along with the signature that headed it.

The question the Pope is said to have directed at them only makes sense if the signature was obtained on a text whose content he did not know, and if that was the case, the conclusion that follows is that someone drafted and processed in the name of the Roman Pontiff an act that the Pontiff had not made his own, which would amount to a de facto usurpation of the papal function and the use of the supreme authority of the Church as cover for a strictly personal interest.

Taken together, the resulting picture is that of a mission born to listen to and repair victims that ended up generating new victims, and of an official charged with safeguarding the trust of those who came to testify who first broke that trust and then, when called to account, instead of responding attempted to impose silence on the aggrieved with the worst currency a priest in his position had at his disposal, which was communion with the Church.

The complainants themselves start from the premise that real victims exist, that those who committed crimes must answer for them through due process, and that those harmed must be compensated. 

What this case makes clear is that the mission, at least in this episode, violated all the guarantees it demands for others, and that the credibility of any future listening process depends on clarifying the breach of an official secret and the use of excommunication as an instrument of coercion.