Wednesday, May 13, 2026

What does Georgia’s new patriarch mean for Rome-Orthodox ties?

The Vatican welcomed Monday the election of a new head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the 14 universally recognized self-governing Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Cardinal Kurt Koch, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, said in a May 11 message that he learned with great joy of Shio III’s election as the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.

The Swiss cardinal wrote: “I am certain that your service will reinforce the bonds of charity and unity which, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, we already truly share, even if not yet fully, with all those who believe in Jesus Christ, so that the Lord’s commandment may become ever more visible: ‘that you love one another as I have loved you’ (John 13:34).”

What is the Georgian Orthodox Church? Who is Shio III, and what does his election mean for Catholic-Orthodox ties?

What is the Georgian Orthodox Church?

Georgia is a nation of around 3.8 million people bordering Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey. It regained independence in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But its history as a unified entity dates back to 1008 AD.

The Georgian Orthodox Church traces its origins back even further, to apostolic times. According to its tradition, its earliest communities were established directly by St. Andrew the Apostle. 

It was recognized as an independent, self-governing church in the 5th century.

In the 11th to 13th centuries, a period known as the Georgian Golden Age, the Georgian Church occupied an influential position within the Orthodox world, offering political and financial support to Orthodox communities across the Balkans and Holy Land.

The Georgian Orthodox Church suffered persecution under Soviet rule, driven by Joseph Stalin, who, in a grim irony, had studied for the Orthodox priesthood in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, before becoming a communist revolutionary. 

The era forged outstanding figures, including St. Gabriel Urgebadze, who set fire to a giant portrait of Lenin at a May Day event in 1965 while denouncing the crowd’s idolatry.

In 1990, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople formally recognized the long-established self-governing status of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the title of Catholicos for its leader.

From 1977 to March 2026, the Church was led by Ilia II of Georgia, a beloved national figure. Concerned by the country’s low post-Soviet birth rate, he offered to serve as godparent to the third child onward of Georgian families. 

At his death, he had around 50,000 godchildren and was credited in some quarters with singlehandedly reviving the birth rate.

When Ilia II died March 17, at the age of 93, he was the longest-serving patriarch in the Georgian Orthodox Church’s history. He had ensured that the Church returned to its historic place as Georgia’s paramount religious institution. 

His death appeared to mark the end of an era of revival, and signal the start of a new and uncertain epoch for Georgian Orthodox Christians.

Who is Shio III?

Ilia II was frail in his final decade. In 2017, he took the precaution of appointing a locum tenens to steer the Georgian Orthodox Church following his death and until the election of a new patriarch. The man he chose was the then-Metropolitan Shio, the Bishop of Senaki and Chkhorotsku.

Shio was born Elizbar Mujiri in Tbilisi in 1969. He studied the cello at the Tbilisi State Conservatoire, graduating in 1991, before pursuing his theological studies in Georgia and Russia. He was tonsured as a monk in 1993, taking the name Shio, associated with a 6th-century saint who helped to establish Georgian monasticism.

Shio oversaw churches in Tbilisi and Moscow before his appointment as bishop in 2003. 

In addition to governing the Senaki and Chkhorotskuri eparchy in Georgia, he was responsible, from 2009, for Georgian Orthodox Christians in Australia and New Zealand.

His profile rose greatly with his nomination as patriarchal locum tenens, which many observers interpreted as a sign he was Ilia II’s preferred successor. He was elected May 11 by the Holy Synod, receiving 22 out of 39 possible votes.

What does his election mean?

Commentators are currently delving into Shio III’s biography in an effort to discern his position on contested Church issues. There’s a consensus that his views are close to Ilia II’s, if not identical.

Both men, for example, have not endorsed the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople’s decision to grant recognition to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in 2018. 

This stance underlines that the Georgian Orthodox Church has a closer affinity with the Russian Orthodox Church than the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

But there are many nuances. Ilia II reportedly criticized Patriarch Kirill of Moscow’s support for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

While Shio III has biographical ties to Russia, he is now head of a fully independent Eastern Orthodox Church, not a satellite of the Moscow Patriarchate.

On relations with Rome, Ilia II’s position could be described as respectful but distant. He became the first Georgian patriarch to visit the Vatican in 1980. 

He welcomed Pope John Paul II to Georgia in 1999 and Pope Francis in 2016, where they also met with the country’s small Catholic community, which numbers around 112,000, according to the Vatican.

But Ilia II had reservations about the ecumenical movement that restricted his engagement. 

The Georgian Orthodox Church continued to be involved in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, but it was more hesitant than other self-governing Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

For instance, Georgian Orthodox theologians expressed concerns about the language of a 2016 Catholic-Orthodox document on primacy, but did not block its publication.

Shio III is said to share Ilia’s doubts about ecumenism and possibly be even more cautious. 

This may explain why the Vatican was quick to send its congratulatory message and may be eager that its representatives meet with the new patriarch at the first opportunity.

«A schismatic act»: Tucho chooses the day of Fatima to confirm Rome's position regarding the FSSPX consecrations

The prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández, published on this May 13 - feast of Our Lady of Fatima - a statement on the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX), reiterating that the episcopal consecrations announced by the Fraternity without pontifical mandate would constitute “a schismatic act”.

The note, officially disseminated by the Vatican, expressly cites the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of Saint John Paul II, published after the episcopal consecrations carried out by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

The Declaration of the Dicastery

The statement indicates that the future episcopal ordinations announced by the FSSPX “do not have the corresponding pontifical mandate” and recalls the canonical consequences foreseen by the Church for this type of acts.

Furthermore, the text states that Pope Leo XIV continues to pray that the leaders of the Fraternity reconsider the decision taken.

Full Text of the Declaration

Declaration of His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith

“In relation to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, what has already been communicated is reaffirmed.

The episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the corresponding pontifical mandate. This act will constitute ‘a schismatic act’ (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, n. 3) and ‘formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication established by the law of the Church’ (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, August 24, 1996).

The Holy Father continues in his prayers asking the Holy Spirit to enlighten the leaders of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X so that they may turn back from the most serious decision they have taken.”

Vatican, May 13, 2026.

Director of Religión Digital accuses Francisco of coercion for defending Bertomeu

José Manuel Vidal seems to have developed a vocation that far exceeds journalism, increasingly approaching the figure of an unaccredited spokesperson for Jordi Bertomeu. 

Every time Infovaticana publishes information related to the controversial pontifical commissioner, Religión Digital immediately activates its particular emergency service: the article appears with almost liturgical punctuality, accompanied by the usual indignant tone. 

What does not usually appear, however, is a real response to what has actually been published.

On this occasion, moreover, Vidal has committed an error that transcends the usual clumsiness. 

In his haste to clean up Bertomeu’s image, he has ended up drafting a sentence that not only does not refute our information, but ends up confirming it. 

And, in the process, places Pope Francis at the center of an operation that, using exclusively Vidal’s own words, can only be described as a form of coercion.

A Prior Editorial Clarification

Before getting to the heart of the matter, it is advisable to clear up a confusion that Bertomeu’s entourage has been deliberately fostering for years: Infovaticana does not act as a spokesperson for the Sodalicio. 

Quite the opposite is true. We have been warning for some time that Bertomeu’s management is leaving intact what truly needed to be dismantled. 

Because there is a central issue on which Bertomeu avoids acting and which, coincidentally, no one in his media entourage seems to find essential:

The Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana accumulated over decades a patrimonial network of enormous dimensions: foundations, companies, international structures, and assets scattered in opaque jurisdictions. 

All that patrimony continues to exist. Figari is still alive, protected and economically supported within orbits linked to the Sodalit universe. 

And Bertomeu, the man sent precisely to dismantle that structure, has spent months occupied with interviews, leaks, and the construction of an epic narrative around himself.

The practical result of all this points to the real compensation for the victims ending up being ridiculous. 

What survives of the Sodalicio after this process - and it seems that quite a bit will survive - will have been patrimonially shielded while the pontifical commissioner dedicated more efforts to becoming a character than to carrying out the technical, silent, and legally complex work that the situation demanded. 

The victims that Bertomeu claims to defend will receive crumbs. 

And the structures he claims to combat will continue to exist, reconverted and protected, because no one decided to lift the corporate veil when it was still possible to do so.

That is exactly what Infovaticana denounces. 

Not the suppression of the Sodalicio, which was necessary and just, but the botched way in which that suppression is being carried out. 

And, with increasing force, the suspicion also emerges that said botch may not be accidental, but the consequence of a commissioner more interested in accumulating reputational capital for future episcopal aspirations than in addressing the uncomfortable, discreet, and technically demanding work entrusted to him.

The Sentence That Points to Francis

In the text published by Religión Digital, Vidal writes the following while trying to explain why Francis revoked the threat of excommunication against journalists Giuliana Caccia and Sebastián Blanco:

“Francis received them both in exchange for ceasing the judicial-media attacks against Bertomeu.”

It is advisable to read the sentence again.

A journalist who for years has presented himself as a critical and independent voice in ecclesiastical journalism has just described a papal audience in which the Roman Pontiff withdraws excommunication - the maximum sanction provided for by Church law - in exchange for two lay journalists abandoning their complaints against a specific Vatican official.

In any minimally civilized legal system, that has a quite precise name. 

Conditioning the withdrawal of a sanction on the affected person abandoning legitimate legal actions constitutes an evident form of coercion. 

One does not need to be a canonist to notice it. 

It is enough, simply, to have opened a Penal Code at some point.

We, in fact, do not claim anything like that. 

And we do not do so because the testimony of those affected themselves points in a completely different direction: Francis listened to their version, understood the legal nonsense that had been put before him, and revoked the penal precept in his own hand, without imposing any conditions. 

While the version from the journalists present describes Francis correcting an error, the version offered by Vidal - presumably built from information provided by Bertomeu - presents the Pope as an arbiter of a sort of silence pact. 

Let each reader draw their own conclusions about who ends up treating the Pope’s memory worse.

The Questions That Vidal Avoids Answering

The Religión Digital article constructs seven questions that no one had asked him to answer them with great rhetorical apparatus. 

It is the classic communication manual that the Spanish proverb describes with the expression «¿De dónde vienes? Manzanas traigo». 

What Vidal carefully avoids is facing the questions that Infovaticana has indeed raised with all seriousness. 

It is advisable to reproduce them here so that the reader can measure the scope of the evasion.

Can a pontifical commissioner use excommunication as a personal pressure tool against those who have sued him civilly?

Who drafted the penal precept that threatened Caccia and Blanco with excommunication, and under what canonical foundation? 

Someone drafted that document. Someone decided to place it before a sick Pope to obtain his signature. 

And yet, the identity of its author and the legal foundation of the precept remain unexplained.

Why did an episode that, in any serious legal system, would have sufficed to remove Bertomeu from his functions have no disciplinary consequences? 

Francis himself had to intervene personally to dismantle what his commissioner had built. 

What institutional consequences did that have for Bertomeu? None that Vidal considers appropriate to mention.

Where is the Sodalicio’s patrimony? Foundations, companies, international structures, and scattered assets. How much has really been identified? How much has been recovered? And how much remains off the radar while Bertomeu gives interviews?

How does he plan to truly compensate the victims if the patrimonial network remains intact? 

Compensation that is not accompanied by a serious lifting of the corporate veil barely goes beyond the symbolic. 

What figures does Bertomeu handle? 

What real guarantees exist that the victims will not end up receiving simply crumbs?

Why do other Peruvian victims of ecclesiastical abuses, unrelated to the media focus of the Sodalicio case, continue without response within the ordinary system? 

Victims from the diocese of Chiclayo, victims related to the General Secretary of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference. 

Why does the Bertomeu model seem to produce first-class victims and second-class victims?

What justifies Bertomeu personally piloting the compensations derived from Vos Estis Lux Mundi procedures, invading competencies that correspond to the ordinary penal channel? 

The management of compensations already has an established channel. 

Why does Bertomeu seek to control it personally? 

What institutional interest could justify it?

Is it compatible with the confidentiality requirements inherent to a canonical instruction the relationship that Bertomeu maintains with certain ecclesiastical media, including leaks of private conversations and papal confidences? 

Canon Law demands exactly the opposite of what Bertomeu habitually practices. 

How does his unofficial spokesperson justify that?

What effective supervision does León XIV exercise over Bertomeu’s management, beyond the formal endorsement of his continuity in office? 

The new Pope’s support for the commissioner is a fact. 

But support without control can hardly be considered governance. 

What concrete accountability mechanisms exist?

What does Bertomeu really aspire to when his mission in Peru concludes? 

It is an uncomfortable question, but perfectly legitimate. 

An official who accumulates media exposure, builds a personal epic narrative, and acts with margins of discretion improper to his rank rarely does so without contemplating a concrete horizon. What is his?

Vidal does not answer any of these issues. He prefers to answer, instead, whether Francis was a lucid Pope, whether Paola Ugaz’s complaint was founded, or whether León XIV shows indifference to the case. Legitimate questions, of course, although it is striking that no one had asked them.

Urgency as a Method

There is, moreover, a detail that deserves to be highlighted beyond the specific content of the articles. 

The speed with which Religión Digital publishes defenses of Bertomeu every time Infovaticana reveals new information about the case does not seem casual nor does it respond to a strictly journalistic dynamic. 

It resembles much more a service.

At this point, the direct line between the pontifical commissioner and the Religión Digital newsroom is probably one of the worst-kept secrets in Spanish-language ecclesiastical journalism.

A pontifical commissioner who, according to Canon Law itself, should act under strict confidentiality, finds time and willingness to regularly feed his flagship medium with the version of the facts that most favors him. 

And that same medium responds by publishing said versions without asking a single uncomfortable question.

Powerful German lay lobby challenges Leo XIV and defends homosexual blessings

The Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), one of the main organizations of the progressive laity in Germany and a key actor in the controversial “Synodal Way,” has publicly defended the continuity of liturgical blessings for homosexual couples and people in “irregular situations,” despite the recent reservations expressed by Pope Leo XIV.

According to Katholisch.de, the ZdK president, Irme Stetter-Karp, assured this Tuesday in Würzburg that the concerns expressed by the Pontiff “are unfounded,” while defending that the form developed jointly with the German Episcopal Conference clearly distinguishes between a sacramental wedding and a blessing ceremony.

The ZdK insists on maintaining homosexual blessings

During the opening of the spring plenary assembly of the German lay organization, Stetter-Karp expressed her desire for these celebrations to continue being applied “in as many places as possible.”

“I hope that this guide for blessing celebrations continues to be used to bless homosexual couples and couples in so-called irregular situations,” she stated.

The statements come after Leo XIV recently expressed reservations about certain initiatives promoted in Germany and reiterated the need to maintain doctrinal fidelity on issues related to marriage and sexual morality.

The document defended by the ZdK was developed jointly with representatives of the German Episcopal Conference within the context of the Synodal Way.

New pressures for the female diaconate

The ZdK president also used her speech to once again demand changes in the Church’s sacramental structure and lamented the lack of progress toward the female diaconate.

Although she positively valued some statements by Leo XIV on the need for the Church to address broader issues than sexual morality, she criticized the lack of favorable signals from the Vatican regarding the ordination of women deacons.

“The results of the Vatican study group on the female diaconate do not really leave me encouraged,” she stated. “Once again, we are told that, in the current state, women cannot access the diaconate.”

The German Synodal Way continues to strain Rome

Stetter-Karp’s words reflect that the German progressive sector does not seem willing to halt the reforms promoted during the Synodal Way despite the repeated warnings from the Holy See.

Over the past few years, the Vatican has expressed concern on several occasions about German proposals related to sexual morality, authority in the Church, the role of women, or the sacramental structure.

Pope Leo XIV himself has insisted since the beginning of his pontificate on the need to preserve doctrinal unity and avoid separate national paths that could weaken ecclesial communion.

Social and political criticisms

Beyond ecclesial issues, the ZdK president also criticized the German Government for possible social cuts, for the reduction of international aid, and for what she described as insufficient commitment to climate policy.

In addition, she denounced an alleged social “fatigue” regarding the treatment of sexual abuses and called for continuing to promote reforms and protection measures within the Church.

London appoints to the Holy See a diplomat linked to «diversity & inclusion» activism

The British Government has appointed Tarandip Kaur Sandhu, a diplomat known as Tammy Sandhu and closely linked in recent years to diversity, inclusion, and LGBT promotion policies driven by the Foreign Office British.

According to The Catholic Herald, Sandhu will replace Chris Trott in the position, who has been the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the Vatican since 2021. 

Her arrival will take place in a particularly sensitive context for the Church, marked by cultural and political tensions surrounding issues related to gender ideology, institutional feminism, and the LGBT agenda.

A diplomat trained in the “diversity & inclusion” agenda

Sandhu joined the British Foreign Office in 2005 and has developed much of her career within structures linked to ethnic diversity and institutional inclusion policies.

In 2021, she received the MBE distinction for her services to “diversity and inclusion” within the Foreign Office, after having chaired the race and ethnicity network of the British diplomatic corps.

During her most recent stint as British Consul General in San Francisco - one of the world’s main epicenters of LGBT and gender activism - she also strengthened the United Kingdom’s institutional involvement with various initiatives linked to these cultural agendas.

Collaboration with San Francisco Pride

According to information published by University College London, Sandhu promoted an official collaboration between the British consulate and San Francisco Pride, one of the largest LGBT activism events in the United States.

Additionally, in October 2024, she organized an opening event for “LGBTQ History Month” at the official British residence, where she publicly defended institutional support for the LGBT community and criticized “harassment” against transgender people.

She also participated in activities related to the “Pink Triangle,” a historical symbol used by the LGBT movement in San Francisco.

A significant profile for diplomacy with the Holy See

Although the appointment is part of the normal British diplomatic rotation, Sandhu’s profile has not gone unnoticed in ecclesiastical circles.

The British embassy to the Holy See plays a relevant role in issues related to human rights, international cooperation, migration, and cultural dialogue. 

In recent years, several Western governments have also sought to incorporate the promotion of agendas linked to gender, identity, and diversity into their international diplomacy.

The arrival of a diplomat closely associated with these policies coincides with a delicate moment within the Church, where intense debates continue on anthropology, sexual morality, and Western ideological pressure on religious institutions.

The end of Chris Trott’s tenure

Sandhu will replace Chris Trott, a diplomat with a long career who represented the United Kingdom in the Vatican since 2021.

During his tenure, key events linked to the United Kingdom coincided, such as the death of Elizabeth II, the coronation of Charles III, and the beginning of the pontificate of Leo XIV.

Trott insisted on several occasions on the singular role of the Holy See as a global humanitarian and religious actor, particularly highlighting the Church’s capacity to act in war zones and humanitarian crises where many governments face greater difficulties.

Arrest warrant against Chaldean bishop accused of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars comes to light

New judicial documents published in the United States have brought to light details of the serious economic and personal accusations weighing on Chaldean Bishop Bawai Shaleta, former head of the Chaldean Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle, based in El Cajón, California, and with jurisdiction over much of the western United States.

According to The Pillar, a partially declassified arrest warrant confirms that the prelate is accused of money laundering and embezzlement, following an investigation that detected the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of dollars from ecclesiastical accounts. 

The case ultimately led to the Pope Leo XIV accepting his resignation on March 10, the same day that the Chaldean Patriarch, Cardinal Louis Raphael Sako, also stepped down.

More than 427,000 dollars missing

The judicial order states that suspicions began in December 2024, when “discrepancies” were detected in the bank accounts of the eparchy and the Chaldean cathedral.

Investigators claim that approximately 427,345 dollars disappeared from an account intended to help needy people over an eight-month period.

According to the accusation, Shaleta would have organized a system whereby certain rental payments for ecclesiastical properties were made directly in cash to the bishop himself. 

Subsequently, checks were issued from a charitable account of the diocese to cover the missing money in other parish accounts.

The judicial documentation states that the cash received “was never redeposited” into the corresponding accounts.

Trips, cash, and lack of documentation

The investigation also points out that the bishop would have received cash related to ecclesiastical trips, perpetual masses, and other expenses linked to parish activities.

When authorities requested explanations about those funds, Shaleta would not have been able to provide documentation justifying the destination of the money. 

Later, he assured that part of those amounts were delivered to needy people in Iraq, although without presenting additional evidence, according to the affidavit incorporated into the case.

The bishop was arrested on March 5 at San Diego airport while attempting to leave the United States carrying more than 9,000 dollars in cash and with a flight booked to Europe.

Accusations of improper personal conduct

In addition to the financial accusations, The Pillar recalls that the Vatican investigation also addressed alleged improper personal conduct by the prelate.

Among them, the U.S. media mentions supposed frequent trips to a Tijuana brothel linked to sexual exploitation networks and the existence of a close relationship with a woman with whom he shared a bank account and free access to their respective homes.

Shaleta denies the accusations and claims to be the victim of a campaign against him driven by sectors of the Chaldean community dissatisfied with his pastoral governance.

The shadow over Cardinal Sako

The case also caused strong tensions within the Chaldean Church. 

According to The Pillar, Cardinal Sako would have attempted to promote in Rome the transfer of Shaleta to an administrative position in Baghdad even after the investigation had begun.

Although the patriarch acknowledged having raised that possibility with Vatican officials, he assured that he did so before fully knowing the scope of the case.

However, various sources cited by The Pillar maintain that the Vatican already had detailed reports on the investigation before those efforts.

The simultaneous acceptance of the resignations of Sako and Shaleta was interpreted by numerous observers as a gesture of displeasure from the Holy See regarding the internal management of the scandal.

He could face 15 years in prison

Shaleta pleaded not guilty to the 16 counts of money laundering and embezzlement filed against him.

He is currently free on $125,000 bail and under GPS monitoring while awaiting trial.

If ultimately convicted, he could face a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.

Vatican Bank delivers a record dividend of 24 million euros to the Pope

The Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), known as the Vatican bank, closed the 2025 fiscal year with a net profit of 51 million euros, the best result in the last ten years and an increase of 55.5% compared to the previous fiscal year.

According to the official balance published by the IOR itself and reported by Vatican News, the Cardinal Commission also approved delivering to the Pope a dividend of 24.3 million euros, 76.1% higher than in 2024, intended to support the religious and charitable works of the Holy See.

Beyond the figures, the results reflect the consolidation of the long process of cleanup, transparency, and financial reform driven in the Vatican over the last decade following the numerous economic scandals that affected the Holy See.

A record profit and strong financial solidity

The IOR notably increased its revenues during 2025. 

The intermediation margin reached 66.3 million euros, compared to 51.5 million the previous year, while net equity grew to 815.3 million euros.

The entity currently manages nearly 5.9 billion euros belonging mainly to religious congregations, dioceses, Catholic institutions, and Vatican bodies.

One of the most striking indicators is the Tier 1 ratio - the main international index of banking solvency - which reached 71.9%, an exceptionally high figure compared to most international financial entities.

As explained by The Pillar, this high capitalization responds to the peculiar situation of the Vatican, which lacks a central bank or a “lender of last resort.” 

This obliges the IOR to maintain reserves far superior to the usual ones in order to address potential financial crises or extraordinary needs.

The end of a decade of reforms

The publication of this balance also coincides with the handover from Jean-Baptiste de Franssu at the head of the IOR’s Supervisory Board, thus closing a decisive stage in the transformation of the Vatican financial institution.

De Franssu assumed the presidency in 2014, at one of the most delicate moments for the Vatican bank, after years marked by accusations of opacity, irregularities, and financial scandals.

Under his mandate, the IOR began to submit to international controls, external audits, and financial transparency standards. 

The 2025 balance has once again received an audit “without observations” from Deloitte & Touche.

The Pillar recalls that during these years the IOR played a central role in some of the largest financial investigations in the Vatican, especially in the so-called London building scandal.

The U.S. media outlet notes that De Franssu and general director Gianfranco Mammí rejected in 2018 a loan request of 150 million euros requested by the Secretariat of State to refinance that controversial real estate operation. 

The IOR’s refusal ended up triggering the judicial investigation that resulted in the conviction of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and other Vatican officials in the first instance.

Leo XIV modifies part of Francis’s model

As also highlighted by The Pillar, Pope Francis strengthened the central role of the IOR during his final years, ordering that the dicasteries and bodies of the Curia manage their investments through the Vatican bank.

However, Leo XIV subsequently introduced some changes, allowing various Vatican bodies to once again choose their own managers and financial instruments.

Despite this, the balance shows that the IOR continues to be one of the most solid and strategic financial institutions in the Vatican.

Investments “consistent with Catholic ethics”

The IOR also highlighted that all its investment lines closed 2025 with positive results and reiterated that its financial products are managed in accordance with the principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine.

In February 2026, the entity launched two new stock indices together with Morningstar, specifically designed as a reference for Catholic investments worldwide.

The new president of the IOR will be the Luxembourg financier François Pauly, a former member of the Supervisory Board with extensive experience in major European banking. 

Before his appointment, Pauly held positions of responsibility within the Edmond de Rothschild group, specialized in private banking and management of large fortunes. 

The Vatican had already announced his designation last March as the successor to Jean-Baptiste de Franssu as part of the process of continuity in the financial reforms driven over the last decade.

Message of Fatima to the Spanish bishops: a warning against the laxity of the clergy and spiritual lukewarmness

Every May 13, the Church recalls the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima and her urgent call to conversion, penance, the recitation of the Rosary, and reparation for sins. 

But within the message entrusted to Sister Lucia, there is a less remembered and particularly uncomfortable dimension: the warnings directed to the bishops of Spain regarding the spiritual situation of the clergy, the religious, and the Christian people.

This is not a secondary matter. 

In the communications recorded by Sister Lucia, the call from Heaven to the Spanish shepherds appears linked to the spiritual reform of the Church, the need for sacrifice, and the duty to guide souls in a time marked by the loss of fervor and the spread of errors against the faith.

A specific request to the bishops of Spain

Sister Lucia recounted that, during her hours of prayer before the Most Blessed Sacrament, she received a message in which Our Lord asked the Spanish bishops to gather in retreat to discern, in common agreement, the necessary paths to lead the souls entrusted to their care.

“If the bishops of Spain were to gather in a house designated for that purpose, to make their retreat, and in common agreement agree on the paths by which to lead the souls entrusted to them, they would receive lights and special graces from the Holy Spirit there.”

The request was not limited to a pious recommendation. 

The message asked to determine “the means to apply for the reform of the Christian people” and to “remedy the laxity of the clergy and a large part of the Religious and Religious Sisters.”

The denunciation of the clergy’s laxity

Our Lord, as transmitted by Sister Lucia, lamented that few served Him “in the practice of sacrifice.”

“The number of those who serve me in the practice of sacrifice is very limited. I need souls and priests who serve me in sacrifice for me and for souls.”

The warning strikes at the heart of Christian life. Fatima does not speak only of external threats or political dangers. 

It speaks of sin, of lukewarmness, of the loss of the spirit of sacrifice, and of the responsibility of the shepherds when the Christian people cool in the faith.

Sister Lucia’s pain at the setback of consecrated souls

Sister Lucia herself left record of the inner suffering that transmitting this message caused her. 

No tone of vanity or easy accusation appears in her words, but rather a deep awareness of the gravity of what she had received.

“Oh, my good Jesus, I feel the bitterness of Your Heart, I feel the loss of souls, I feel that I cannot do more, for You and for them, the souls of my brothers!”

And she added the phrase: “Oh, how sad and painful is the setback of consecrated souls!”

These words place the message in its true plane: not as a political or sociological critique, but as a spiritual warning. 

What is at stake is the salvation of souls and the fidelity of those who have been called to serve God in a special way.

Spain, Fatima, and the responsibility of the shepherds

The message directed to the Spanish bishops must be read within the entirety of Fatima. The Virgin asked for prayer, penance, reparation, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and conversion of sinners. She also warned of the consequences of sin for nations and for the Church.

Spain, which suffered particularly bloody religious persecution during the Civil War, appears in these communications as a nation in need of profound spiritual reform. 

The request to its bishops was clear: it was not enough to administer ecclesiastical structures; it was necessary to correct laxity, strengthen the clergy, and lead the Christian people along paths of conversion.

A call that remains relevant

The message of Fatima cannot be reduced to a sentimental devotion or a simple Marian commemoration. It is a clear and real warning. 

The Virgin called for conversion and sacrifice because sin offends God and because many souls are lost when no one prays or sacrifices for them.

Therefore, the message to the Spanish bishops is especially challenging today. 

The renewal of the Church will not come from empty pastoral strategies or adaptation to the spirit of the world, but from conversion, penance, doctrinal fidelity, and a return to sacrifice.

Fatima continues to speak. 

And, in the case of Spain, its warning points directly to those who have the responsibility to guide, correct, and sustain the Christian people amid an increasingly profound spiritual crisis.

Leo XIV grants the Order of Pius IX to the Iranian ambassador to the Holy See

Pope Leo XIV has awarded the Grand Cross of the Pontifical Order of Pius IX, the highest active diplomatic distinction of the Vatican, to the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Holy See, Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari. 

The decision, confirmed by a diploma dated May 8 and signed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State.

Although the award is usually part of the Vatican diplomatic protocol and is typically granted to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See after several years of service, the geopolitical context and the Pope’s recent statements on the conflict with Iran have turned the gesture into a subject of strong debate.

The award to the Iranian representative

The Order of Pius IX - also known as the Pian Order - was instituted by Pope Pius IX in 1847 and is considered one of the highest honorary distinctions of the Holy See. 

Today it is mainly awarded to heads of state and high diplomatic representatives.

According to Iranian media such as Press TV, Mehr News and the agency West Asia News, the distinction was granted to Mokhtari in recognition of his diplomatic work and his efforts to promote “peace, justice, and opposition to warmongering”.

The Iranian ambassador presented his credentials to Pope Francis in December 2023, so some observers point out that the recognition falls within the usual Vatican practice with resident ambassadors.

However, the Iranian state press has also presented the gesture as a significant political signal from Leo XIV in the face of recent tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

The context: the Pope’s criticisms of the war

The act comes after Leo XIV publicly condemned the military actions of the United States and Israel against Iran and reiterated the Holy See’s traditional rejection of military escalation.

As Cardinal Parolin recently recalled, the Vatican’s position on the Iranian nuclear program has not changed and maintains the historical line of opposition to nuclear weapons defended by the Church since the 20th century.

Pope Leo XIV himself has insisted on several occasions that no conflict can be morally justified and has repeatedly called for an end to hostilities. 

During a papal flight last month, the Pontiff assured that the US administration “does not intimidate him”.

Nevertheless, the Pope has also openly criticized the Iranian regime’s repression against its own citizens. 

In statements made after an apostolic trip to Africa, he condemned the decisions of any government that “unjustly takes the lives of people”.

Critical reactions on social media

The award has generated harsh criticism among commentators and conservative figures in the United States and Europe. 

Some interpret the gesture as a symbolic legitimation of a regime accused of persecuting opponents, religious minorities, and converts to Christianity.

The journalist and writer Rod Dreher publicly questioned the recognition by recalling the internal repressions of the Iranian regime, while in other comments, X users denounce that Iran maintains the death penalty for Muslims converted to Christianity.

For his part, Eduard Habsburg, former ambassador of Hungary to the Holy See, tried to downplay the controversy by pointing out that the Order of Pius IX is routinely granted to numerous ambassadors accredited in the Vatican after a certain period of service.

A bad “timing” of Vatican diplomacy?

Beyond the fact that the granting of the Order of Pius IX falls within the usual diplomatic practices of the Holy See, it is difficult to ignore the context in which it has occurred. 

The award arrives in the midst of strong international tension and after Leo XIV’s recent statements against the military escalation in the Middle East.

The Holy See has historically defended the need to keep channels of dialogue open even with hostile governments or those distant from the Christian vision. 

But episodes like this leave the question open: have they chosen a bad moment to deliver this award to the Iranian representative, or has it been done taking into account the delicate international political context?

It should be added that the award was not carried out in a public ceremony nor have audiences of the ambassador Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari with Leo XIV been recorded during the month of May 2026.

Erik Varden warns of the danger of a Christianity without the Cross or conversion

Bishop Erik Varden, prelate of Trondheim (Norway) and member of the Trappist order, has warned about the danger of instrumentalizing Christianity for political or ideological purposes, stating that using the Cross “as a weapon to strike others” represents a drift “toward heresy or even blasphemy.” 

In an extensive interview granted to OSV News during his visit to St. Mary’s seminary in Baltimore on May 7, the Norwegian bishop also reflected on Christian hope, artificial intelligence, community life, and the need to recover patience as an essential virtue.

Varden, known for his intellectual and spiritual profile within the Church, was in charge of preaching the Lenten spiritual exercises in the Vatican for Pope Leo XIV and the Roman Curia. 

In his statements, he insisted that the Gospel cannot become a tool in the service of cultural or partisan agendas.

“The Gospel is an end in itself”

Asked about the rise of political discourses that resort to Christianity as an identity element or for confrontation, Varden responded clearly: “Any attempt to instrumentalize the Gospel for a subsidiary purpose, whether cultural, ideological, or political, is suspect.”

The Norwegian bishop particularly alerted against forms of Christianity that eliminate the central core of the faith: Christ crucified and risen. 

“Any presentation of Christianity that abstracts the scandal of the Cross or perversely uses the Cross as a weapon to hurt others is drifting toward heresy or even blasphemy,” he affirmed.

In response, he defended a deeply Christocentric experience of the faith, less focused on rhetoric and more on the concrete witness of life. 

As he explained, Christianity transformed the ancient world not only through preaching, but by showing “a new way of being human,” based on reconciliation and forgiveness.

“When Christianity is invoked as a component of a discourse of hate, we simply must not get on that train”

The truth must be spoken “in charity”

Varden acknowledged that there is a risk of falling into tribal dynamics even within Christian environments. 

To avoid it, he proposed recovering an ancient teaching from St. Paul: “Speaking the truth in charity.”

“Love for those who are wrong does not consist in pretending that the error does not exist, but in addressing it in a constructive way,” he explained. 

In this sense, he encouraged Catholics to form themselves seriously in the faith, study Scripture, and live deeply the sacramental grace, avoiding superficial or merely emotional responses.

For the Trappist bishop, only a Church that authentically lives the beauty of grace and communion will be able to offer a convincing alternative to contemporary ideological conflicts.

No spiritual hope in artificial intelligence

Another of the most forceful points of the interview was his reflection on artificial intelligence. 

Although he recognized its practical utility for certain tasks, Varden showed himself to be deeply skeptical regarding any spiritual expectation placed in these technologies.

“In terms of spirituality, I have absolutely no hope in artificial intelligence,” he affirmed. As he explained, a true spiritual renewal requires a transformation of the human heart, something that “an algorithm cannot do.”

The statements come at a time when numerous technological and cultural sectors present AI as a tool capable of replacing increasingly broad human processes, also in educational or psychological areas. 

Varden, however, defended the fact that conversion and religious experience belong to an irreducibly human dimension.

Patience, a forgotten virtue

During the interview, the bishop of Trondheim also reflected on the impatience of the contemporary world and the obsession with immediate gratification. He criticized the mentality that seeks to satisfy any desire instantly through apps, consumption, or entertainment.

“Being human is something great, and great things take time,” he recalled, quoting Cardinal John Henry Newman.

For Varden, patience constitutes an indispensable virtue for Christian life and to avoid false expectations of building the Kingdom of God through purely human or political mechanisms.

The Christian community as a living witness

The Norwegian bishop also insisted on the need to rebuild authentic Christian communities. He recalled with satisfaction a day recently celebrated in Trondheim Cathedral, where faithful from different backgrounds shared conferences, prayer, silence, conversation, and a fraternal meal.

He observed how people conversed with each other “without even thinking of looking at their mobile phones,” something he considered especially significant in a society marked by isolation and digital hyperconnectivity.

According to Varden, parishes will only be able to attract others again if they manage to become places where spiritual life, intellectual formation, coexistence, and Christian friendship converge.

‘You broke my trust and you broke me’: Former St Bede’s priest jailed for sexually abusing boarders

A former Christchurch boys’ school priest who sexually abused boarders in his care has been sentenced to nearly eight years in prison.

Father Rowan Maxwell Donoghue, 69, was sentenced in Christchurch District Court on Wednesday after pleading guilty in October to six charges of sexual offending at St Bede’s College between 1996 and 2000.

Judge Jane Farish said the shame felt by Donoghue’s victims should rest solely on his shoulders.

“Hopefully, now that black secret is out of the wardrobe, they no longer hold the shame they never should’ve had to hold,” she said.

She commended their courage, and hoped the positive steps they had since taken would continue.

“The scars won’t disappear, but I hope the intensity of scars will lessen over time.”

The judge highlighted the victims’ vulnerability, the breach of trust ‒ not only to the victims, but to the parents who trusted him to care for their sons, and to the school who employed him ‒ and Donoghue’s abuse of power, as a priest with access and control of the school dormitory.

Donoghue pleaded guilty on October 29 last year to six charges, and was remanded in custody until he was sentenced on Wednesday. Two other charges were dismissed at trial.

His convictions were subject to interim name suppression until January 28, when Judge Farish lifted the order.

At sentencing, the awful extent of his offending was laid bare. One man cried as he read his victim impact statement in court, recalling Donoghue’s “disgusting, invasive” abuse.

“I was unaware how dark my path would be,” he said, “And it got dark.”

“The impact on my life has been hard… [I have been] broken and at times suicidal.

“You broke my trust and you broke me.”

Another victim described the excitement, nerves, and determination he had as a young boy heading to St Bede’s College as a boarder, eager to prove to his father how he would become a man.

“He committed these crimes when I was most vulnerable,” he said. “No family ‒ just me, in the lion’s den.”

He often wondered “what life could’ve been” if he wasn’t sexually abused.

“Imagine trying to mature, change, fit in sexually, academically, do well in sport, when you have to chuck sexual abuse in there? It’s something no kid should ever have to figure out.”

Instead, he became “a kid out of control”. He abused drugs and alcohol to numb his thoughts and struggled to keep a job.

Another victim who developed similar substance abuse issues, spoke of being “profoundly violated” by “someone I was taught to trust without question”.

“While often I may have appeared normal, I was dealing with the lasting effects caused by that man.”

Crown prosecutor Courtney Martyn said no sentence would adequately reflect the harm the men experienced.

“He was a parental substitute. He was to care for those boarders day and night… he was able to exploit that.”

The offending followed a pattern of grossly abusive behaviour, she said.

“Extent and repetition shows it was not opportunistic, rather predatory. The victim impact [statements] shows all the shame that was not theirs to carry.

“His role as a priest allowed him to access vulnerable children, which he continued for a prolonged period.”

Donoghue’s lawyer Josh Lucas said the priest was “profoundly sorry” for the hurt he’d caused not only to the victims, but how it has rippled into their communities.

“Nothing I can say make things right with victims and community,” Lucas said. “He has abused them, and he is sorry. He’s sorry he’s let the victims, his society, his family, the school, all down.”

Lucas said Donoghue understood he would be going to prison, but argued a significant discount for early pleas was warranted.

Judge Farish noted his remorse, but considered the scale of Donoghue’s offending high. She sentenced him to seven years and eight months in prison.

“You have shown rehabilitative efforts… but there is still further work to be done.”

Years of abuse

Donoghue was employed by St Bede’s from 1993 to 2000.

He was thanked in the 2000 magazine for his “genuine care and concern” for students upon his departure.

It said Donoghue had undertaken many roles, including maths and religious education, musical director, cricket and rugby coach, editor of the Bedean magazine, school photographer, ski trip organiser, and “celebrant at liturgies”.

“And these are only the things that the school administration knew about!!” the magazine concluded.

But from 1996, the priest repeatedly groped, rubbed, massaged and performed indecent or sexual acts on boarders under his care, according to the summary of facts.

Donoghue’s first listed victim was repeatedly assaulted at night in his dorm in 1996. Boarders slept in pods of four beds, which were separated by low partition walls.

Donoghue, then the “Dormitory Master”, would sit on the 13-year-old’s bed “and console him” as he struggled with homesickness.

This started as rubbing the boy’s back and shoulders, but progressed to other areas, the summary said. Donoghue also massaged the victim in his private bedroom.

The priest assaulted two other victims, aged 13 and 16, in similar fashion during later years, using massages to begin his offending.

A fourth victim was subjected to Donoghue’s massages and assaults from 1997 to 2000.

“The frequency of offending was such that the victim felt like it was at times a nightly occurrence,” the summary said.

When this victim was moved to a single room in 2000, at age 16, Donoghue’s crimes escalated to sexual violation.

Before joining St Bede’s College in 1993, he taught for 11 years at St Patrick’s College Silverstream, when a blurb about Donoghue’s arrival in the 1993 St Bede’s magazine stated: “Silverstream’s loss is St Bede’s gain.”

St Bede’s is conducting its own investigation into allegations of historical sexual abuse, but the Government’s chief victims adviser Justice Ruth Money called on them to hand it over to independent investigators.

“Without expert investigation and support, they are failing,” she said in February.

This came after Donoghue’s conviction and RNZ revealing another former priest of the school, former rector Fr Brian Cummings, was also accused of abuse by three complainants in 1996, 2014 and 2023.

Cummings, who died in 2022, “strenuously denied” the allegations, RNZ reported.

After the sentencing, police said they were pleased to see justice done for Donoghue’s victims “who had the bravery to come forward and tell their stories.

“Our complainants have taken another step in paving the way for others to come forward, to have a voice and to not be silenced or shamed.”

Police urged anyone who would like to make a complaint or to report similar offending, to make contact online at 105.police.govt.nz or call 105.

Forensic analyst says some digital evidence against accused priest was deleted while he was on leave

A forensic analysis has told the court that files used as evidence against Luke Seguna, the former Marsaxlokk parish priest, had been deleted while he was on leave.

Seguna stands accused of money laundering, fraud and misappropriation resumed on Wednesday morning.

Taking the witness stand, forensic analyst Matthew Abela Medici detailed his involvement in an investigation involving deleted files found within his computer’s recycle bin. 

He told the court that he had initially informed the lead inspector of the discovery verbally.

The witness explained that he later formalised this information in an email sent on 25 March 2024, to the superintendent, the assistant commissioner, and the inspector.

Abela Medici noted that while he had been asked previously whether the files could be restored, he had advised against it due to technical risks. He stated that as soon as one touches the files, there is a risk of compromise. 

Under examination, the analyst was asked whether the deleted data had eventually been retrieved. He clarified that he did not perform a retrieval because the files had been deleted from the active system. 

“If I were to perform a retrieval, I would not have known where those files would have ended up had I saved them myself," said Medici. 

He further elaborated on the sensitive nature of digital images, explaining that although the evidence involved a computer system rather than a laptop, the principles of “digital images” remained the same. 

The court heard that the devices in question were exhibited in a sitting on 19 June 2023, at which point the forensic analyst submitted his formal report along with images of the desktop computer. 

He confirmed that the files originally found on the desktop had indeed been deleted prior to his forensic imaging.

On cross-examination, the witness further explained that upon returning from leave, he accessed the computer tower and found that the files he had copied were now placed in the recycling bin. 

The defence stressed the fact that the witness did not care to mention this deletion during his previous testimony.

The witness replied that the material contained within the deleted files had already been exhibited and presented before the court; however, he repeated that he had informed the Superintendent that certain deleted files included evidence related to the case.

When asked by Lawyer Matthew Xuereb whether other individuals had worked on the analysis, the analyst replied that the entire process was conducted ‘from A to Z’ by him personally. 

“I took that decision because I was certain that once the files are touched, they no longer remain in their original state and therefore the evidence would be compromised,” the witness maintained.

Asked again by the defence whether he was aware that the deletion of files could constitute a criminal offence and whether he had requested the opening of an inquiry, Abela Medici replied in the negative.

The case is set to continue on 17 June at 1pm. 

Magistrate Lara Lanfranco presided. 

AG lawyer Ramon Bonett Sladden prosecuted.

Lawyers Matthew Xuereb and Alex Scerri Herrera appeared for the accused.

Questions abound as sex crimes trial looms for priest in Texas

The trial of a Catholic priest in a Texas criminal court is slated to begin later this month, on charges of serial sexual assault against multiple victims.

The accused cleric is 57-year-old Father Anthony Odiong of Uyo diocese in Nigeria, who served in the Diocese of Austin from 2006 to 2012 and garnered a significant following as a spiritual counselor and popular preacher with a healing ministry.

A Crux Now review reveals significant discrepancies in the Diocese of Austin’s statements at various times regarding Odiong, raising questions about the management of the case by Austin diocesan officials and several other major Church jurisdictions.<

Former Upstate NY priest allegedly stole $450K meant for people in need

A former priest at an Upstate New York church faces federal bank fraud charges after allegedly stealing approximately $450,000 from a fund intended to help people in need, U.S. Attorney Michael DiGiacomo announced Tuesday.

Christos Christakis, 57, of Cincinnati, was charged by criminal complaint with bank fraud. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine.

Christakis served as a priest at the Hellenic Orthodox Church of the Annunciation in Buffalo beginning in March 2007. 

In 2011, he inserted a provision into the church’s bylaws that gave him complete control over the Priest Discretionary Fund, according to the complaint.

The fund operates similarly to a petty cash account, allowing priests to provide small direct assistance payments and financial support to those in need. 

The parish council typically oversees such funds with limits on balances, usually less than $1,500 at any given time.

A whistleblower complaint filed in March 2025 with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America about financial irregularities at the church prompted an internal investigation. 

During that investigation, Christakis admitted to using parish funds for his own personal benefit between 2018 and 2025.

Federal investigators analyzed the discretionary fund and found that between January 2018 and July 31, 2025, approximately 725 checks were deposited into the account. 

Only 11 of those checks were specifically designated as donations to the fund. 

At least one $7,000 check was written from the fund to pay Christakis’s personal American Express bill, according to the complaint.

Investigators also examined Christakis’s personal bank account, which he held jointly with his spouse, along with his children’s accounts. 

They compared cash deposits in those accounts to the timing and amounts of cash withdrawals from the discretionary fund.

The analysis found approximately $338,660 in cash deposited into the joint account. 

Christakis’ and his spouse’s known employment and lifestyle would not have generated this level of cash, according to investigators.

A separate analysis of spending levels and bank accounts showed that non-cash sources of income were insufficient to support the family’s lifestyle. 

Once cash deposits were added to their budget, the joint account was able to break even each year.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig R. Gestring. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Philip Tejera.

Former St Bede's College priest Rowan Donoghue jailed for sexual abuse of boys

A former priest who sexually abused four boys at St Bede's College more than two decades ago has been jailed for seven years and eight months.

It comes as his victims have told a court of the impact of his offending.

"It was a violation of a child - of trust, of innocence, and of dignity. It changed the course of my life in ways I'm still only discovering," one of his victims says.

RNZ earlier revealed that former St Bede's College priest Rowan Donoghue had admitted sexually abusing four boys at the school between 1996 and 2000.

Since then, RNZ has revealed that Donoghue admitted sexual abuse to leaders of his religious order, the Society of Mary, in 2007. 

However, he was unable to identify the anonymous complainant and instead of notifying police, the order sent him to Australia for a six-month programme that provided "professional risk assessment and therapy" for people accused of sexual abuse.

It was also revealed that St Bede's College had been notified nearly 20 years ago of allegations involving Donoghue.

On Wednesday, Donoghue was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court by Judge Jane Farish to seven years and eight months imprisonment. She did not impose a minimum term of imprisonment.

Sentencing began with the victim impact statements being read.

'A battle of survival'

One of the victims said coming into boarding school he felt confident he could make a difference.

"Little did I know this would turn into a battle of survival," he said.

He said his family put a lot of trust in the school to "guide and nurture me", with the person entrusted to be his caregiver the one who would go on to sexually abuse him.

He said such offending impacts not only the victims but everyone who has ever loved them, helped them and befriended them.

The victim said Donoghue abused him "when I was my most vulnerable".

"My five years at St Bede's was a blur," he said.

"I left more lost than when I turned up."

He said he was "extremely hard on myself" as he got older and did his best to try to "put on a brave face" at home with his family.

About five years ago he told his wife about the abuse he had suffered, which he said was the first step towards the healing process.

He said writing his victim impact statement had been one of the hardest things he had ever done.

He said the offending turned him into a "totally different person".

"This wasn't meant to be me, life wasn't supposed to be this hard."

He said while he was on the path to healing, the offending would be with the victims forever.

"Our own little life sentence."

He commended all the other victims who had come forward.

Another victim began their statement by saying they were standing in court to give voice to something that for many years they could not speak about at all.

"When I was 13 years old, I was a child boarding at St Bede's College. I was away from my family, in a place that was supposed to provide safety, education, and guidance. Instead, it became the setting where my trust was profoundly violated by someone who held authority, respect, and spiritual power."

When the offending occurred they were isolated from their family, and did not have the words or understanding to process what was happening to them.

"I only knew that something felt deeply wrong, and yet I also felt confusion, fear, and a sense of responsibility that no child should ever carry. The person who harmed me was someone I had been taught to trust without question. That betrayal has shaped my life in ways that are difficult to fully explain."

He said that for many years he struggled with alcohol and drug addiction while also trying to "forge a career and maintain some sense of normality".

"The things that should have mattered to me at that age - my academic progress, my sporting goals, my ambitions became irrelevant - merely memories of a life I felt no longer attainable. My focus shifted to simply coping. The abuse altered my sense of direction and purpose at a formative time in my life."

He said one of the most damaging legacies of the abuse he suffered was how he felt about himself.

"The hatred and loathing that should have been directed at you, the one who harmed me, was instead aimed at myself. For years, I carried shame, self-blame, and a sense that I was somehow responsible, weak, cowardly, and that I'd allowed myself to be a victim.

"That internal struggle has been constant and deeply damaging. I would often refer to myself as the 'great pretender', showing only the parts of myself I wanted others to see and wearing an emotional mask to portray a person that I didn't feel I was."

What happened to him was not a misunderstanding, nor was it "harmless", he said.

"It was a violation of a child - of trust, of innocence, and of dignity. It changed the course of my life in ways I'm still only discovering."

Coming forward was one of the hardest things he had ever done, and he thanked the other victims for doing so.

"Today, I speak not only for my younger self - the 13-year-old who did not have a voice - but also for the person I am now, who deserves to be heard."

'You broke my trust and you broke me'

Another victim told the court the "so-called religious human being" that was in the dock "sexually abused me on multiple occasions".

"Rowan, as you performed your disgusting, invasive and sexually inappropriate acts, I was unaware how dark my path would get. And it got dark. The impact on my life has been hard, embarrassing, broken, lonely and at times suicidal. I am continuing to work on part of me that you have broken.

"Rowan, you preyed on and groomed me as a young, very vulnerable 16-year-old boy, You broke my trust and you broke me. Only in the last couple of years with my hard self mahi and unconditional tautoko from my partner have I been able to enjoy life again. Those years I have lost have finally caught up with you. You made me feel scared, lonely, and helpless."

Crown prosecutor Courtney Martyn said no sentence would adequately reflect or recognise the harm the court had heard about. She also acknowledged the victims for their bravery and courage for reading their victim impact statements.

She said the victims were "highly vulnerable", not only due to their age but also the fact they were isolated from their families.

Donoghue had a "unique position of moral authority".

"He was a parental substitute. He was to care for those young boarders day and night, he was able to exploit that … to his own advantage."

She said it was not opportunistic offending, rather Donoghue "groomed them to create an environment of apparent normality".

She said the offending was "grossly abusive behaviour".

Martyn referred to an affidavit from Donoghue which she said provided context to his own childhood and the trauma he suffered but said it was not sufficient to justify a significant discount.

She said Donoghue had provided a number of letters of support from family members, members of youth groups and those involved with the church.

He also provided a letter from a friend who he played golf with over a long period and who "always enjoyed Rowan's company at the golf club".

"The Crown does not dispute that the other letters of support indicate Mr Donoghue was an appreciated priest who played an active role within the church community and was a good friend and or family member.

"However, as the court is aware, it is an outdated concept that people cannot occupy dual roles of loved family member, or friend but also abuser."

She said it was in his position as a "trusted and beloved priest and mentor" he exploited.

"His role as a priest allowed him access to vulnerable children who he offended against over a prolonged period.

"His very standing in the church and role at the school facilitated his offending."

Donoghue's lawyer, Joshua Lucas, told the court Donoghue had acknowledged his wrongdoing and he was "profoundly sorry".

"He knows what he did was completely wrong.

"He knows this has had a powerful and traumatic impact on all the victims. He knows he needs to be held accountable."

Lucas said there was nothing he could say to make things right. He asked for discounts for his guilty plea and efforts at rehabilitation.

Judge Farish told Donoghue his role was to protect the victims and help them understand the rules of the religion by which he was ordained under.

"Yet you harmed all of these boys, in the most serious of ways."

She said the victims were "very courageous".

'A huge imbalance of power'

Judge Farish said the men should never have had to be ashamed of who they were.

"The shame rests solely on your shoulders."

She said apart from the offending he appeared to be someone who was able to get on well in society.

His early childhood did have some deprivation, but nothing that was causative of his offending, Judge Farish said.

She said Donoghue had expressed remorse for his actions.

"You now have some understanding of the harm you have caused on the victims."

She said there were several aggravating factors including the scale of the offending and the span of time it occurred over.

There was also the vulnerability of the victims.

"They were isolated, it was at night in a place where they thought they would be safe.

"You were in a position ... they had been taught to respect, there was a huge imbalance of power."

There was also a significant breach of trust as well as planning and premeditation.

Reviews under way

The school is investigating what was known historically about Donoghue and how the matters were addressed. That work is being led by the current board and rector Jon McDowall.

The Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money earlier said there needed to be an independent investigation into historical allegations of sexual abuse at St Bede's College.

RNZ earlier revealed that another priest, former rector Fr Brian Cummings, was also accused of abuse by three different complainants in 1996, 2014 and 2023. Cummings, who died in 2022, "strenuously denied" the allegations.

A lawyer's firm earlier told RNZ it was acting for eight former St Bede's College students in relation to sexual assault allegations involving at least 10 named priests and staff members, as well as sexual assaults from other students "as a result of inadequate staff supervision".

Police acknowledge sentence

In a statement, NZ police acknowledged the sentencing and said they were "pleased to see justice done for his victims who had the bravery to come forward and tell their stories".

"Our complainants have taken another step in paving the way for others to come forward, to have a voice and to not be silenced or shamed."

Detective Senior Sergeant Karen Simmons also acknowledged the work of the investigation team, the Crown team who prosecuted the case, and the specialist sexual assault agencies who supported the victims through the process.

"We know it can be difficult and at times distressing to talk about these matters, but we would like to reassure any victims of offending that we take them seriously.

"We hope this case shows anyone else who has been the victim of a sexual assault that there is hope, and there is support available to you.

"Anyone who would like to make a complaint to Police with any information or to report similar offending, please contact us online at 105.police.govt.nz or call 105."

St Bede's College rector Jon McDowall said he also wanted to acknowledge the victims courage and bravery in coming forward.

"I attended the sentencing today to sit in solidarity with the victims and to acknowledge the harm caused to them whilst in the care of the college

"I am truly sorry this happened and that those affected continue to live with the impact of that harm. It was harrowing listening to their victim impact statements, it makes feel sick and angry that these young men were abused in our care.

"I am resolute in my commitment to supporting anyone impacted by this or any other matter and invite them to make contact with me directly."

In a statement, the Society of Mary said Donoghue was immediately removed from public ministry permanently after he advised leadership in 2007 of offending at St Bede's.

"The anonymous complainant was encouraged on multiple occasions to report the offending to Police at that time.

"The justice process has now concluded. Donoghue will serve time in prison because of his criminal actions. We acknowledge the courage of the men who shared their experiences with Police and extend our unreserved apology to them, their family and the community.

"The Society of Mary deeply regrets harm caused by any of our members. We are committed to ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of all people in Church settings. "

It said it wished to provide support to those affected by Donoghue's offending. Contact can be made through the Society's confidential helpline on 021 909 749 or email at safeguarding@smnz.org.nz

Bishop Schneider accuses the Vatican of crossing a doctrinal “red line” with the synodal report on homosexuality

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has launched a very harsh criticism against the final report of Study Group No. 9 of the Synod on Synodality, accusing the Vatican of promoting a reinterpretation of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and opening the door to “total moral relativism”.

In an extensive interview granted to journalist Diane Montagna, the auxiliary bishop of Astana denounced that the document published on May 5 by the Synod’s General Secretariat represents a direct attack against divine Revelation and against the constant teaching of the Church on sexual morality.

“The final report has unequivocally crossed the line between orthodoxy and heresy,” Schneider stated.

The synodal report that has reignited the controversy

The questioned document was prepared by Study Group No. 9, one of the teams created during Pope Francis’s pontificate to analyze doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues arising during the Synod on Synodality.

Among its members were Cardinal Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio, Archbishop of Lima; Archbishop Filippo Iannone; and moral theologian Maurizio Chiodi, professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute and known for having publicly defended that certain homosexual acts could be considered morally positive in certain circumstances.

The text was received with enthusiasm by ecclesial sectors favorable to a review of homosexual pastoral care. One of the most visible supports came from Jesuit James Martin, who immediately described it as “a great step forward”.

The controversy intensified when it came to light that one of the testimonies included in the report belonged to the man who appeared on the cover of the New York Times alongside his same-sex partner receiving a blessing from James Martin just one day after the publication of Fiducia Supplicans.

“A rebellion against the order of creation”

The Kazakh bishop argued that the report does not limit itself to proposing pastoral changes or more inclusive language, but rather attempts to introduce a fundamental doctrinal transformation regarding Catholic sexual morality.

In his statements, he directly accused the Synod Secretariat of aligning itself with the LGBT ideological agenda promoted internationally from political, cultural, and media spheres.

“The Synod Secretariat is collaborating with pressure groups in a true rebellion against God’s work of creation, against the beautiful and wise order of the two sexes, male and female,” he stated.

According to Schneider, the most serious aspect of the document is that it indirectly calls into question the permanent value of the biblical texts on homosexuality through what he defined as an “exegesis of doubt”.

The bishop particularly pointed out a passage in the report that states it is necessary to “go beyond a mere repetition” of the current doctrinal presentation and to take into account new exegetical interpretations.

In Schneider’s view, this approach implies attributing to man the capacity to redefine good and evil apart from divine Revelation.

“That method takes the place of God and presumes to proclaim what is good and what is evil. That is precisely what the serpent did in the Garden of Eden,” he warned.

Criticism of Fiducia Supplicans and the process initiated during Pope Francis’s pontificate

Schneider linked the new report to the process opened during Pope Francis’s pontificate regarding blessings for homosexual couples and other issues related to sexual morality.

In particular, he harshly criticized Fiducia Supplicans, the document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that authorized non-liturgical blessings for couples in irregular situations, including same-sex couples.

The auxiliary bishop of Astana argued that that text already represented an attempt to progressively normalize homosexual relationships within ecclesial life.

“Fiducia Supplicans is a mockery of common sense,” he stated, arguing that the document seeks to artificially distinguish between blessing a couple and blessing the very relationship that constitutes that couple.

In his opinion, the new synodal report represents an even deeper step, no longer only on the pastoral level, but on the doctrinal level.

Schneider believes there is a gradual strategy aimed at accustoming the faithful to consider homosexual relationships morally acceptable, or at least tolerable in certain cases.

“In this way, the door is opened to total moral relativism,” he warned.

A direct warning to Pope Leo XIV

Schneider also addressed an explicit appeal to Pope Leo XIV to intervene and halt what he considers a doctrinal drift within official Vatican structures.

“The first duty of Leo XIV is to protect the Church and souls from this brazen Gnostic doctrine,” he assured.

The bishop compared the current situation to ancient doctrinal crises suffered by the Church and warned that the silence of many cardinals and bishops is allowing the spread of serious errors on Catholic morality.

According to Schneider, if the hierarchy does not act with clarity and firmness, future generations may look back on this era as a time of profound doctrinal confusion within the Church.

“It is possible that future generations will look at our time and say: ‘The whole world sighed and marveled at how the Sixth Commandment of God had been abolished,’” he stated.

The doctrinal crisis and the issue of the Society of Saint Pius X

Schneider also related this new episode to the crisis of trust existing between numerous traditional faithful and Vatican structures.

In this context, he considered that documents like the report from Group No. 9 reinforce the perception of a “state of doctrinal emergency” denounced for years by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

The bishop argued that it is impossible to ignore the gravity of the current situation and warned that the lack of a clear condemnation by the Holy See could lead to an even greater loss of trust among priests and faithful.

“If the Holy See does not unequivocally condemn this report, many authentically faithful Catholics will lose confidence in those who hold positions in the Vatican,” he stated.

One of the most critical voices of the current synodal process

In recent years, he has repeatedly denounced initiatives related to blessings for homosexual couples, the German Synodal Way, and various proposals for moral and disciplinary reform promoted from progressive sectors of the European Church.

His intervention on the report from Study Group No. 9 represents, to date, one of the most severe criticisms publicly formulated by a bishop against one of the documents emanating from the Vatican synodal environment.

Jordi Bertomeu's management in the Sodalicio case threatens the Church's legal security

The latest interviews granted by Jordi Bertomeu once again exhibit one of the most worrying phenomena of the end of Francis’s pontificate: the conversion of certain complex canonical operations into personalistic platforms directed by officials with scant technical solidity, enormous media exposure, and increasingly weak controls by a papal authority that was clearly deteriorated by age and isolation.

The Sodalicio case is one of the most representative paradigms of how Rome functioned in the final stage of Francis’s pontificate: informal concentration of power, legal improvisation, personal relationships turned into a criterion of government, and secondary officials operating with margins of discretion improper for a serious legal system.

At the center of that model appears Jordi Bertomeu.

It is worth pausing here because the figure of the character is already inseparable from the institutional problem. 

Bertomeu is not simply an expansive visitor or an overly media-savvy instructor. 

He is a priest who arrives to induce, through deception, an elderly and physically very deteriorated Pope to sign an excommunication against two lay journalists whose “crime” consisted of denouncing him to civil and canonical justice for an alleged breach of confidentiality. 

It is worth pausing on the fact because it may seem anecdotal, but it is delirious to extremes hardly compatible with a minimally healthy legal system.

The Caccia-Blanco episode is not a minor accident or a bureaucratic blunder. 

It is a directly Berlangian scene: an ecclesiastical official denounced for an alleged breach of confidentiality manages to activate the Church’s sanctioning apparatus against those who denounce him, under threat of excommunication, also demanding money and public silence from them. 

And all of this ends up reaching the signature of an elderly Pontiff who later personally revokes the decree when he understands the legal nonsense that has been placed before him.

That such an episode has had no serious disciplinary consequences for Bertomeu already says quite a bit about the institutional ecosystem in which he operates. 

If one wanted to be indulgent, that would suffice to discreetly remove him from any sensitive responsibility and return him to a peripheral parish in his native diocese. 

But in the terminal Rome of Francis’s pontificate, exactly the opposite happened: officials capable of operating aggressively, controlling the narrative, and presenting themselves as implacable executors accumulated more and more space. 

It is striking that Leo XIV, for the moment, continues to back such a drift.

Bertomeu perfectly embodies that model.

Anyone who knows him minimally knows that he possesses a particularly dangerous combination for someone with instructional functions: constant need for protagonism and absolute incapacity for discretion. 

He lives pending his image, leaks private conversations, recounts papal confidences with an impropriety unworthy of any minimal institutional sense, and maintains a nearly compulsive relationship with certain ecclesial media always ready to turn each of his displacements into a moral epic.

The problem is not only that he ends up looking ridiculous. The problem is that Canon Law demands exactly the opposite.

The legal logic of a canonical investigation rests on secrecy, strict delimitation of competencies, and the absolute subordination of the instructor to the procedure. 

When the instructor becomes a media character, the procedure inevitably begins to be contaminated by reputational interests, personal agendas, and public narrative construction.

That is exactly what is beginning to happen with the Sodalicio case.

Bertomeu does not arrive in Peru to become a kind of universal pontifical commissioner for abuses in Latin America. 

The Church already has ordinary mechanisms to prosecute sexual abuses, abuses of conscience, or abuses of power. 

Vos Estis Lux Mundi perfectly establishes who investigates, how complaints are processed, and what happens if a bishop fails in his obligations.

The specific mission linked to the Sodalicio was much more limited and much less heroic: to manage the canonical liquidation of certain structures, resolve the ecclesial situation of its members, order the affected patrimony, and, in any case, facilitate and oversee the canonical penal processes derived from Vos Estis Lux Mundi that could lead to the corresponding indemnities, under the same conditions as the rest of the victims of abuses within the Church.

However, Bertomeu’s intervention has progressively derived into something else: a parallel structure for managing abuses articulated around an extraordinary official situated in a nebulous competency where it is no longer clear what belongs to the ordinary channel and what simply depends on personal relationships with Rome.

The truly devastating precedent that this model leaves is very clear.

The practical result, deeply dangerous, is the creation of first-class victims and second-class victims within the Church itself.

The victims linked to the Sodalicio access extraordinary mechanisms, direct interlocution with papal envoys, international attention, specific commissions, and permanent pressure on local authorities. 

Meanwhile, other Peruvian victims outside the media focus - including complaints related to dioceses like Chiclayo or victims no less than from the General Secretary of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference - remain trapped in the ordinary system, often without responses, without effective follow-up, and, in some cases, without even receiving the formal acknowledgment provided by universal norms themselves.

What is the reason? 

Some voices are beginning to question whether this preference for the victims of a specific movement is due to the fact that they are, for the most part, white and of European descent. 

Not so many of the victims of the clergy and the episcopate, who usually belong to indigenous environments or much more vulnerable cultural strata and, therefore, with less capacity to claim their rights.

That destroys one of the most elementary principles of Canon Law: the legal equality of the faithful. 

The gravity of an abuse cannot depend on the media profitability of the case or the personal interest it arouses in certain Roman officials. 

But exactly that begins to be institutionalized when universal procedures are replaced by exceptional operations built around charismatic figures of “pontifical trust.”

Furthermore, Bertomeu’s extraordinary interest in personally piloting future indemnities linked to Vos Estis Lux Mundi procedures stands out particularly, de facto invading areas that correspond to the ordinary development of canonical penal processes, while exhibiting a striking impotence when it comes to addressing the true material core of the Sodalitium problem: the identification and eventual recovery of the immense patrimonial network dispersed in foundations, societies, and international structures built over decades.

With Figari still alive, protected, and economically sustained under patrimonial orbits linked to the Sodalitium universe itself, the hyperactive and media-savvy Bertomeu seems incapable even of approaching a genuine lifting of the corporate veil that would allow tracking the real trail of assets, straw men, instrumental foundations, and international financial circuits. He discovers nothing, controls nothing, and dismantles nothing.

Meanwhile, he concentrates enormous energies on public exposure, interviews, and the construction of an epic narrative around himself, in a dynamic that increasingly seems less oriented toward the restoration of canonical justice and more toward the accumulation of personal reputational capital for future episcopal aspirations.

The institutional damage is enormous.

The message that any victim within the Church ends up receiving is very simple: some complaints deserve extraordinary machinery, international visitors, and Roman pressure; others are condemned to rot administratively in irrelevant dioceses without anyone lifting a finger.

And there lies the true underlying legal problem. Canon Law only functions if competencies are delimited, if procedures are universal, and if the application of norms does not depend on personal affinities or parallel power structures. 

When a legal system begins to replace ordinary rules with exceptionally media-shielded figures, it stops operating according to Law and starts operating according to relationships of influence.

The Bertomeu model does not only call into question the management of the Sodalicio case. 

It puts at risk the very credibility of the entire canonical legal architecture, because it normalizes exactly what a serious legal system should prevent: arbitrariness, unequal treatment, and informal concentrati