Dear brothers and sisters, I would like to thank Senator Simone Pillon, the speakers, and the participants in the Assisi 2026 roundtables.

The topic assigned to me is the relationship between the Christian West, post-humanism, and Islam in light of the lesson of St. Francis, who invited the sultan to convert.

Today we are facing an unprecedented identity crisis. The Christian West is no longer merely threatened by external forces, but is being eroded by an internal apostasy. We are witnessing the triumph of post-humanism: a nihilistic ideology that, in its attempt to emancipate humanity from God, ends up destroying humanity itself, reducing it to manipulable matter, to an algorithm among algorithms, and depriving it of its dignity as the image and likeness of the Creator.

On the other hand, we are witnessing the vigorous expansion of Islam, a faith that—unlike our secularized West—is not ashamed of God, is not ashamed of transcendence, but proposes an anthropology and a revelation radically different from those of Christianity.

In this scenario, the question we ask ourselves is crucial: is the lesson of St. Francis of Assisi—who, eight hundred years ago, went to Sultan Malik al-Kamil and invited him to convert to Christ—still valid?

The answer from Catholic theology and right reason is unequivocal: yes, it is not only valid, but urgent and indispensable.

Today, unfortunately, a certain sentimental and relativist trend has portrayed St. Francis as a precursor of modern syncretism, a prophet of pacifist dialogue as an end in itself, where all religions are equivalent and none possesses the truth. This is a historical and theological falsification! Francis did not go to Egypt to launch a diplomatic salon or to confirm the Sultan in his faith. Francis went to the Sultan driven by love for souls and by the unshakable certainty that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of mankind. True love for others does not consist in leaving them in error, but in proclaiming to them the Truth that sets them free.

The call to conversion is not an act of hostility, nor a legacy of medieval intolerance. On the contrary, it is the highest act of charity.

If we look at post-humanism, the West has lost its faith because it has lost its reason. We think we can redefine human nature, marriage, life, and death. Faced with this spiritual void, Islam appears to many as a solid rock. But the answer to Western nihilism cannot be submission to a conception of God that separates faith from reason, or that conceives of divine omnipotence as pure arbitrariness.

St. Francis’s lesson to the Sultan reminds us that the alternative to nihilism is not fundamentalism, but Christ, the incarnate Logos. In Christ, divine reason becomes flesh and reveals itself as Love.

Interreligious dialogue, if it is to be authentic and respectful of human dignity, cannot be based on disguising one’s own identity. Muslims do not respect a weak Christianity that is ashamed of the Cross and reduces itself to a charity organization or an environmental watchdog. They respect those who believe. St. Francis showed respect for the Sultan precisely because he spoke to him with the parrhesia of the Holy Spirit, offering his own life as a witness.

We can do the same, offering to people of the Muslim faith who come to our countries what we have that is most precious: conversion to faith in the one true God.

Dear friends, the West will save itself from post-humanism and will not be assimilated by other faiths only if it rediscovers the courage of mission. We must not be afraid to proclaim Christ’s social kingship. We must return to saying, with the same humility and the same zeal as the Poor Man of Assisi, that outside of Jesus Christ there is no salvation.

The conversion that Francis asked of the Sultan is the very same conversion that we must ask today, first and foremost, of ourselves, of a Europe that has renounced its roots, and of every person who seeks the truth. “Only if the West puts God back at the center will humanity once again become truly human.”

As of last week, the Catholic world has now received firm evidence that the Sino-Vatican deal has failed. It is a striking claim, but it is well grounded. But it has passed relatively un-noticed by the Catholic world at large.

First signed in 2018 as a “provisional agreement,” the deal between Beijing and the Holy See regarding the appointment of bishops was described by Pope Francis at the time as “writing this new chapter of the Catholic Church in China.”

He stated that “the Agreement sets out stable elements of cooperation between the state authorities and the Apostolic See, in the hope of providing the Catholic community with good shepherds.”

Explaining his attention to the Church in China and implementing the deal, Francis defended it as rooted in the search for unity:

“Precisely for the sake of supporting and promoting the preaching of the Gospel in China and reestablishing full and visible unity in the Church, it was essential, before all else, to deal with the issue of the appointment of bishops.”

As for its purpose, Francis added that “the Holy See has desired – and continues to desire – only to attain the Church’s specific spiritual and pastoral aims, namely, to support and advance the preaching of the Gospel, and to reestablish and preserve the full and visible unity of the Catholic community in China.”

Renewed every two years since 2018, the deal was most recently extended for a 4-year term in 2024, meaning that the next time it is due to renewal it will have been in force for a decade.

Despite that, the deal has remained highly confidential. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin has defended this aspect. “The text is confidential because it has not yet been finally approved,” the Vatican press corps was told in summer 2023.

As Per Mariam readers will be well aware, the Sino-Vatican deal remains one of the most controversial points of Pope Francis’ legacy. Local Catholics described it as a Vatican betrayal of them; China experts warned that Church was caving to Communist China; politicians in numerous countries and international human rights bodies have also slated the deal. Indeed the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China has reported that Christian persecution has increased as a direct result of the deal.

Despite this, the Holy See has remained firm in its defence and continuation in exercising the deal. China continues to hold the upper hand as it nominates and selects bishops, leaving the Vatican the mere token duty of approving the candidate. But, as the Chinese-state church demonstrates in its own details, it does not publicly acknowledge the role of the Holy See.

Secret consecrations

Recent days have now put the final nail in the coffin of any debate regarding the efficacy of the deal, as an Underground bishop revealed that bishops are being consecrated in secret for the Underground Church.

Interviewed by Catholic World Report, the anonymous prelate stated that in order to “assure the survival of China’s Church,” the Underground has been secretly consecrating bishops for the Church which is loyal to Rome.

Though he was unsure, or unwilling, to give precise figures, the bishop said that “at least ten new bishops” had been consecrated for his province alone. Per Mariam has been informed that most of the consecrations took place in the last year.

Share

The 2018 Sino-Vatican deal ushered in “a state of emergency” to the Church in China, the bishop added.

He further noted that Chinese Catholics are still hurting from the deal – quite aside from active persecution – and “question Rome’s genuine concern for their spiritual well-being when the Holy See approves of government-selected bishops who are suspiciously reliable to the state.”

“They wonder, who is the pope in China? Xi Jinping or Pope Leo XIV?”

The Holy See Press Office has still not replied to questions from this correspondent regarding whether the Pope knew of the consecrations, or had approved them, or if the Vatican was entirely oblivious. Now that the secret consecrations have been revealed, it is important for the Church to know if the Vatican approved them or not, and how much it knew.

But even without receipt of these answers, the Underground Church has demonstrated that the Holy See’s policy with China is fundamentally flawed. For years politicians and activists have been saying so, and now the Underground Church is proving it by its daily life.

Just after the deal was signed in 2018, AsiaNews reported that Underground Catholics felt betrayed by the Vatican. It appears that feeling has only increased.

Not only that, but the Underground fears for the integrity of the faith. Hence why a “state of emergency” has been invoked as bishops seeks to prioritise the passing on of the Catholic faith rather than the creed polluted with Communism which Beijing demands.

Pope Francis wrote in 2018 that the deal was intended “to attain the Church’s specific spiritual and pastoral aims, namely, to support and advance the preaching of the Gospel, and to reestablish and preserve the full and visible unity of the Catholic community in China.” The Underground has proved that the deal has missed its mark entirely.

Returning to whether the Vatican did indeed know about the secret consecrations, the answer which would leave the Holy See in the most favourable light is that Rome was unaware. For this to be the most favourable option might seem strange, but one must remember the facts.

Religious watchdogs have consistently reported that Christian persecution in China has increased precisely because of the deal. If the Vatican knew that the deal had failed – to the extent that Underground bishops were required to be secretly consecrated in order to preserve the faith – and yet kept renewing it, then the Holy See would be complicit in the persecution of its own flock.

Strange as it might seem, Catholics ought thus to hope that the Holy See only learned about the secret consecrations at the same time as everyone else.

As for the future, it is clear that the Underground both loves but mistrusts Rome. It loves the Holy See enough to risk persecution in order to be loyal to the Church, but mistrusts the Vatican’s policies and episcopal choices. The Underground knows what it has done all along – namely that the Vatican cannot expect to make a deal with Beijing and emerge victorious.

It is not until 2028 that the Sino-Vatican is next up for renewal. Pope Leo will face a momentous choice at that stage, between taking a courageous stance and rejecting it, or consigning Chinese Catholics to yet more persecution. Inaction leads to Chinese control and being complicit in the persecution of the Church.

The fate of China’s Catholics and the Vatican’s moral integrity rely upon the Holy See rejecting the ill-fated deal.

From August 24 to 28, Archbishop Richard Gallagher conducted a visit to Moscow, with his schedule including politicians, ecumenical leaders and local Catholics. Gallagher serves as the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States and International Organization, and as such his visit to Moscow bore particular significance.

The English archbishop has not set foot in the country since the tail-end of 2021, meaning that this was his first visit in Russia since the outbreak of war with Ukraine in February 2022.

Gallagher does not cut an imposing figure. One of the few Vatican officials sporting a beard, the diplomat conveys a quiet confidence rather than a domineering presence. But that did not ring true for his speech to the assembled media, following the highly anticipated meeting with Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. His prepared text was vivacious and firm.

The rest of this correspondent’s report, originally published on the Catholic Herald, is found at this link.

As the motorcade departed the papal villas in Castel Gandolfo on the evening of July 27, Vati…

Read more

Assumption-tide has come and gone, and the octave …

Read more

VATICAN CITY (PerMariam) — On July 31, 2026, Pope Leo XIV met with American rock musician, poet, and artist Patti …

Read more

Read more

Leo’s return to taking his summer holidays in the …

Read more

The motu proprio that easily became a defining point in Francis’ papacy was, like many other controv…

Read more

VATICAN CITY (PerMariam) — Following the Society of Saint Pius X’s consecration of four new bishops, the Holy See has declared…

Read more

“I think the faithful and the Society simply profess the faith of all times,” said Bishop Ath…

Read more

Such is the assessment of Monsignor Martin Grichting, an esteemed professor …

Read more

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

5 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

Read more

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

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

Read more

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

Read more

Read more

Father Daniel Pellizzon, of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, is returning to Argentina to become parish priest of the church of San Cayetano de Belgrano near the center of the city of Buenos Aires itself.

News of the move, though not announced by any official channels of the Holy See, was shared by the parish church in late November. Announcements of Pellizzon’s welcome Mass as the new parish priest were made at the start of February, with the opening Mass being on March 1.

The priest has been made a Monsignor, a fairly customary way of a parting diplomatic gift following the conclusion of close service to the Pontiff and Holy See. Indeed it is customary for the Pope to choose his own secretaries – or bring those he already had as a cardinal – rather than keeping those of his predecessor, but Pellizzon’s departure remains notable due to who he is.

Pellizzon is not widely known to much of the Anglosphere, but he should be, given his close links to the late Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández – the cardinal being one of the most controversial figures introduced to the Vatican under the last pontificate.

Pellizzon was ordained in November 2018, and has long had a very close relationship with Fernández, as well as with Pope Francis.

The Argentinian priest was private secretary for Fernández during the latter’s nine years as rector of the Catholic University of Argentina – something which was notably glossed over in English reports in July 2023 – and was also the Archbishop’s Master of Liturgical Ceremonies for key events.

Share

Prior to his priestly life, Pellizon also worked with Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio during his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, helping him organize his personal archive. Consequently he received a personal letter of congratulations from Pope Francis at his 2018 ordination – a Mass at which Archbishop Fernández gave the homily.

Pellizon spent four years as a priest in San Cayetano Shrine in Liniers, before moving to a new church in February 2023. However that was a short-lived assignment since he was named as private secretary to Pope Francis in July 2023, and arrived in August.

The timing of this move to Rome was closely arranged to marry up with that of his other long-time close friend and collaborator, Fernández. Fernández was named as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 2023 and arrived just a few weeks later.

The rest of Per Mariam’s analysis continues below, and is for paid subscribers. This site relies entirely on readers’ support to continue reporting!

Read more

For many Vatican analysts Leo’s major appointments in the Roman Curia will be the most telling, but so f…

Read more