“I think the faithful and the Society simply profess the faith of all times,” said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in a recent interview with journalist Matt Gaspers. “They profess it, accept the Pope, pray for him, and profess the Catholic faith. This is the minimum really required to be in communion.” (The full interview can be watched here)

Vatican warning and declaration of Catholicity

As it stands, the Holy See appears unlikely to change its stance regarding the SSPX and the planned episcopal consecrations. This means that, come the July 1 consecration date, the Holy See would deem that such consecrations without the papal mandate would incur “the excommunication established by the law of the Church.”

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández’s document from May 13 declares this, reading:

This act will constitute “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, n. 3) and “formal adherence to 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 Society has expressed its intention to proceed with the consecrations, noting that “regrettably all the discussions entered into have remained without result, and none of the concerns expressed have received any truly satisfactory response.”

SSPX Superior General Fr. Pagliarani replied to Rome on behalf of the Society, publishing a Declaration of Faith in response to the Holy See’s threat of excommunication. The text, wrote Pagliarani, “seems to us to correspond to the minimum indispensable to be in communion with the Church, and to truly call ourselves Catholics and, consequently, your sons.”

This view is also held by Bp. Schneider, an authoritative voice on the matter given his experience as the Holy See’s official visitor to the Society under Pope Francis. “If this is not the minimum, then what shall the minimum be?,” he asked, referencing their recent Declaration of Faith and loyalty to the Pope.

“At the same time,” he observed, “the German synodal way and other bishops around the world openly proclaim heresies and permit blasphemies during liturgies, all unpunished and not corrected.”

The Society’s Declaration of Faith concludes by noting that “it is in this immutable Faith that we desire to live and die, in the hope that it may give way to the direct vision of the immutable eternal Truth.”

For Schneider, the SSPX’s Declaration is clearly Catholic: “When we read this declaration of faith, we must accept it if we are Catholics.” He added that “even all so-called traditional Ecclesia Dei communities and others who celebrate the traditional Latin Mass would, of course, accept this declaration, because it is Catholic. I cannot imagine that they would not accept it.”

Share

What next for SSPX attendees?

Bishop Schneider has already opined to this correspondent that the Holy See’s excommunication would be invalid. “Therefore, I think that, if the excommunication would be applied, it would be in some way not valid because there is no intention to do a schismatic act on the side of the Society of Pius X, and you cannot be punished when you have not the intention to do it, according to the canon law,” he stated in March.

He reiterated this during the course of his interview with Gaspers. “To excommunicate those who profess this faith and repeatedly express that they recognize the Pope and want to serve the Roman Church would be unjust.”

In Schneider’s assessment, the SSPX consecrations are important in order to continue their activity and their very existence “because of a dilemma of conscience. Otherwise, if they do not carry out the consecrations, their work will come to an end, and this would be a damage to the entire Church.”

Such a comment touches on an issue which is often overlooked when the SSPX is debated. Far from being simply a question of access to the traditional Latin Mass, the Society’s concerns relate to widespread confusion emerging in doctrine and Church teaching – concerns which are broadly but more quietly shared across many members of the other Ecclesia Dei traditional communities in full communion with Rome.

These concerns relate to the Second Vatican Council, with Schneider viewing the SSPX as offering a key “theological contribution” in the necessary process of “clarifying, supplementing, and, if necessary, amending those statements in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that raise doctrinal doubts and difficulties.”

He highlighted how, due to the SSPX’s “uncompromising clarity in doctrine, liturgy, and priestly formation,” is thus “not welcomed by some authorities in Rome.” For Bp. Schneider, the issue boils down to the same thing: “the demand to accept Vatican II and the current path of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. This is the root of the problem, the core question.”

Earlier this year, Fr. Pagliarani attested that this the much cited state of necessity is worse than ever before – worse therefore than at the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations – following Pope Francis’ pontificate.

Bp. Schneider appears to have agreed with Pagliarani, remarking previously about the Church’s internal crisis that “only divine intervention can help, such as through massive persecution of the Church and the person of the Pope himself by political, anti-Christian global elites.”

The auxiliary bishop of Astana has been cautious not to directly or publicly advise the Society to perform the episcopal consecrations. However, he has defended their urgency in doing so, along with the rationale behind the move and the importance of such an action.

The SSPX exists “only as a work for the Church,” he noted, lamenting that “unfortunately, the authorities in Rome currently do not see or recognize this, probably because they desire a different style of Church, not the traditional one.”

Schneider suggested that this position of the Holy See was akin to the Avignon Exile, competing that “perhaps we are now in a sixty-year exile of clarity in doctrine and liturgy, and this will end.”

As things stand, neither the SSPX nor the Vatican appear any closer to resolving the doctrinal issues which led to the breakdown in negotiations. With the Holy See appearing deaf to Schneider’s repeated, public plea to approve the episcopal consecrations, it seems likely that a new and painful era in the Church will begin as of July 1.

Dear brother priests,

On the day when the Church ponders her Lord’s pierced Heart, from which gushes forth an inexhaustible fountain of peace and unity for all humanity, I first address to myself and to all of you the words that God spoke to the people of Israel: “Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2; cf. 1 Pt 1:16). This divine call echoes down the ages. Even today it resonates strongly with every believer and, in a particular way, with us priests. Holiness is neither one option among many nor an abstract ideal, for it involves the very identity of every person who wishes to share in the life of the risen One.

Holiness is sharing in Christ’s mystery

God invites us to share in his own holiness. When he calls us to be holy as he is holy, he indicates that the path we must follow involves being fashioned after his own Heart. And for us, dear brothers, this call is particularly radical. The Lord has promised: “And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer 3:15). The holiness he asks of us is a trustful abandonment, allowing ourselves to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. Yet it is precisely here that the great paradox of our priestly life emerges. We are called to share in God’s own holiness, but we carry this treasure in earthen vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4:7). We are limited and imperfect, often weak and weary, and at times wounded. How can such a vulnerable human heart respond to such a high calling? The priest lives this tension. Yet at the same time, he must recognize that he finds peace in the open side of the Lord Jesus.

A journey toward union

The union of our heart with Christ’s Heart is not an experience reserved for a select few; rather, it is a sacramental, Eucharistic journey that unfolds each day of our lives. Dear brothers, by our ordination we have been configured to Christ, yet we must always renew within ourselves the gift of grace through our daily celebration of the Eucharist, prayer, meditation on the word of God and humble service to our brothers and sisters. Let us remain united to Christ in everything — in all that we do and in all that happens to us every day. Then the holiness that we have sought in vain through isolated efforts will reveal itself for what it is: a response to the grace that precedes, sustains and transforms us. Indeed, our humanity is not compartmentalized. Prayer, ministry, relationships, weariness, joys and failures — even time or love that apparently seems wasted — all become privileged places where God reveals himself and his infinite love.

The priest who has an upright, simple and pure heart can be contemplative in the midst of action, merciful and faithful in times of trial, and joyful in the gift of himself. The world greatly needs pastors who offer more than simply words or programs; it needs the living witness of a reconciled heart that exudes the sweet fragrance of Christ’s holiness. A priestly life that is steady and configured to Jesus’ Heart is a credible sign of unity, peace and mercy. Thus, in an age marked by division and fear, we must be builders of peace and witnesses of the tenderness of the Good Shepherd who knows how to gather the scattered and heal the wounded. Our zeal is not restlessness, but the overflowing of a love that is “‘ecstasy,’ openness, gift and encounter” (Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos, 28).

The Heart of Christ is the heart of the saints

The response to the call to holiness lies not so much in works of asceticism or striving for perfection –– though these are necessary –– but in trusting adherence to the love revealed in Jesus’ pierced Heart. The Apostle John invites us to contemplate the open side of the crucified One (cf. Jn 19:34), in which God definitively shows us what holiness is: not an inaccessibly distant or detached perfection, but a love that gives itself even to the point of being wounded and so can become a source of mercy and life. The Sacred Heart of Jesus is an exemplary image of the surpassing love of God. It is an all-powerful love precisely because it is capable of being vulnerable and of transforming sorrow into grace and suffering into hope.

The Sacred Heart, therefore, is the “place” where holiness is manifested as closeness and tenderness. The priest’s holiness, then, is embodied in humble and courageous nearness, in being all things to all people, and in keeping the gate of the sheepfold open so that many can enter and find pasture and rest (cf. Jn 10:9). For this reason, we are called to a relationship with God that does not distance us from others but brings us closer to everyone — shaping patient and tender hearts, capable of closeness, compassion and listening. Thus, through the union of our imperfect hearts with Jesus’ pierced Heart, our journey toward holiness is fulfilled. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us (cf. Gal 2:20). Such holiness cannot be lived in isolation. Cherish your priestly fraternity: seek one another, listen to one another and support one another. The priest who isolates himself slowly fades away; the priest who walks alongside his brothers grows. Saint Augustine reminds us of this when he says: “How shall we avoid finding ourselves in darkness? By loving our brothers. What is the proof that we love our brothers? This: that we do not fracture unity and that we practice charity” (In Epist. Io. ad Parthos II, 3).

Dear priests, renew each day your “Here I am” before Christ’s pierced Heart. Give yourselves entirely to him, so that you may love his people with the same love with which he loves them. And joyfully remember how the saintly Curé of Ars loved to say that “the priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus” (cf. Benedict XVI, Letter Proclaiming a Year for Priests on the 150th Anniversary of the “Dies Natalis” of the Curé of Ars, 569). This love is a pledge and a guarantee that, if we surrender and offer ourselves completely, nothing of us will be lost. I entrust each and every one of you to the Virgin Mary, Mother of Priests. May she, who cherished the mystery of her Son in her heart, also teach us to keep alive and make the Heart of Christ, Savior of the world, beat within us.

12 June 2026, Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

LEO PP. XIV

As announced by Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline on June 9, Leo XIV will visit some of France’s most prominent Catholic sites when he makes a trip to the country later this year. From September 25 through 28, Leo will make a highly anticipated Apostolic journey – the first official papal journey to France since Pope Benedict visited in 2008.

The itinerary as outlined by the French bishops will see Leo go from north to the far south, before then finishing in the east, and is as follows:

• Friday September 25: Solemn Vespers at Notre-Dame de Paris. Priests, deacons and their wives, consecrated persons, religious men and women, as well as seminarians from all over France are invited.

• Friday, September 25: large prayer vigil with the young people of France.

• Saturday September 26: Papal Mass outdoors in Paris.

• Sunday September 27: Papal Mass in the Shrine of Lourdes, on the meadow facing the Cave.

• Monday September 28: Papal Mass at Saint-Étienne Cathedral in Metz.

On May 16, the Vatican had already confirmed that Leo XIV had accepted the invitation of the secular and religious authorities as well as the Director-General of UNESCO, such that the papal voyage would include a trip to UNESCO headquarters. Further information about this aspect, along with precise details of the entire trip will emerge later in the summer.

Archbishop Laurent Ulrich of Paris joyfully welcomed the confirmed trip, and described Paris as a “concentrated” microcosm of the world:

“In Paris, the capital and world city, so many realities present in the Church in France are indeed concentrated: a Church that prays, gathers in joy, lives the sacraments, and gives thanks to the Lord at all times; a Church of witness, ceaselessly in dialogue with the world, a Church that intervenes tirelessly in the debates that traverse our secularized society; a Church that never renounces caring for the smallest and most fragile.”

Ulrich wrote that the Pope will find in Paris “a Church capable of producing original thought, borne in prayer, on how to be ever more resolutely missionary in its action, welcoming, credible, attentive, and close to all.”

The Archbishop has issued a call for around 10,000 volunteers to help prepare for the papal trip to Paris.

Cdl. Aveline, president of the French bishops’ conference, has been very public about his desire for Leo to visit France and issued an invitation to the pontiff in the earliest days of the pontificate.

“In the exchanges I have had with the Pope since his election, I quickly understood how very interested he was in such a trip,” Aveline revealed in May. “What the Church in France is experiencing, its missionary dynamism but also the challenges it faces, particularly interest him.”

Leo is a French speaker, and has already welcomed President Emmanuel Macron to the Vatican in April, after having met him briefly when traveling with Pope Francis to Ajaccio in Corsica in 2024.

France’s new Ambassador to the Holy See, Charles Personnaz, also presented his credentials to the Pope just last week.

But the Eldest Daughter of the Church is not exempt from attacks on the Faith. France just saw a renewed attempt to violate the Seal of Confession, when lawmakers prepared a proposal which would have seen priests forced to report any details of abuse of minors, if such details were received during Confession. The move ultimately failed after the clause in question was removed from the bill under discussion by the National Assembly.

This context will likely form a key element of Leo’s speeches to both politicians and clergy during his visit. Indeed as part of his wide-ranging tour de force speech to the Spanish Parliament on June 8, Leo firmly defended the sacramental seal, stating:

“the sacramental seal of confession holds special importance for the Catholic Church. It is part of the broader sphere of religious freedom, which guarantees believing communities their own space for life, organization and internal discipline. To protect it legally, as is done in a similar way in some professions, means preserving a sacred space of inner freedom, where the believer can open his or her soul to God without fear of external pressures, as international norms also recognize.”

Leo’s foreign trips have been, for many, a key part of his early pontificate, offering opportunities for him to engage with young people and reveal his charisma. So far such voyages have included:

• Turkey, Lebanon

• Monaco

• Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, Equatorial Guinea

• Spain

Such is the assessment of Monsignor Martin Grichting, an esteemed professor of canon law, the emeritus Vicar General of the Diocese of Chur and a former consulter for the Congregation for the Clergy in the Vatican.

“This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it has been destroyed,” he writes. {Grichting’s analysis first appeared in InfoVaticana, but the official English translation is published here with Mgr. Grichting’s permission. The full text is below.}

Grichting points to key moments such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, and the Synod on Synodality as contributing to the crisis he refers to:

Pope Francis has turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce through “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral distinctions”—on whatever basis, by whomever—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s non-liturgical blessing of few seconds for same-sex and unmarried couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage.

He warns also that these issues “persist under Pope Leo XIV,” including with the Synod on Synodality and the work of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops which recently published “a heretic text that relativizes Church teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 regarding ‘complex issues’).”

The monsignor points also to the heavy restrictions on the traditional liturgy – implemented by Pope Francis in 2021. “Laypeople are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven underground or into the Society of St. Pius X, whose very existence is then lamented.”

He points to the apparent contradiction whereby the Holy See has turned a blind eye to the increasingly heterodox actions of the German episcopate, while being swift and harsh against the Society of St. Pius X in their adherence to traditional teaching. The Germans, Grichting writes, go “unchecked” despite the fact they have for years “been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their ‘Synodal Path’ and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples.” In contrast the SSPX “is threatened with excommunication by virtue of the Pope’s absolute authority.”

Regarding the Holy See’s two-fold response to the Germans and the SSPX, Grichting comments that the Pope is disregarding Lumen Gentium no 21 “concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders and demands acceptance of the Constitution on the Liturgy…These double standards are destroying the trust of many faithful.”

Pointing to a distorted exercise of papal authority, Grichting notes how the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations is the “undoubtedly problematic — attempt to limit papal omnipotence when its boundary no longer seems to be Church doctrine.”

By way of repairing the damage within the Church, Mgr. Grichting urged the Pope to “heal the wounds inflicted on Church doctrine,” but warned this would not be achieved through “dictates, threats, and double standards.”

“The Society of St. Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom,” he wrote. “This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal supremacy undoubtedly permits this legally. But the disease will not be healed by this. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the Body of Christ, the Church.”

For Grichting, the Pope must be more pro-active not just to penalize the SSPX, but to repair the devastating crisis of doctrine and authority which is now rampant within the Church.

Share

A Crisis of Trust in the Church

Only papal consistency can heal the wounds inflicted on church unity. A guest commentary by Martin Grichting

The Catholic liberal Lord Acton (1834–1902) famously said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In democracies, the conclusion drawn from this is that power must be mistrusted and limited. It is therefore checked, among other things, by the recognition of fundamental rights, by the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), by subsidiarity and federalism, by referendums, and by term limits. Through a “social contract” among all citizens—the constitution—people agree to share political power in this way. But even this does not always sufficiently restrain it.

In the Church, the problem of power is even more acute. For none of the aforementioned means of fragmenting power exist there. Rather, according to the doctrine of the faith and the Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983), the Pope possess “by virtue of his office supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (c. 331).

The Pope, then, possesses absolute power. Does absolute power within the Church therefore lead to absolute corruption? If one views the Church solely through human eyes, one would have to say: Yes, that is the case. But when viewed through the eyes of faith, this is not true. For there exists a single “instrument” to limit papal omnipotence: it is unconditional obedience to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, to which the Pope is bound in his conscience. Only because the Church as a whole and the Pope in particular are bound by this limitation of power is it possible for absolute power to be entrusted to a single person within it. Mistrust of power is thus overcome in the Church by the fact that the faithful have confidence that the Pope knows himself to be bound by unconditional obedience of faith in the exercise of his power, which is in itself unlimited.

This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it has been destroyed. Pope Francis has turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce through “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral distinctions”—on whatever basis, by whomever—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s non-liturgical blessing of few seconds for same-sex and unmarried couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage. Ambiguous gestures such as the Pachamama cult in the Vatican and the “Document on Human Fraternity” (Abu Dhabi Declaration) from 2019 have effectively denied Christian universalism of salvation. The appointment of laypeople to Vatican leadership positions involving the exercise of governing authority constitutes a break with the Second Vatican Council (LG 21; Nota explicativa praevia 2). It undermines the sacramental-hierarchical order of the Church. This situation persists under Pope Leo XIV. In the wake of “synodalism,” the Apostolic See published a document that attempts to justify the rejection of the Second Vatican Council (Final Report of Study Group 5 regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders and “potestas sacra”). Without comment—and irresponsibly—the Apostolic See has published a heretic text that relativizes Church teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 regarding “complex issues”).

Even serious liturgical abuses are ignored or downplayed by bishops and the Holy See. Yet the followers of the extraordinary form are harassed. Priests are prevented or made to find it difficult to celebrate the Eucharist in this manner. Laypeople are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven underground or into the Society of St. Pius X, whose very existence is then lamented.

The Pope allows German bishops, who for years have been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their “Synodal Path” and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples, to continue unchecked. It is said that discussions have taken place with them. The Society of St. Pius X, however, is threatened with excommunication by virtue of the Pope’s absolute authority. The Pope disregards the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen Gentium” (No. 21) concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders and demands acceptance of the Constitution on the Liturgy (“Sacrosanctum Concilium”). Both are documents of the same Council. These double standards are destroying the trust of many faithful.

The Society of St. Pius X’s announcement that it will consecrate bishops on its own initiative is an expression of a loss of trust in the Pope. And the sympathy for this act, which extends far beyond the Society’s followers, shows that for many, trust has given way to mistrust. Too much has happened, and the consequences are devastating. For more and more Catholics are realizing that Church doctrine no longer serves as the limit to the hierarchy’s actions. This is the illness from which the Church truly suffers. And it cannot be healed by exercising papal omnipotence through threats and excommunications. For if the unchecked power of the stronger party is decisive within the Church, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: this power must be limited. The ordination of bishops against the Pope’s will is ultimately the—undoubtedly problematic—attempt to limit papal omnipotence when its boundary no longer seems to be Church doctrine.

If we are to avoid further limitations on papal omnipotence caused by schisms, there is only one way forward: the Pope must heal the wounds inflicted on Church doctrine. Only in this way can he address the mistrust and restore confidence. He will not succeed in doing so through dictates, threats, and double standards. The Society of St. Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom. This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal supremacy undoubtedly permits this legally.

But the disease will not be healed by this. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the Body of Christ, the Church. The Pope holds the key to healing the disease. He must use it and cannot sit out the problem. For even not to govern is to govern. This is also a consequence that follows from papal omnipotence.

Issuing a pastoral letter on June 1, to mark the upcoming feast of Corpus Christi, Archbishop Luis Argüello outlined certain instances in which reception of Holy Communion were not to take place.

The Spanish prelate’s letter comes by way of a rare intervention into the issue of who should receive Holy Communion. Not that the Church is unclear on this, but more that Her traditional teaching is often ignored. Argüello wrote:

“If our situation or state of life is incompatible with full communion with the Lord and His Church — whether because we are involved in a sinful relationship, in abuses against others — whether in the economic or workplace sphere, or in the psychological or emotional sphere — or by publicly defending positions contrary to Christian morality, we cannot approach Communion without a firm decision to change our lives and make amends for the harm caused by our sinful situation.”

Continuing, Argüello appeared to reiterate the Catholic teaching regarding the impossibility of receiving Holy Communion for those who have ‘re-married,’ writing against individuals in such arrangements from approaching the altar:

“Nor is it possible when a marital relationship has broken down and those who were part of that marriage are living in a new conjugal relationship.”

“These people,” added the Archbishop of Valladolid, “who continue to be part of the Church, must know that this breach of the Sacrament of the Covenant prevents Eucharistic communion; they may participate in the celebration, as well as in the life of the Church in many ways, but receiving Holy Communion is not possible.”

The Church’s Canon Law outlines clearly that anyone “conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”

This is because, as the same Canon Law teaches, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of the Catholic life.

Hence Catholics are not to approach Holy Communion as it they have a right to receive it regardless of the state of their soul. On the contrary, the Church teaches that Her faithful are “to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice, receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with the highest adoration.”

Referencing the spirit of this teaching, Argüello noted that – for the divorced and ‘re-married’ – the “pain of not receiving Communion must fuel the desire to seek a solution that respects the meaning of the two sacraments at stake: Marriage and the Eucharist.”

In order to safeguard the sacraments, he urged people to “prepare ourselves to celebrate the Eucharist, examine our consciences, and examine our way of life and state of life so that it is consistent with the full communion that comes with participating in the Eucharist by receiving the Body of the Lord.”

But what of 2016?

Argüello’s pastoral letter is in one sense, nothing noteworthy, given that it simply presents the Catholic teaching on the reception of Holy Communion.

However the focus on it is born from the fact that it appears to directly contradict the spirit of Amoris Laetitia, which proposed that the divorced and ‘re-married’ could receive Holy Communion. Add to that aspect the context that the letter comes from the president of the Spanish Bishops Conference with two years still left to serve and about to welcome a papal visit, and the letter takes on new significance.

Share

In the brief lines of the infamous footnote 351 in Chapter 8 of the 2016 Apostolic Exhortation, Pope Francis argued for the “integration” of those in “irregular unions” into the life of the Church. In the footnote, he stated that this “integration” can, “in certain cases,” involve admittance to the sacraments, including the Eucharist.

Fielding questions on the text, he later answered by saying there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia except the one provided by the bishops of Buenos Aires allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried. The Pope was also asked during an in-flight press conference if the text contained a “change in discipline that governs access to the sacraments” for Catholics who are divorced and “re-married,” Francis replied, “I can say yes, period.”

It sparked easily one of the greatest controversies of Francis’ pontificate. Within months, a group of Catholic scholars wrote to all the cardinals and patriarchs, warning that Amoris Laetitia contained “dangers to the faith” and appealing for a correction.

On November 14, 2016 four cardinals publicly released the Dubia which they had privately sent to the Pope on September 19, but which had gone unanswered. The four signatories – Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner – issued the Dubia only ten days after Francis’ comments to the Buenos Aires bishops: an interpretation of Amoris Laetitia which Brandmüller had previously warned would be heretical. No answer was received.

However, responding to a different Dubia from Cardinal Dominik Duka O.P. on the same issue in 2023, the Vatican implicitly provided an answer to the 2016 Dubia.

Duka asked whether Pope Francis’ response to the Bishops of Buenos Aires could be considered “a statement of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.” Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández wrote that since Pope Francis’ words were published in the Vatican’s official compilation of documents, the Acta Apostolicae Sedes, they were “authentic Magisterium.”

It will be a revealing tell of Leo XIV’s style if Argüello is reprimanded by the Vatican, or if his statement remains unchallenged.

However, Leo has convened a special meeting of the presidents of bishops conferences for this October to examine Amoris Laetitia at its ten year anniversary.

The meeting will be, he explained, “an effort to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris Laetitia and taking into account what is currently being done in the local Churches.”

Much consternation has arisen from some, believing that Leo intends to further cement Amoris Laetitia into the Church’s teaching. However, as noted by this correspondent, subtle clues given by the American pontiff suggest that he may in fact do just the opposite.

Leo has made his regular appeals for peace in the world one of the most regular and recurring elements of his pontificate, starting from his first moments emerging onto the Vatican loggia in front of the world.

This was re-iterated in Magnifica Humanitas as Leo decried the “normalization of war” and the manner in which war is becoming a normal part of common parlance and international policy.

{For a full roster of different analyses on the encyclical by this correspondent, interested readers may find them on Pelican+, The Catholic Herald, Ad Vaticanum, The European Conservative.}

“We are witnessing a real paradigm shift in public discourse and in decisions regarding rearmament, with a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, while the very ethical principles that had previously limited its use are being eroded,” he wrote.

But as part of this, Leo took aim at the Church’s teaching regarding a just war:

It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts.

Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. (182) Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.

Footnote 182 adds further information and a quotation from the catechism regarding just war:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defense by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain ‘rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy’ have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even ‘preventive’ attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing ‘evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.’”

This footnote appears to clearly be aimed more directly at President Trump’s administration and his joint preventative strikes with Israel against Iran. Leo passionately decried the instigation of fresh hostilities at the time, something which drew the repeated ire of Trump who accused the Pope of defending Iran.

The Pelican Brief

Pope Leo XIV Responds as Trump Launches Blistering Attack on the Pontiff

“I am not afraid of the Trump administration,” Leo XIV has stated, after President Donald Trump issued a blistering media attack on the Pope, accusing him of being “weak” on crime, supporting Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and “catering to the radical left…

Read more

2 months ago · 12 likes · 4 comments · Michael Haynes

So great was the public tension from the White House that the US bishops weighed in. Indeed it was only just over a month ago that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a number of clarifications over the Just War teaching under the headline “Just War Doctrine.” Bishop James Masa, chairman of the USCCB doctrine committee, noted in mid-Aril that “for over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war.”

The Catholic teaching on the just war is often referred to as a “theory” but the Church’s own texts note it as a “doctrine.”

“As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed,” reads the catechism, before proceeding to outline the precise element which must be met in order to constitute a just war:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)

The Church’s Just War Doctrine has, as the USCCB noted, been in force for centuries and owes a great part of its makeup to Saints Ambrose, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (ST II-II, Q40).

Leo’s comments regarding the Just War are by no means a novel development in the Vatican. In doing so he was not breaking fresh ground by any means. Pope Francis argued similarly, as did Cardinal Ratzinger before he became pope.

Read more

In some quarters, a lively debate over Leo’s character still rages with as much intensity as it did during the first hours after he waved to the cheering crowds from the Loggia on the evening of his election. Many have seen their wildly varying predictions remain unfulfilled; others are still waiting for him to reveal himself, while a smaller number have determined that the man we see already is the real Leo.

Emerging from the conclave last year, the cardinals spoke of a man who listened well and deftly handled debates in a manner that somehow satisfied both parties. Despite the numerous crises of doctrine, liturgy, government and simple practice of the Faith, Leo has not jumped headlong into any particular one, nor set about clearing house and reinventing the wheel.

Whether Leo can deliver on the cardinals’ hope of peacefully satisfying quarrelling parties remains to be seen in terms of how he addresses the key issues he inherited from Francis, such as the doctrinal crises of Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans; ecclesial governance and the rise of synodal laity over the ordained hierarchy; liturgical peace; the future of the persecuted Church in China; and the haemorrhaging numbers of faithful in the once Catholic West.

… …

{Speaking exclusively to this correspondent, a number of the College of Cardinals who took part in the May 2025 conclave gave their assessment of Leo’s first year, his papal style, and the elements which have stood out to them so far.

The full interviews can be read in the latest edition of the Catholic Herald magazine, or online at this link.}

Early on the morning of May 18, Leo XIV hosted Aram I – the Armenian Catolicos (patriarch) of the Great House of Cilicia – in a private audience. The visit was part of a four-day visit by Aram I to the Holy See, with a number of meetings forming part of his schedule, including with the Holy See’s leading ecumenical and interreligious figures and the Secretary of State.

According to details released by the Great House of Cilicia, Aram proposed a number of issues to Leo as being all matters of “significant importance.” These included:

• a unified date for Easter.

• a day commemorating all martyrs.

• the convening of a Third Vatican Council.

The Catolicos reportedly spoke to Leo about the “urgent necessity of these issues within the context of the universal Christian Church.” No mention of such issues was made during the official speeches delivered by Aram and Leo, nor in the Holy See’s brief summary of the meeting, thus it is to be presumed that such a conversation formed part of the private element of the pair’s encounter.

{The rest of this article is currently reserved for paid subscribers of the site. Per Mariam relies entirely on readers’ support to maintain its reporting directly from Rome.}

Read more

Read more

For over fifty years the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) “has endeavoured to set before t…

Read more

The great welcome form LGBT advocates to the Synod Study Group 9’s recent report, is – says Cdl. Müller – greatly revealing. The report’s text hig…

Read more

The “Modernist presence within the structures and hierarchy of the official Church has gone beyond critical mass to a near saturation point.” Thus reads a portion of the new …

Read more

Now with dates confirmed for the week-long meeting, the presidents of national bishops’ conferences will begin to plan their attendance for October’s meeting, after Leo announced it …

Read more

According to a detailed new report issued by HRW, the Chinese state is only increasing its persecution of undergr…

Read more

The Church’s liturgical life is intimately linked to the practice of the faith, as summarized by the phrase “lex orandi, lex credendi” – the la…

Read more

Neri, beloved by many in the city as one of the great Apostles of Rome, had already popularized the seven churches pilgrimage in the Eternal City, visiting the seven main basilicas. But the Maundy Thursday version became a particular way in which to accompany Christ on the seven final places He visited leading up to His death.

The seven locations as recorded in the Gospels are:

1. Christ prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, before being arrested by the soldiers.

2. Christ is taken to Annas, father-in-law of the High Priest Caiaphas. annas questions Him of His teaching, and Christ is struck in the face by an attendant.

3. Christ is taken before Caiaphas, who accuses Christ of blasphemy and rents his garments upon doing so.

4. Christ is brought to Pontius Pilate and questioned if he is a king.

5. Christ is taken then to Herod, who questions him, mocks him by dressing him in a white garment and sends him away.

6. Christ is brought back before Pilate once again. Pilate asks the Jews what to do with Him, and then washes his hands as he frees Barabbas.

7. Christ is crucified on Mount Golgotha and dies.

Keen to harness the devotion to the crucified Lord, Neri thus developed the custom of visiting any seven churches around Rome, and their various Altars of Repose, in order to pray before the Blessed Sacrament and keep Christ company as the Passion begins.

Interspersed with some of Dom Prosper Gueranger’s commentary for Maundy Thursday evening reproduced below are a series of images taken during the seven churches visitation made by Per Mariam during the Triduum in Rome last year.

Commentary by Dom Gueranger on Maundy Thursday evening

Judas has left the cenacle, and, profiting by the darkness, has reached the place where the enemies of his Savior are assembled. Jesus then turns to His faithful apostles, and says to them: “Now is the Son of Man glorified.” Yes, His Passion is to be followed by triumph and glory; and the Passion has already begun, for Judas has commenced his work of betraying Him.

Meanwhile, the apostles, forgetting the trouble into which they had been thrown by Jesus’ telling them that one of the twelve was about to betray Him, begin to dispute among themselves, which of them should seem to be greater. They have not forgotten the words spoken by Jesus to Peter, when He made him the rock on which He would build His Church; and here at the supper, they have seen the divine Master wash the feet of Peter first. On the other hand, John’s affectionate familiarity with Jesus, during this same supper, has made some of them argue that he who was most loved would be most honoured.

Jesus puts an end to this dispute, by giving to these future pastors of His Church a lesson of humility. There shall, it is true, be a head among them, but, says our Redeemer, “let him that is the greater among you, become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.” He bids them look at Him: He is their Master, and yet, says He, “I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth.”

Then turning towards Peter, thus addresses him: “Simon, Simon! behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” This last interview is, as it were, our Savior’s testament; He provides for His Church, before leaving her. The apostles are to be Peter’s brethren, but Peter is to be their head. This sublime dignity is to be enhanced by the humility of him that enjoys it: he shall be “the servant of the servants of God.” The apostolic college is to be exposed to the fury of hell; but Peter alone is to confirm his brethren in the faith. His teaching shall ever be conformable to divine truth; it shall ever be infallible: Jesus has prayed that it may be so. Such a prayer is all-powerful; and thereby, the Church, ever docile to the voice of Peter, shall forever maintain the doctrine of Christ.

Jesus, after having provided for the future of His Church by the words He addressed to Peter, thus speaks affectionately to all the eleven: “Little children! yet a little while I am with you. Love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another.” Peter says to him: “Lord! whither goest Thou?” “Whither I go,” answers Jesus, “thou canst not now follow Me; but thou shalt follow hereafter.” “Why cannot I follow thee now?” again asks Peter: “I will lay down my life for Thee.” “Wilt thou,” replies Jesus, “lay down thy life for Me? Amen, amen, I say to thee: the cock shall not crow, till thou deny Me thrice.”

Peter’s love for Jesus had too much of the human about it, for it was not based on humility. Presumption comes from pride: it almost always results in a fall. In order to prepare Peter for his future ministry of pardon, as also to give us a useful lesson, God permits that he, who was soon to be made prince of the apostles, should fall into a most grievous and humiliating sin.

But let us return to the instructions contained in the last words spoken by our Jesus before He leaves His disciples:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. If you love Me, keep My commandments. I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. If you loved Me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father. I will not now speak many things with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and in Me he hath not anything. But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given Me commandment, so do I: arise, let us go hence.”

Deeply impressed by these words, the disciples arise, and, after the hymn of thanksgiving has been said, they accompany Jesus to Mount Olivet.

He continues His instructions as they go along. He takes occasion from their passing by a vine to speak of the effect produced by divine grace, in the soul of man.

“I am the true vine,” He says, “and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me, that beareth not fruit, He will take away, and every one that beareth fruit, He will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine; so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without Me you can do nothing. If any one abideth not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. You have not chosen Me: but I have chosen you, and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit, and your fruit should remain.”

He next speaks to them of the persecutions that await them, and of the hatred the world will have of them. He renews the promise He had made them of the holy Spirit, the Comforter, and tells them that it is to their advantage that He Himself should leave them. He assures them that they shall obtain whatever they ask of the Father in His name. “The Father,” He adds, “loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came from God. I come forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and I go to the Father.”

The disciples say to Him: “Now we know that Thou knowest all things, and Thou needest not that any man should ask Thee. By this we believe that Thou camest forth from God”. “Do you now believe?” answers Jesus: “Behold! the hour cometh, and it is now come, that you shall be scattered every man to his own, and shall leave Me alone. All you shall be scandalized in Me this night; for it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.’ But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”

Peter again protests that he will be faithful to his Master; the rest may abandon Him, if they will, but he will keep with Him to the last! It should, indeed, be so, for he has received so much more from Jesus than the others have: but he is again humbled by being told of his coming speedy fall. Jesus then calmly raising up his eyes to heaven, says:

“Father! the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee. I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do; I have manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou hast given Me. They have known that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me. I pray for them; I pray not for the world. And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father! keep them in Thy name, whom Thou hast given Me; that they may be one, as We also are. While I was with them, I kept them in Thy name. Those whom Thou gavest Me, have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture may be fulfilled. I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. I pray not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst keep them from evil. Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who, through their word, shall believe in Me: that they all may be one, as Thou, Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us: that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me. Father, I will that where I am, they also, whom Thou hast given Me, may be with Me; that they may see the glory which Thou hast given Me, because Thou hast loved Me before the creation of the world. Just Father! the world hath not known Thee; but I have known Thee, and these have known that Thou hast sent Me. And I have made known Thy name to them, and will make it known, that the love, wherewith Thou hast loved Me, may be in them, and I in them.”

Such are the outpourings of the loving Heart of our Jesus, as He crosses the brook of Cedron, and ascends, with His disciples the Mount of Olives. Having come as far as Gethsemani, He goes into a garden, whither He had often led His apostles and rested there with them. Suddenly, His Soul is overpowered with grief; His human Nature experiences, as it were, a suspension of that beatitude which results from its union with the Divinity. This His Humanity will be interiorly supported even to the very last moment of His Passion; but it must bear everything that it is possible for it to bear.

Jesus feels such intense sadness, that the very presence of His disciples is insupportable; He leaves them, taking with Him only Peter, James, and John, who, a short time before, had been witnesses of His glorious Transfiguration: will they show greater courage than the rest, when they see their divine Master in the hands of His enemies? His words show them what a sudden change has come over Him. He whose language was, a few moments before, so calm, His look so serene, and His tone of voice so sweet, now says to them: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death: stay you here, and watch with Me.”

He leaves them, and goes to a grotto, which is about a stone’s throw distant. Even to this day it exists, perpetuating the memory of this terrible event. There does our Jesus prostrate Himself and pray saying: “Father! all things are possible to Thee. Remove this chalice from Me: but not what I will, but what Thou wilt.”

Share

While He is thus praying, a sweat of Blood flows from His Body and bathes the ground. It is not merely a swooning, it is an agony, that he suffers. God sends help to His sinking frame, and it is an angel that is entrusted with the office. Jesus is treated as man; His Humanity, exhausted as it is, is to receive no other sensible aid than that which is now brought Him by an angel (whom tradition affirms to have been Gabriel). Hereupon He rises, and again accepts the chalice prepared for Him. But what a chalice! Every pain that body and soul can suffer; the sins of the whole world taken upon Himself, and crying out vengeance against Him; the ingratitude of men, many of whom will make His sacrifice useless: Jesus has to accept all this, and at the very time when He seems to be left to His human Nature. The power of the Divinity, which is in Him, supports Him: but it does not prevent Him from feeling every suffering, just as though He had been mere Man. He begins His prayer by asking that the chalice may be taken from Him: He ends it by saying to His Father: “Not My will, but Thine be done!”

Jesus then rises, leaving the earth covered with the Blood of His agony: it is the first blood shedding of His Passion. He goes to His three disciples, and, finding them asleep, says to them: “What! could you not watch one hour with Me?” This is the beginning of that feature of His sufferings which consists in His being abandoned. He twice returns to the grotto, and repeats His sorrowful, but submissive, prayer; twice He returns to His disciples, whom He had asked to watch near Him, but at each time finds them asleep.

At length, He speaks to them saying: “Sleep ye now, and take your rest! Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.” Then resuming the energy of His divine courage, He adds: “Rise! let us go! Behold, he is at hand that will betray Me.”

While He is speaking these last few words, a numerous body of armed men enter the garden with torches in their hands. Judas is at their head. The betrayal is made by a profanation of the sign of friendship. “Judas! dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”

These piercing words should have made the traitor throw himself at his Master’s feet, and ask pardon; but it was too late: he feared the soldiers. But the servants of the high priest cannot lay hands on Jesus, unless He, their Victim, permit them to do so. With a single word, He casts them prostrate on the ground. Then permitting them to rise, He says to them with all the majesty of a King: “If you seek Me, let these go their way. You are come out, as it were against a thief with swords and clubs. When I was daily with you in the temple, you did not stretch forth your hands against Me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

Then turning to Peter, who has drawn and used his sword, He says to him: “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?”

And now, Jesus permits Himself to be led. Whereupon, His apostles run away in fear. Peter and another disciple follow Him, but as far off as they can. The soldiers lead Jesus by the same road, along which He had passed on the previous Sunday, when the people met Him with palm and olive branches in their hands. They cross the brook Cedron; and there is a tradition of the Church of Jerusalem that the soldiers, as they passed the bridge, threw Jesus into the water. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of David: He shall drink of the torrent in the way.

They reach the City walls. The gate is opened, and the divine Prisoner enters. It is night, and the inhabitants know not the crime that has been committed. It is only on the morrow, that they will learn, that Jesus of Nazareth, the great Prophet, has fallen into the hands of the Chief Priests and Pharisees. The night is far advanced; but many hours must elapse before the dawn of day. The enemies of Jesus have arranged to take him, in the morning, to Pontius Pilate, and accuse him as being a disturber of the peace: but in the meanwhile, they intend to condemn him as guilty in matters of religion I Their tribunal has authority to judge in cases of this nature, only they cannot pass sentence of death upon a culprit, how guilty soever they may prove him. They, consequently, hurry Jesus to Annas, the father in-law of the High Priest Caiphas. Here is to take place the first examination. These blood-thirsty men have spent these hours in sleepless anxiety. They have counted the very minutes since the departure of their minions for Mount Olivet. They’re not without some doubt as to whether their plot will succeed. At last, their Victim is brought before them, and he shall not escape their vengeance!

Here let us interrupt our History of the Passion, till the morrow shall bring us to the solemn hour, when the great Mystery of our instruction and salvation was accomplished. What a day is this that we have been spending! How full of Jesus’ love! He has given us his Body and Blood to be our Food; he has instituted the Priesthood of the New Testament; he has poured out upon the world the sublimest instructions of his loving Heart.

We have seen him struggling with the feelings of human weakness, as he beheld the Chalice of the Passion that was prepared for him; but he triumphed over all, in order to save us. We have seen him betrayed, fettered, and led captive into the holy City, there to consummate his Sacrifice.

Let us adore and love this Jesus, who might have saved us by one and the least of all these humiliations; but whose love for us was not satisfied unless he drank, to the very dregs, the Chalice he had accepted from his Father.

Announced in the daily bulletin on March 30, Leo has enacted a veritable changing of the gu…

Read more

The crisis in the Church is a much discussed issue, dividing many in terms of how serious they deem it to be. For …

Read more

While Leo was still wrapping up his final greetings to those gathered for the General Audience, the daily press bulletin from the Holy See Press Office announced two new archbishops.

First was the naming of Bishop Anthony…

Read more

Father Thomas’ commentary on the Annunciation as recorded in St. Luke’s Gospel, is both succinct and rich in beauty. It is taken from his book “St Luke’s Gospel - A Commentary for Believers” published in 2021 by Arouca Press, and is reproduced here with kind permission of the author.

(Readers in the U.S. can purchase a copy here, while those in the U.K. can find it here)

The relevant passages from St. Luke’s Gospel (1: 26-38) are presented first, before Fr. Thomas’ commentary afterwards:

And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Extract from Fr. Thomas Crean’s “A Commentary for Believers”

The Blessed Virgin was already espoused, that is, married to St Joseph. If she is sometimes spoken of as simply ‘betrothed’ to him, this is to show the purity of their marriage. It is reasonable also to suppose that she was already living in the house of St Joseph, so that no imputations would be cast upon her once she had conceived her Child.

St Gabriel does not need to say to her, Fear not, as soon as he appears, as he had done to Zachary. Living in perfect union with the Creator, Mary is not frightened by the sight of one of His servants. He says, Fear not, only once he has greeted her with high praise. Since she lives habitually in the thought of her own nothingness before God, this praise was able to trouble her.

In speaking to St Joseph, the angel says that Jesus will save his people from their sins. Why does he not say this to our Lady? Perhaps because she had no sins, and thus he would have been saying something that was less pertinent to her. Instead, he tells her three times that her Son will be a king: He will have the throne of David, reign in the house of Jacob, and have dominion with no end. Implicit in this is the promise of her own queenship: in the Old Testament, which foreshadowed the New, it was always the mother of the king who was the queen.

Our Lady knew from the Scriptures that the Messias was to be born of a Virgin. Why then does she remind the angel of her vow of virginity, saying I know not man, as if this were a difficulty? Perhaps because the prophecy of Isaias had not said how the virgin would conceive and bear; perhaps too, so that the angel might ratify the word of the prophet. The Law taught that two witnesses were sufficient to establish any truth.

“The Holy which shall be born of thee”: we could also translate the angel’s words: “The one who shall be born of thee in a holy way”, and miraculously. In this way, the answer would correspond more closely to the question, as an assurance that not even in giving birth would she lose her virginity.

Mary did not doubt St Gabriel’s words, as Zachary had done. Therefore, he rewards her faith with a secondary proof: God’s power as manifested in Elizabeth’s conception. She does not need this proof, since her faith rests on the word of God alone: but it is a gracious gift to her.

In the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord departs from Gedeon and Manue with fire; from Mary he departs quietly, as befits a servant.