At the largest and most influential of these, the Secretariat of State, Pope Leo XIV could replace Cardinal Pietro Parolin as Secretary of State as early as this summer, according to several diplomatic and Vatican sources who spoke to The Pillar.

The move, if it happens, would replace the Vatican’s second-highest official and the pope’s closest institutional advisor. According to several of these sources, Pope Leo has privately expressed some reservations about Parolin’s effectiveness as the epicenter of curial organization, a dynamic that may have led the pope to start considering replacing him.

While no one knows except the pope when he might choose to replace the 71-year-old Parolin, speculation has already begun about his potential successors.

The Vatican City rumor mill currently favors a traditional appointment of a curial official with diplomatic experience, with Archbishop Paul Gallagher and Archbishop Fortunatus Nwachukwu considered the leading candidates. But the trend of senior appointments under Leo so far suggests at least the possibility of a candidate from outside the traditional curial personnel pipeline.

In any event, if the pope does decide to make a change at the top of his largest department, it could also create a series of potential headaches, or at least complicated choices, downstream.

—

Cardinal Parolin has been serving as Secretary of State since 2013 when Pope Francis appointed him to the position seven months into his pontificate.

Early into Leo’s pontificate, it was rumored Parolin could be moved out of Rome to the Patriarchate of Venice or the Archdiocese of Milan to take on a major Italian diocese, despite his relatively advanced age. At the time, commentators speculated that Parolin’s accumulated baggage over more than a decade in charge of the Secretariat of State, including his involvement in the Vatican-China deal and the London property scandal, would be enough for any pope to consider starting fresh.

But as the months passed, neither move materialized.

Parolin was widely known to have a tense relationship with the sostituto of the Secretariat of State, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra. The sostituto, while nominally Parolin’s deputy, is effectively the pope’s chief of staff, with much more day to day contact with the pontiff, and Peña Parra was known to have a much closer relationship with Francis than Parolin.

Peña Parra’s appointment as apostolic nuncio to Italy and the appointment of Archbishop Paolo Rudelli, believed to have come at Parolin’s suggestion, as Peña Parra’s successor, were seen as a victory for Secretary of State, and a sign he could see his tenure extend for another several years.

Parolin’s influence appeared to extend beyond Rudelli’s appointment: the new nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, is also widely considered close to Parolin.

Given that trajectory, many assumed that Pope Leo XIV would even allow Parolin to remain in his post until he reached the nominal Vatican retirement age of 75 in three years and a half.

However, several diplomatic and Vatican sources have told The Pillar that Parolin now seems likely to be replaced sooner, rather than later — even as soon as this summer.

Subscribe now

According to several sources, there are questions about Parolin’s effectiveness and influence as the central point of contact and coordination across and between Vatican departments, a dynamic that some sources suggest has prompted the pope to begin considering potential successors to Parolin.

The main question is whether Leo will appoint someone from within the established Vatican pool of personnel — a diplomat or former diplomat serving in the curia — or whether Leo will look outside, as he has done with other senior appointments so far.

The Secretariat of State is the Vatican’s second-highest office, after the pope, and is generally considered the pope’s closest institutional advisor. Most secretaries of state have come from within the Vatican diplomatic corps. The few exceptions to this tradition have at least served as curial officials, such as Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot, who served in the role under three popes between 1969 and 1979, and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who served between 2006 and 2013, under Pope Benedict XVI and briefly under Pope Francis.

Benedict’s choice of Bertone was unconventional, and personal: at the time, Bertone was serving as Archbishop of Genoa, having previously been secretary of the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Ratzinger, with whom he worked closely for years. Bertone’s tenure in the Vatican top job was, however, ultimately marked — even defined — by pervasive corruption, financial scandals and other controversies.

Francis, by contrast, chose the traditional route, selecting a career diplomat in Parolin. Their relationship cooled over time, however, and rumors of a possible replacement grew toward the end of Francis’s pontificate. Parolin’s tenure was not without its own controversies, including his central role in the China-Vatican agreement and the London property scandal.

Finding a successor for Parolin may not be simple. Rumors in the Vatican point to at least two potential names: Archbishop Paul Gallagher, secretary for Relations with the States of the Secretariat of State and Archbishop Fortunatus Nwachukwu, secretary of the Section of First Evangelization at the Dicastery for Evangelization.

Both share a similar profile: career diplomats with extensive experience as apostolic nuncios and in the Roman curia. A choice between them would suggest Pope Leo is inclined toward the traditional route of selecting a Vatican diplomat.

For all the speculation, Gallagher is 72, though, older even than Parolin, which means he would likely serve as a transitional Secretary of State. Even if the pope allowed him to remain in office until 77 — and Pope Leo has already said publicly that he would prefer curial officials not to serve beyond retirement age or, except in rare cases, past 77 — Gallagher would serve for only about four and a half years.

This would be a briefer tenure than anyone to hold the role since Cardinal Domenico Tardini, who served as Secretary of State between 1958 until his death at 73 in 1961.

However, Gallagher’s potential appointment would have its logic. If the pope sees a certain urgency in replacing Parolin but does not yet feel he knows the pool of apostolic nuncios enough to choose among them, Gallagher is widely respected throughout the curia and in diplomatic circles and could represent a safe pair of hands to manage a transition.

Naming him would also preserve Leo’s flexibility to appoint a longer-term Secretary of State once he identifies the right candidate. Moreover, Gallagher is widely seen as a competent and well-liked official within the curia, and is relatively uncontroversial, traits that have marked several of Pope Leo’s senior appointments so far.

Nwachukwu, for his part, is the most senior African curial official and has one of the longest resumes among Vatican officials. After serving in several nunciatures and in the section for relations with states of the Secretariat of State between 1994 and 2007, he became chief of protocol of the Secretariat of State that same year.

In 2012, he was appointed apostolic nuncio to Nicaragua, a position he held until 2017, when he was made the apostolic nuncio to the English Caribbean, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles. In 2021, he became the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland, and has held his current office as secretary in the Dicastery for Evangelization since 2023.

Nwachukwu is also widely seen as a competent official, with diplomatic and intellectual credentials and of a conservative theological persuasion but a generally moderate temperament.

His time as nuncio to Nicaragua drew some criticism, however, with some observers viewing him as too close to the country’s government — and, in particular, to first lady turned co-president Rosario Murillo.

Nwachukwu is also 66 years old, and, therefore, could potentially serve for a decade or more, as most secretaries of state have done since the Second Vatican Council.

Subscribe now

Pope Leo could also take a less conventional route and choose someone who is not a current curial insider or an apostolic nuncio. It would be, in terms of Vatican praxis, an unorthodox move, but several of Leo’s appointments suggest that he’s not shy in bringing figures from outside the Roman curia into senior Vatican roles.

For example, last month he appointed Montserrat Alvarado, president and COO of EWTN News, as the new prefect of the Dicastery for Communications, despite her having never previously served in a Church institution.

He also appointed Archbishop Luis Marín de San Martín, OSA, a longtime Leo collaborator dating back this time in leadership of the Augustinian order, as papal almoner. Although Marín was serving in the curia as undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops before Leo’s election, he appeared more likely to stay in his position until his retirement or be appointed as a bishop in Spain than to receive a major a curial promotion.

The pope likewise appointed Australian Bishop Anthony Randazzo as prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts. Randazzo worked in the then-Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith from 2004 to 2009, meaning he had been outside the Roman curia for 16 years by the time of his appointment.

Moreover, several Vatican sources told The Pillar that Norwegian Bishop Erik Varden might be soon appointed to lead a Vatican dicastery. The pope is also reportedly considering appointing at least one Peruvian bishop close to him to a curial position this year.

That does not necessarily point to a full overhaul of the curial appointment process, however. Leo appeared to follow more traditional criteria of promoting from within by appointing the Dicastery for Promoting Human Development’s secretary, Sr. Alessandra Smerilli, FMA to succeed Cardinal Michael Czerny, SJ as prefect. He also named Archbishop Filippo Iannone, O. Carm, who was serving as prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, to succeed him as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.

Still, many of Leo’s appointments so far suggest that he’s willing to think outside the box. The Secretariat of State is, of course, somewhat unique in the constellation of Vatican departments, but it might be possible that his choice for Secretary of State proves to be an untraditional one.

If Leo’s curial appointments offer any indication of the profile he might favor, Leo’s Secretary of State could be someone known primarily for competence rather than for belonging to a doctrinal camp, someone with missionary or at least international experience, very possibly the member of a religious order, and a strong intellectual and institutional resume.

—

Of course, assuming Cardinal Parolin were to be moved on from the job he has had for the last 13 years, the pope will face the task of deciding where his former top diplomat should go next.

At 71, Parolin is not yet of retirement age.

Forr now, rumors in Rome suggest he could become archpriest of one of Rome’s papal basilicas.

Rome has four papal basilicas: Saint Peter, Saint John Lateran, Saint Mary Major and Saint Paul Outside the Walls. Each of them is headed by an archpriest, typically a cardinal or someone created cardinal shortly after appointment.

Saint John Lateran’s archpriest is traditionally the Cardinal Vicar of Rome – currently Cardinal Baldo Reina – However, the other three papal basilicas are sometimes used as a kind of dignified retirement post for cardinals or curial officials.

For example, Cardinal Francesco Marchisano was the archpriest of Saint Peter’s Basilica between 2002 and 2006 after serving as secretary of several dicasteries and president of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology for 13 years.

Cardinal Stanisław Ryłko became the archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major in 2015 after serving for 13 years as president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. His predecessor, Cardinal Santos Abril, became the basilica’s archpriest in 2011 after three decades as an apostolic nuncio. Abril’s predecessor was Cardinal Bernard Law, who was appointed in 2004 after resigning as Archbishop of Boston amid accusations of sexual abuse cover-up.

Among the current archpriests of papal basilicas, only Cardinal James Harvey, 76, archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls is past the nominal retirement age. However, Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, archpriest of Saint Peter’s Basilica has been linked with a move to an Italian diocese for months, leaving potentially two archpriest positions for Pope Leo to fill.

While Gallagher has been floated as a possible Secretary of State, other Vatican sources told The Pillar he might be in line for the kind of semi-honorific post given to an official of his age and standing, especially if it came with the prospect of a red hat, possibly as archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls or as the prefect of a minor dicastery, such as the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life.

The question of who might succeed Gambetti at Saint Peter’s is more complicated. Vatican sources told The Pillar that Parolin himself might be appointed to the position. However, other senior sources told The Pillar that the pope intended to move Cardinal Rolandas Makrickas, current archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major to the position, while other rumors point to the appointment of Archbishop Diego Ravelli, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations.

Gambetti’s tenure at St. Peter’s has been contentious, marked by security concerns, controversial financial decisions, and restrictions on the celebration of individual Masses at the basilica’s side altars. That may lead the pope to prioritize an experienced administrator capable of stabilizing the situation in the basilica, a role Cardinal Makrickas played in Saint Mary Major, first as extraordinary commissioner of the basilica, then as coadjutor archpriest, and finally as archpriest.

Such a move could complicate Parolin’s prospects: there does not appear to be an obvious senior dicastery to which he could be appointed, and indeed any dicastery after the Secretariat of State is considered in Vatican circles to be a step down. And the possibility of becoming Archbishop of Milan or Patriarch of Venice appears increasingly unlikely.

Still, if Makrickas were named archpriest of St. Peter’s, that could open up St. Mary Major for Parolin — or the pope could simply decide to give Parolin the most senior of the four basilica posts outright.

Subscribe now

Reina said in a July 13 letter to priests that the Roman Church “wishes to join in this gesture of communion and charity, so that Christian communities may tangibly demonstrate their solidarity with their brothers and sisters who have seen their homes destroyed, lost their loved ones, and are forced to live in conditions of extreme precariousness.”

The earthquakes have so far left 4,734 dead, 16,740 injured, almost 1,000 buildings partially or fully destroyed, and 17,907 homeless, with numbers being updated almost daily. Diplomatic and Church sources told The Pillar they fear the final death toll could be around 20,000 to 30,000, or even higher, with nearly 30,000 people still missing.

Reina’s letter came after the Italian bishops’ conference announced July 9 that a nationwide collection would be held at Sunday Masses across Italy July 26.

In the announcement, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, president of the Italian bishops’ conference said the collection was “a concrete way to show solidarity with those who have lost everything… It will also be an opportunity to express, through communal prayer, our solidarity with those affected by the tragedy.”

Reina added in his letter that he wanted Roman priests to “promote the collection of donations during the Masses on Sunday, July 26, raising awareness among the faithful about the importance of this sign of ecclesial solidarity and accompanying it with a prayer intention for the victims, the wounded, the displaced, and all those involved in relief efforts.”

“The Vicariate [of Rome] will then be responsible for forwarding the entire amount to Caritas Italiana, which, in close collaboration with Caritas Venezuela, coordinates humanitarian efforts and ensures that aid reaches the hardest-hit populations, avoiding fragmented initiatives and promoting a unified response from the Italian Church,” the letter said.

Reina also acknowledged in his letter that many parishes in Rome would see lower than usual attendance because many residents had already left the city for their summer holidays.

He said that for this reason, “this coming Fall, the Diocese of Rome, together with the diocesan Caritas, will organize another collection of donations to support one of the local Church’s projects in aid of the Venezuelan communities affected by the earthquake. It will be another opportunity to live out charity as an expression of our faith and of the communion that unites the Churches.”

Concluding the letter, he said: “I thank you for your continued willingness to help and for the dedication with which you will involve your communities in this gesture of brotherhood.”

Subscribe now

In his July 9 statement, Zuppi added that in the affected areas, “many homes have been destroyed, damaged, or rendered unsafe. Infrastructure, schools, health facilities, and essential services have also been damaged. In several areas, access to drinking water, sanitation, food, and medical care remains difficult… [the emergency] occurs within a context already marked by economic and social fragility, with widespread humanitarian needs and a public service network that is often under strain.”

Fr. Marco Pagniello, director of Caritas Italy, the humanitarian arm of the Italian bishops’ conference said in a statement that they are in constant communication with Caritas Venezuela “for the humanitarian response and the coordination of aid,” and added that a delegation of Caritas Italy would travel to Venezuela to “strengthen all forms of collaboration that have already been initiated.”

Zuppi’s statement added that Caritas Italy’s efforts focus particularly on the distribution of water, food, hygiene kits, medicines, and health, psychological, and spiritual support.

“The funds raised will be used to address current and future emergencies. And it will be a unified gesture expressing the Italian Church’s embrace of the Venezuelan Church,” the statement added.

—

More than two weeks after twin earthquakes struck Caracas, the country’s capital, and the nearby city of La Guaira, relief efforts have shifted from search-and-rescue to recovery and care for those affected, with Caritas Venezuela at the helm of much of that response.

In a July 7 report, its first accounting of the humanitarian response, Caritas Venezuela said it had already distributed 61% of the aid it has received, with the remainder still in stock.

Water made up the largest share of the distribution, at 4,031 tons, followed by 3,247 tons of food. The organization also distributed 73,356 kits containing medical supplies and medicines, according to the report.

Caritas has deployed 3,360 volunteers throughout the affected areas, including members of Caritas Spain, Caritas Germany, and Caritas Puerto Rico.

Venezuela has been largely cut off from the international banking system since 2003, when the government imposed currency exchange controls, a restriction that complicates donations from abroad. Meanwhile, official state institutions are widely distrusted amid rampant corruption and even the Venezuelan Red Cross has been intervened by the Venezuelan regime and has been embroiled in corruption scandals.

That has left Caritas, which holds several international bank accounts and is broadly regarded as a reputable, transparent institution in Venezuela, to serve as one of the primary channels for international aid.

And after two weeks of rescue operations, most international specialized teams have left the country as hopes of finding survivors in the rubble have dwindled to almost nothing.

Several rescue teams complained of delays in obtaining authorization to enter the country or begin operations, harassment by local authorities, and the denial of entry to medical teams—particularly during the first days after the earthquake, widely regarded as the most critical period for finding survivors.

Local media reported that several people have taken to renting cranes and heavy machinery – at rates ranging from $3,000 a day to $5,000 a week, depending on the equipment – to clear rubble from collapsed buildings themselves and recover the bodies of loved ones, saying state-led efforts have been slow and insufficient.

Subscribe now

I’m Luke Coppen and I aim to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and commentary.

Read more

In an unsigned notice to media, released via the SSPX website, the society stated that “in response to the decree issued on 2 July 2026 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, [the society] submitted on 11 July a preliminary recourse to the same Dicastery, in accordance with canons 1734 and following of the Code of Canon Law.”

“This request, which constitutes the mandatory preliminary step before the possible introduction of a hierarchical recourse, has the effect of suspending the execution of the decree, in accordance with canon 1353 of the Code of Canon Law,” the statement said, adding that “the Society intends to exercise the right which the Church recognizes to any person who considers himself harmed by an administrative act to seek its correction, in a spirit of respect for ecclesiastical authority and of faithful attachment to justice, truth and the good of the Church.”

The society did not release the text of the submitted recourse. Absent that, the announcement of the society’s attempt to lodge canonical recourse leaves open a number of questions, which would likely bear upon how such an appeal is received within the Vatican, along with several related canonical questions.

Leave a comment

—
Without the actual text submitted by the society to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, much regarding the rationale for appeal remains open to conjecture. But the group’s press statement does contain enough information to suggest a few assumptions.

First, that the opening of the recourse process, as cited in the statement, is being undertaken in line with the norms of canon 1734, which deal with the Church’s procedural law for appeals against acts of governance.

Assuming the recourse is being made in line with that canon, the statement means that the society is not yet lodging a formal canonical appeal. Instead, the first necessary step of the process is the presentation of a petition to the relevant authority, in this case the DDF, for reconsideration of the act of governance — the decree declaring the excommunication of the six SSPX bishops who participated in the group’s illicit July 1 consecration.

Canonically, the first stage of appeal is a formal request for the disputed act to be withdrawn or amended, which can be made only within 10 ”useful days” of the act’s date— useful time being the canonical formulation for working days. The dicastery then has a period of 30 days to respond, either rejecting the petition — and clearing the way for legal appeal — or accommodating through the withdrawal or amendment of the act itself.

If no response is received within the 30 days, the petitioner can legally take the silence as a negative response and continue with the appeal process.

However, the society makes a particular claim in its communique about the process: “This request, which constitutes the mandatory preliminary step before the possible introduction of a hierarchical recourse, has the effect of suspending the execution of the decree, in accordance with canon 1353 of the Code of Canon Law.”

Legitimate canonical appeals against decrees involving penalties do have suspensive effect — the law states that “An appeal or a recourse against judgements of a court or against decrees which impose or declare any penalty has a suspensive effect.” And even if the petition for reconsideration did not explicitly request it, the procedural law of the Church provides that when the petition is presented, “by that very fact suspension of the execution of the decree is also understood to be requested.”

Of course, according to the SSPX’s statement, it is only the decree of the DDF dated July 2 which has been appealed, and the decree in question very narrowly pertains to the declaration of the excommunication of the six bishops as individuals. The petition for reconsideration and any subsequent recourse would not then, at least according to the SSPX’s own statement, apply to the other texts issued by the dicastery in the wake of the July consecrations.

Those other documents, an explanatory note from the dicastery outlining the status of the society as a schismatic group and providing a canonical rationale for the status of its priests, and a protocol for the reconciliation of former SSPX members into full communion with the Church, are not automatically included in the appeal against the decree, and so no automatic suspension of their contents would come into play.

However, several important questions remain regarding the appeal against the decree itself.

The first and most immediately relevant of these concerns by whom the petition for reconsideration was presented. According to the SSPX statement, this petition was made by the society itself. This is canonically problematic, if an accurate characterization.

The Society of St. Pius X is not recognized by the Church as an entity, properly constituted in canon law. In this sense, it does not legally exist at all canonically speaking. To the degree that the Vatican has conducted correspondence and negotiations with the society over the last several decades, it has done so recognizing the “members” of the society, most especially the priests ordained by or who have put themselves at the service of the SSPX, as a kind of self-identified group.

While the society could be said to have the status of a self-constituted group outside of the Church, this is not the same as it having legal personhood within the Church — and this is crucial since the society is, according to its statement, seeking to exercise certain legal rights within the Church’s canonical framework.

While the Vatican, and the DDF in particular, has been willing to engage with the society ad extra as a kind of convenient legal fiction for the purposes of communicating with a self-identified group of individuals, because it is not a recognized society in canon law, it does not have and therefore cannot exercise rights as a group as a group ad intra within the Church.

Simply put, it is entirely possible that the DDF will receive a petition from “the society” and respond that no such society exists in canon law, and therefore has no legal standing to make recourse.

That frame of thinking has a significant track record in Vatican jurisprudence. In the United States, over the past two decades, it has often happened that competent Vatican dicasteries receive recourse against the decisions of local bishops, presented by self-assembled groups of local Catholics — often parishioners of churches slated for closure.

In all such cases, the Vatican has upheld that those groups lack legal standing to make recourse, and absent such a group, only individuals directly impacted by the act of governance being appealed can be recognized in law.

As that relates to the July 2 decree, it seems likely that the DDF would only receive recourse from the six bishops directly named in the decree against whom the penalty of excommunication was declared. Those bishops would have to submit the petition for reconsideration either individually, or as a group of six individuals, each signing.

If, as the society’s statement says, the SSPX itself submitted the recourse as the society, and if the text was signed by anyone other than the six bishops directly impacted by the decree — including the superior of the society Fr. Davide Pagliarani — the petition is likely to be met with summary rejection, with an explanation of the reasons.

There would, in all likelihood, then follow a bid by the bishops to claim a legal exemption from the 10 useful days time limit to lodge a valid appeal, which the DDF might or might not choose to grant, depending on the substance of their arguments for an exemption and for presenting recourse at all.

All legal authorities in the Church have the option when considering an appeal to reject it on the summary grounds that it is “merely dilatory,” that is to say that the grounds and arguments offer no substantive points to be considered and are merely a stalling tactic to draw out the canonical process and stall an inevitable result.

If, as some statements emanating from the SSPX’s social media feeds indicate, the society — or more specifically the bishops directly concerned — is appealing on the grounds that its schismatic acts are justified because the hierarchy of the Church is in doctrinal error, including and especially the papal magisterium, this would likely strike the DDF as a mere repetition of the schism, not an argument against it having happened.

—
It is possible, though, that the six bishops could appeal on the grounds that they were not given a formal opportunity to defend themselves prior to the DDF decree — however often they were warned prior to the July 1 consecrations, including by the pope personally, about the consequences, and however explicit they were in their understanding and intent in the act itself.

That argument could meet with a number of possible outcomes at the dicastery. The DDF might conclude that it is a legitimate ground for appeal, and offer the six bishops the opportunity to present some summary of their defense.

However, in doing so, it would likely not be sufficient for them to merely rehearse the society’s argument that the Church is in moral and doctrinal error and therefore they are justified in what they did and immune to its consequences. Such an argument would essentially be seen as the SSPX bishops inviting the Church to declare itself in error to vindicate them, and that would almost certainly be termed a specious and “merely dilatory” appeal.

Of course, assuming for the sake of argument that the appeal is properly submitted by qualified persons with legal standing, and assuming it advances substantive grounds for appeal which are not deemed an obvious delaying tactic, and assuming the DDF recognizes both of these and declines to grant the reconsideration of its July 2 decree, there is still an open question of to whom the DDF’s decree would be appealed.

According to the norms of Sacromentorum sanctitatis tutela, the law on major crimes in the Church, the crime of schism is reserved to the competence of the DDF in all appellate cases. Since the July 2 decree was itself a text of the dicastery, signed by the prefect and the secretaries of both the doctrinal and disciplinary sections, it is unclear to whom their decision would be appealed.

Assuming it was processed and decided upon as an executive action undertaken by the prefect in consultation with the secretaries, and not on behalf of a wider internal decision by the dicastery, the ordinary route of appeal would seem to lead to a congresso of the dicastery, a kind of executive subcommittee of the dicastery’s full membership or to the entire membership at a plenary session.

In either event it would be an appeal of the DDF being heard within the DDF — a common occurrence in penal processes involving the most serious canonical crimes in the Church.

Another option is that either the DDF or the petitioning bishops could elevate matters directly to Pope Leo XIV. In the DDF’s case, this could be done quickest by asking the pope to reissue the July 2 decree with his own personal approval in forma specifica. This would have the legal effect of making the decree a personal act of papal authority and therefore legally unappealable by anyone to anyone.

Alternatively, Leo could be asked by either side — or assume for himself — the responsibility for judging the appeal, with any decision he were to make equally being beyond any further canonical recourse.

In almost any canonical permutation of the situation, however, the underlying facts would remain the same. On July 1, having previously been warned repeatedly and publicly by the Vatican that proceeding with the consecrations would be an act of schism and incur excommunication, the six bishops opted to proceed.

Within the liturgy of consecration itself, in the place where the papal mandate to proceed should have been presented, it was instead declared that “from Vatican Council II up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the faith and have been acting against holy tradition. They will no longer endure sound doctrine.”

Assuming any appeal filed by the SSPX bishops is correctly formulated, and assuming the appeal process is deemed not merely a delaying tactic by the bishops, it seems hard to conceive of the process resulting in a different outcome.

Subscribe now

Share

Switzerland requires all able-bodied men to complete about eight months of military service, typically between ages 18 and 30.

Members of the clergy have long been exempt from mandatory military service in the country, because they were designated as essential workers in the civilian population. But revisions to the nation’s military law, which took effect June 1, removed these exemptions for priests, monks, and members of religious orders.

The new regulation has prompted criticism from a variety of Christian leaders in the country, including Bishop Alain de Raemy, auxiliary bishop of Lugano and head of military chaplaincy for the Swiss bishops’ conference.

The bishop told public broadcaster RTS that the new legislation shows “a lack of respect for the population.”

The Association of Free Churches in Switzerland, a group of independent Protestant communities in the country, also decried the new regulation, saying there was no consultation process for the religious communities that would be affected by it, as is typically the custom when changes are made to Swiss law.

According to the association, the country’s Federal Council defended the change on the grounds that the ministry of clergy members is no longer essential in modern society.

The government said, according to the association’s statement, that the exemption from military service was originally intended to ensure that civilians would have access to spiritual care in times of conflict. But societal developments, and the number of people leaving organized religion, mean that such care can no longer be deemed essential.

Bishop de Raemy objected to the idea that religious ministry is not vital for society. He pointed to the Covid pandemic as an example of the need for spiritual care during times of uncertainty and crisis.

“How will we manage in times of war and future crises, if priests have to serve in the army? What is the Federal Council’s plan?” he told RTS.

RTS reported that nine members of the clergy have been called for service since the new law took effect last month.

It is not clear whether the new regulations will allow clergy called for military service to fulfill their legal obligation through military chaplaincy, or if they might be required to serve in combat roles.

In general, individuals with conscientious objections to military service may be permitted to take part in civilian service instead, but they must serve a longer period of time.

The Swiss bishops’ conference did not respond to questions from The Pillar by press time.

The majority of Swiss citizens are Christians, with 32% identifying as Catholic and 20% identifying as Evangelical-Reformed, according to government statistics.

However, people with no religious affiliation are becoming increasingly more common, up to 34% of the population, according to the most recently available data. Fifty years ago, just 1-2% of the population in Switzerland had no religious affiliation.

An exact number of priests in the country is not available, but estimates suggest there are around 1,800 priests serving the roughly 2.7 million Swiss Catholics.

For more than two centuries, Switzerland has maintained a policy of military neutrality. The country has not been involved in a foreign armed conflict since the late 1800s.

Subscribe now

The All India Catholic Union said that on July 12 a group of 60 people entered a house of the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians in Barasat, West Bengal, and demanded that they immediately demolish a memorial chapel and cemetery or face violence.

Share

The AICU alleged that the individuals involved in the incident were linked to the Hindu Jagran Manch (Forum for Hindu Awakening), a Hindu nationalist group affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an influential umbrella body.

The Hindu Jagran Manch does not appear to have commented on its alleged role in the event. Hindu nationalist groups often frame actions against Christian groups as arising from concerns about illegal conversions, land disputes, or local conflicts, rather than as religious persecution.

The Daughters of Mary Help of Christians, also known as the Salesian Sisters, reportedly obtained permission to build the memorial chapel and cemetery, intended for the burial of its members, under the previous state administration run by the Trinamool Congress party.

But in April’s state election, the Trinamool Congress’ 15-year rule in West Bengal was ended by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. At the federal level, the BJP is the main partner in India’s ruling coalition, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Suvendu Adhikari, the first BJP politician to serve as West Bengal’s chief minister, has promised to introduce an anti-conversion law in the state.

Leave a comment

Describing the July 12 incident, the AICU said: “The Salesian Sisters, who have been selflessly serving the poorest girls through education and social welfare for decades, were subjected to abusive language and intimidation.”

“The mob reportedly declared, ‘Your government is no more, now it is our government,’ clearly indicating an attempt to bypass the rule of law through threats and fear.”

The AICU said the incident was not an isolated event, but “part of a disturbing and growing pattern of targeted harassment against Christian institutions and communities across several districts of West Bengal.”

It did not say explicitly whether it believed the pattern of harassment was linked to the recent change in the state administration.

West Bengal, which is located in eastern India, is a mid-sized state in geographical terms, but has one of the largest state populations. It encompassed around 100 million people in 2026.

The most recent census, conducted in 2011, concluded there were 658,618 Christians in the state, comprising just 0.72% of the total population, which is about 70% Hindu and 27% Muslim.

The AICU, which has represented lay Catholics in India since 1919, said the July 12 incident was a direct challenge to minorities’ rights to practice their faith and manage their own properties, guaranteed by India’s Constitution.

The lay group called on the West Bengal government to guarantee security for the Salesian Sisters and their institutions, to protect the chapel and cemetery, to take legal action against participants in the act of intimidation against the sisters, and to order the local administration to prevent similar incidents.

“The right to worship and the right to maintain places of worship are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution,” the AICU said.

“No individual or organization has the right to threaten nuns or force the demolition of structures built with due permissions.”

“We call upon the state authorities to act swiftly and firmly. Silence or inaction will only encourage further attacks on minority communities.”

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India also criticized the July 12 incident.

Fr. Stephen Alathara, a spokesman for the body uniting the bishops of India’s three Catholic rites, urged citizens “to reject violence and to resolve any disputes exclusively through legal channels and democratic processes.”

CBCI president Cardinal Anthony Poola led a delegation to meet with India’s federal home minister Amit Shah July 10. The delegation reportedly raised concerns about rising anti-Christian incidents in the country. Shah is said to have promised to intervene in cases where local police failed to register cases.

The Open Doors advocacy group ranked India as the 12th-worst country in which to be a Christian in its 2026 World Watch List. It said that the drivers of persecution included religious nationalism and ethno-religious hostility.

Subscribe now

Today’s the feast of St. Kateri Tekakwitha, and you’re reading The Tuesday Pillar Post.

Well, sort of.

I was out of the office yesterday, and I’m out still today, because I’m giving some talks at a convocation of priests from two dioceses in the Upper Midwest.

I had the opportunity last night to spend time with many of those priests as they held a tournament, playing a complex card game which was brought to the United States by German immigrants in the last years of the 1800s, and is kept alive on the snow-swept prairies of our northern national borders.

I did not enter the tournament, because I don’t know how to play, and a high-stakes presbyteral card night hardly seems the place to learn, especially since it’s a partner game, and I couldn’t ask anyone to sacrifice their run through the tournament to take a newbie as partner.

Instead, I enjoyed drinks and conviviality with many of these men, and I was reminded how blessed we are in this country by the sort of priests who think nothing of routinely driving three hours to offer Mass for disparate communities — or, if they do think something of it, who do it anyway, because it’s of service to the people for whom they have given their lives.

We are not the only country for whom that sort of thing is common: I was friends once with a Congolese priest whose parish territory was the size of Rhode Island, and who could be said to have almost no fixed abode, given the sheer amount of time he spent traversing rutted tracks to administer the Gospel. Leo XIV himself, during his time as a missionary bishop in Peru, traveled routinely to far-flung places, to be welcomed in little villages where he’d administer the sacrament of confirmation, and any other ministry for which his people had a need.

That rather makes the point: The Church in the United States is kept alive in many places by Christ working through priests who can be described best as missionaries, who mediate grace, by the power of orders, at real personal cost, in a spirit of sacrifice that unifies them to the cross.

Many of those priests read The Pillar, and now seems an opportune moment to thank them. Many others are known to you Pillar readers, and it’s therefore incumbent on you to thank them. We have each of us a vocation in the Church, each of us a mission, each of us, as Newman says, a link in the chain.

And at The Pillar, we spend time enough recognizing the areas of the Church in need of reform and renewal, and doing so often by the stories in which the Church does not live as she ought. To do that with the proper perspective, we ought to thank God for the many places, and the many ways, in which she works in spite of obstacles or genuine hardships, largely because of people who take up a heavy cross, and trust the Lord will make it light.

Anyway, given the cards tournament, and my responsibilities to these men today, this newsletter will be a little light — and so are the number of stories we’ve published in the past day or two. Then again, it’s mid-July. Things move slower, don’t they?

I appreciate your understanding.

Leave a comment

The news

Priestly ordinations in the United States are up slightly from last year, but are heavily concentrated in certain regions of the country.

According to data gathered and analyzed by The Pillar, of the 342 men ordained to the diocesan priesthood in 2026, a little more than half were ordained in Midwest and Southeast dioceses, despite those dioceses making up only 28% of the Catholic population in the country.

And numbers are still lower than they were a decade ago. In 2016, there were 376 men ordained to the diocesan priesthood in the United States, 34 more than this year.

Here’s a good, solid, Pillar look at the numbers.

You are called to grow in your Faith and to evangelize. Deepen your understanding of the biblical roots of Catholicism and confidently share your Faith with others by becoming a St. Paul Center Member. Encounter Christ. Share Christ. Visit https://stpaulcenter.com/memberships to get started for free.

A curious thing is happening in the Kenyan Diocese of Maralal, where bishop Hieronymus Joya has — according to local media reports — imposed a curfew on priests, prohibited the consumption of alcohol, and issued several other new disciplinary norms, some of which repeat universal rules of the Code of Canon Law, and some of which seem to come out from way out in left field.

Why? Well, because the diocese has discipline problems, the bishop said, leading to the recent suspension of about a half dozen priests. Still, the prohibitions raise some canonical questions, and may well become the subject of appeals to the Apostolic See.

Read all about it.

—
Caritas Venezuela has received more than 14,700 tons of humanitarian aid for victims of the June 24 earthquakes, according to a July 7 announcement from the humanitarian arm of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference.

In the wake of a major disaster, the Church in Venezuela is playing a major role in helping people recover and find stability, while bishops call “urgently” for the “help of the world.”

Read here.

—
Young people aged 18 to 24 in the Spanish region of Catalonia are more likely to identify as Catholics than those aged 25 to 34, according to new research by a government public opinion research agency.

While that could be explained in several ways, it’s also worth noting that 18- to 24-year-olds in the country are more likely to express a high degree of trust in the Church than any age group except the over 65s.

Does this signify renewal? It’s not enough information to tell, especially since the study’s sampling size is pretty small. But the data is an interesting snapshot — and some in Spain are suggesting it could signify the reversal of a trend.

Here you go.

—
And finally, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church — the second largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches — announced late last week that after 10 years of work, the Church’s leadership is preparing for the promulgation of a code of canon law specifically for its own internal governance.

Eastern Catholic Churches are not governed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law — that pertains to the Latin Church, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of the Catholic communion. Instead, Eastern Catholic Churches are governed by the 1990 Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, which sets a common framework within which each sui iuris Eastern Church is to be governed by its own particular law.

While Eastern Catholic Churches have developed that law to varying degrees, none have promulgated an entire codified body of law, relying instead on collections of legislation developed piecemeal over time.

In principle, a code could be a very useful organizing tool for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

But there are some questions which are as yet unanswered.

It is not clear, for example, whether many canonists outside of Ukraine or its European neighbors were part of the actual drafting process. This matters, because the outside-of-Ukraine diaspora portion of the Church makes up an increasingly large portion of the Church’s Catholics, and the experience of ecclesiastical leadership outside the territory of Ukraine itself — in the places where the Latin Catholic Church is predominant — is very different from the context of Church life in Ukraine itself.

The prospect of writing law for those very different contexts is an interesting technical challenge, and one worth further exploring — especially if the Ukrainian code portends the prospect of similar legislation for other Eastern Catholic Churches.

In short, I’m flagging this for your awareness, as I’ll be aiming to raise questions about it in the weeks to come, and as I’ll hope for ongoing reporting on the subject.

I am, as I mentioned, preparing for these convocation talks which I’ll give shortly.

Meanwhile, here are some ways to spend time during your workday.

Including this crazy one, which I really don’t understand at all.

Please be assured of our prayers, and please pray for us. We need it.

Yours in Christ,

JD Flynn
editor-in-chief
The Pillar

Subscribe now

You are called to grow in your Faith and to evangelize. Deepen your understanding of the biblical roots of Catholicism and confidently share your Faith with others by becoming a St. Paul Center Member. Encounter Christ. Share Christ. Visit https://stpaulcenter.com/memberships to get started for free.

Share

This episode of Sunday School is brought to you by the Pillar’s exclusive breviary sponsor, Ascension Press, publisher of the new translation of the Liturgy of the Hours.

Preorder now at AscensionPress.com/SundaySchool

Subscribe now

Already read the readings? Skip ahead to 6:40.

Reading 1 - Wisdom 12: 13, 16-19

Psalm 86: 5-6, 9-10, 15-16

Reading 2 - Romans 8: 26-27

Gospel - Matthew 13: 24-43

I’m Luke Coppen and I seek to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and commentary.

Read more

According to data gathered and analyzed by The Pillar, of the 342 men ordained to the diocesan priesthood in 2026, a little more than half were ordained in Midwest and Southeast dioceses, despite those dioceses making up only 28% of the Catholic population in the country.

Nationally, priestly ordination numbers this year were up from last year, when 315 men were ordained to the diocesan priesthood.

However, numbers are still lower than they were a decade ago. In 2016, there were 376 men ordained to the diocesan priesthood in the United States, making the ordination class that year about 9% larger than this year’s class.

The Pillar analyzed the data both for individual dioceses and for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 14 pastoral regions. Data was collected from a variety of online, publicly available resources including diocesan press releases, social media posts and diocesan websites.

Subscribe now

Diocesan analysis

In 2026, only one U.S. diocese ordained 10 or more men to the priesthood: the Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina (10 ordinations). Two dioceses ordained nine men: the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and the Archdiocese of Miami.

This year, both the Archdioceses of Philadelphia and Newark ordained eight men, while the Diocese of Arlington ordained seven men. The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Diocese of Allentown, the Diocese of Cleveland, the Diocese of Joliet, and the Diocese of Wichita each ordained six men.

Of the 10 dioceses with the largest ordination classes, only one — the Archdiocese of Philadelphia — is also among the 10 most populated dioceses. With 1,551,000 registered parishioners, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is the eighth largest archdiocese by population.

Share

However, in 2016, four U.S. dioceses ordained 10 or more men to the priesthood — the Archdiocese of New York (14), the Diocese of Brooklyn (10), the Archdiocese of Newark, (10) and the Diocese of Paterson (10).

Three dioceses ordained nine men in 2016: the Archdiocese of Boston, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. That year, the Diocese of Dallas and the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. each ordained eight men.

Only three dioceses ranked in the top 10 for largest ordination class sizes in both 2016 and 2026 — the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, the Archdiocese of Newark, and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

Two dioceses among the largest 2016 ordination classes experienced notable decline in ordinations in 2026, with the Archdiocese of New York ordaining two men and the Diocese of Brooklyn ordaining just one in 2026.

Other major dioceses with significant declines in ordinations from 10 years ago include the Diocese of Dallas: -5, the Archdiocese of Hartford: -5, Archdiocese of Los Angeles: -6, the Diocese of Trenton: -6, and the Diocese of Paterson: -8.

Fifty dioceses in the United States did not ordain any men in 2026, slightly fewer than the 52 dioceses that did not ordain any men in 2016.

Leave a comment

USCCB pastoral region analysis

The USCCB divides dioceses in the United States into 14 “pastoral regions,” defined largely by geography.

Regions in the Midwest and Southeast had the largest ordination classes this year, while the regions along the coasts and the Southwest had smaller numbers of new priests.

Region XIV (Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina) had the most 2026 priestly ordinations, with 38, while Region VII (Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana) and Region III (Pennsylvania and New Jersey) each had 36 priestly ordinations.

Region XII (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana) had the smallest ordination class this year, with just seven new priests. Region II (New York State) had 13 priestly ordinations, while Region XI (California, Hawaii) had 16, and Region I (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and Region XIII (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming) each had 17.

Compared to 10 years ago, Region XIV saw the largest increase in ordinations, with 21 more this year than in 2016.

Region II saw the greatest decline in ordinations over the last decade, with 27 fewer ordinations in 2026 than in 2016. This year, Region II had the second smallest ordination class, with 13 new priests being ordained. In 2016, it had the second largest ordination class, with 40.

Subscribe now

Population to ordination ratio

USCCB pastoral regions and dioceses vary drastically in size. To account for varying population sizes, The Pillar used available data to calculate the population-to-ordination ratio to understand how many priests are being ordained per capita in a specific region or diocese.

The dioceses with the most ordinations per capita are the Diocese of Steubenville, which had one new priest per 14,164 Catholics; the Diocese of Fargo, which had one new priest per 14,800 Catholics; and the Diocese of Dodge City, with one new priest per 14,833 Catholics.

Of the 50 dioceses with zero ordinations, three have populations of more than 1 million: the Diocese of San Diego (1,300,000 Catholics), the Diocese of Fort Worth: (1,200,000 Catholics), and the Diocese of Sacramento (1,000,000 Catholics).

Excluding dioceses with no ordinations, dioceses with the fewest priestly ordinations per capita are the Diocese of Brooklyn, with one ordination per 1,400,000 Catholics; the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, with one ordination per 1,333,333 Catholics; the Diocese of Orange, with one ordination per 1,300,000 Catholics; and the Diocese of Brownsville, with with one ordination per 1,189,500 Catholics.

The Archdiocese of Seattle had one ordination per 1,000,000 Catholics, the Archdiocese of New York had one ordination per 785,000 Catholics, and the Archdiocese of Chicago had one ordination per 650,000 Catholics.

Compared to 10 years ago, the Diocese of Brooklyn saw the largest decline in its ordination to population ratio – from an ordination ratio of one new priest per 140,000 people in 2016 to one new priest per 1,400,000 people this year.

One diocese saw a significant shift in the opposite direction – the Diocese of Austin had 700,000 people per priestly ordination in 2016, compared to 140,000 people per new priest in 2026.

As for regions, the pastoral region with the most new priests per capita is Region IX (Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska) with one new priest per 68,223 Catholics. Next is Region VIII (Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota) with one new priest per 76,845 Catholics, followed by Region V (Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee) with one new priest per 85,342 Catholics.

The regions with the fewest new priests per capita include several of the most populated pastoral regions. Region XI (California, Nevada), the most populated region, had the fewest new priests per capita, with one ordination per 835,028 Catholics.

Region II (New York State) is the fourth most populous pastoral region, but had the second lowest number of ordinations per capita, with one new priest for every 436,465 Catholics.

Region X (Texas and Oklahoma), the second most populated region, had the third lowest number of ordinations per capita, with one ordination per 304,339 Catholics.

Share

Looking ahead

Data for the ordination class of 2027 is difficult to gauge, as some dioceses ordain transitional deacons in the fall or winter.

To date, 210 men have been ordained to the transitional diaconate in 2026.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore ordained 12 men to the transitional diaconate this year, while the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston ordained seven, and the Dioceses of Austin, Dallas, and Pittsburgh each ordained six men to transitional diaconate.

A few notable dioceses have only ordained one man to the transitional diaconate so far this year, including the Archdiocese of Washington D.C., the Archdiocese of Denver, the Archdiocese of Newark, and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Compiling ordination data for 2025-2027, including the transitional deacons who are expected to become priests next year, the Archdiocese of Baltimore will see the greatest number of new priests over the three-year span with 22, followed by the Diocese of Charlotte with 20, and the Diocese of Arlington with 19.

As for pastoral regions with the most ordinations, Region X (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas) will have the largest cohort of new priests over the three-year span with 105. Region VII (Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana) will follow with 88 ordinations, and Region XIV (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina), with 86 ordinations.

Subscribe now

Local media reported that Bishop Hieronymus Emusugut Joya of Maralal issued a four-page pastoral letter July 12 suspending six (or by some counts, seven) priests amid allegations of abuse of ecclesiastical authority, administrative negligence, and mismanagement.

According to catholic-hierarchy.org, the Maralal diocese had a total of 37 priests in 2023, serving a Catholic population of 144,870. If that figure is still accurate, Joya has suspended roughly a sixth of his priests.

Joya also reportedly announced a string of directives for priests, including a requirement that they return to their rectories by 7 p.m. each night, along with a prohibition on drinking alcohol in bars, and a ban on owning property in relatives’ names.

What’s the background to this move? What exactly did the pastoral letter say? And what’s likely to happen next?

Subscribe now

What’s the background?

Pope St. John Paul II established the Diocese of Maralal in north-central Kenya in 2001, from the territory of the Diocese of Marsabit.

The diocese is centered on the small hilltop market town of Maralal. While reasonably large geographically, the diocese is relatively small in terms of Catholic numbers and had only 14 parishes in 2023.

The diocese’s first leader, the motorcycle-riding Italian Consolata Missionary Bishop Virgilio Pante, led Maralal’s Catholics for more than 20 years before his retirement in 2022 at the age of 76.

His successor, Bishop Joya, was also a Consolata Missionary but Kenyan-born. Joya was not, however, from the Maralal region. He was born in western Kenya and grew up in the Archdiocese of Kisumu.

The official website of the Consolata Missionaries in Africa recently described a process of transition within the “vast and rugged” Maralal diocese.

It explained that when Pante began his episcopal ministry, local communities were beleaguered by cattle rustling, land conflicts, drought, and poverty. With few resources, the bishop crisscrossed the diocese, trying to strengthen fragile pastoral structures. He also tried to put local Church institutions, such as the Wamba Hospital, on a more secure financial footing.

The article portrayed the 61-year-old Joya as building on Pante’s legacy. It noted that he had served previously as a pastoral coordinator in the diocese and was already familiar with it when he took over as bishop. The article stressed Joya’s international experiences of study and ministry, saying he possessed “a rare combination of pastoral experience, intellectual formation, administrative competence, and global perspective.”

“His vision is not merely to maintain the Church but to strengthen its capacity to become self-propagating, self-sustaining, and deeply evangelizing,” the article said.

“Across the diocese, signs of renewal are increasingly visible. Areas once affected by persistent conflict are experiencing greater stability. Parish structures are growing stronger. Lay participation is expanding. Youth and women are becoming more actively engaged in Church life.”

Other coverage of the diocese suggests a less harmonious picture. In 2025, local media reported that Joya faced a backlash after appointing a new administrator to an educational institution previously led by a popular priest. Students were said to have held a strike, protested in the streets of Maralal, and accused the bishop of bullying behavior.

A report described the incident as revealing “longstanding tensions, contested leadership decisions, and fears of a culture slipping from the Church’s core values.”

Subscribe now

What did the pastoral letter say?

The full text of Bishop Joya’s four-page pastoral letter does not seem to be currently available.

According to Radio Mchungaji, a Catholic community radio station serving northern Kenya, Joya unveiled “a comprehensive pastoral and administrative directive” at a July 12 Mass at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul in Maralal.

The bishop recalled that when he arrived in the diocese almost four years ago, he faced immediate economic and administrative challenges. He adopted a strategy of seeking donations and grants to try to restore the diocese’s financial equilibrium.

In December 2022, he brought diocesan priests together to discuss how parishes and local Church institutions could help the diocese to resolve its financial problems. But he suggested this month that while all priests agreed to cooperate at the time, some did not follow through on the commitment.

“Some of the priests and lay Christians started accusing me of always asking for money, taking schools and parish equipment that belonged to their parish,” the bishop said in remarks reported by Kenya’s People Daily newspaper.

Joya argued this perception was unfair because his fundraising had paid off diocesan debts, helped to support development projects, and strengthened the administrative apparatus.

He said: “I have mobilized hundreds of millions of shillings in the time I have been here, more than all the money all Christians of this diocese have done for their Church… Who should be accused of not supporting the Church and who made the diocese bankrupt?”

The bishop said he had received credible evidence that diocesan priests had engaged in misconduct and decided to take action according to the Code of Canon Law. This led to the suspension of six (or seven) priests.

The Kenyan media coverage was unclear about whether the priests were suspended from ministry generally or only from exercising certain faculties.

Joya also issued a series of directives that priests would immediately be required to follow. These appear to be particular disciplinary norms issued by the bishop for his diocese.

Priests will be expected to be in their presbyteries by 7 p.m. for evening prayer. They will require the bishop’s permission to spend the night at another location. They will also need the bishop’s approval for a lay person to stay overnight at their residence.

According to the bishop’s order, priests in the diocese are forbidden to drink alcohol in bars or Church residences. They are also expressly prohibited from attending liturgical celebrations while intoxicated.

The directives also stipulate that priests are not allowed to engage in private business activities unconnected to the Church, and they also cannot acquire or own property in relatives’ names without a reasonable explanation.

They also reminded priests that they should not cohabit or engage in intimate relations.

Further, diocesan vehicles must only be used for official purposes, with maintenance costs funded by a parish, Catholic institution, or Church group, the directives added. All Church bodies are expected to manage their finances with transparency and accountability. Financial councils must be allowed to work unhindered, while parish councils are responsible for annual budgets and audits.

Finally, all Church personnel are expected to comply with Church and civil laws, the directives stated.

Some of the rules are either repetitions of basic moral expectations — such as the rules around priestly sexual continence. Others, including the prohibition on priests engaging in trade and commerce and the requirement of proper financial administration, are included in the universal Code of Canon Law.

However, some of the measures — for example imposing a curfew on diocesan clergy, or the the requirement that all priests receive prior permission before spending a night outside of their parish residence — raise questions about the limits by which a bishop can generally restrict the behavior of his priests, as opposed to legitimately imposing limits on individuals for specific reasons.

What happens next?

The priests will remain suspended until their cases are resolved, according to Bishop Joya, who said they will be expected to reflect deeply in this period on their priestly vocations and responsibilities toward the Church. The bishop called for prayers for the men and for the strengthening of the diocese. He also named priests to take up their vacated roles.

It’s possible that, in the coming months, some of Joya’s directives may be challenged canonically by clergy of the Maralal diocese. Some canon lawyers have questioned, for example, whether the bishop has the right to impose the 7 p.m. restriction on priests, or if this is outside his powers.

Canonical appeals by the suspended priests could potentially extend their cases, turning the suspensions into complicated, time-consuming disputes. While the number of suspended priests seems small, it is proportionately large. The suspensions are likely to increase pastoral burdens on remaining clergy, possibly for a considerable time.

More broadly, other clergy in ministry in the diocese could appeal the rules to Rome where, if the case was accepted, Vatican consideration would have suspensive effect on the policies.

Given recent diocesan history, the bishop could face pushback in some quarters in response to this major shakeup. Part of his flock may dispute his framing of the suspensions as a necessary step to restore priestly integrity and good governance in the diocese, possibly arguing that the bishop is seeking to unduly centralize control over parish finances and assets.

The young diocese seems destined to experience growing pains for some time yet.

Subscribe now

I’m Luke Coppen and I aim to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and commentary.

Read more

Share

Are you a paying subscriber?

1. Visit pillarcatholic.com/listen on your phone

2. Check the top right corner of the webpage to ensure you are logged into your Substack account.

3. Tap ‘set up podcast’ next to The Pillar Podcast

Having issues? Email our producer Kate at kolivera@pillarcatholic.com

Read more

Subscribe now

This episode is brought to you by V8 for Vocations, hosted by the Diocese of Gallup.

V8s for Vocations is back and celebrating the Centennial of Route 66 with another raffle, this time giving away a 1962 Chevrolet Corvette convertible!

For details, rules, and to purchase tickets, visit v8sforvocations.org.

More than two weeks after twin earthquakes struck Caracas, the country’s capital, and the nearby city of La Guaira, relief efforts have shifted from search-and-rescue to recovery and care for those affected, with Caritas Venezuela at the helm of much of that response.

Official figures put the death toll at more than 4,000, with tens of thousands more unaccounted for, more than 17,000 people left homeless and nearly 1,000 buildings partially or totally destroyed — numbers that are rising by the day, as assessment of the damage continues.

In a July 7 report, its first accounting of the humanitarian response, Caritas Venezuela said it had already distributed 61% of the aid it has received, with the remainder still in stock.

Water made up the largest share of the distribution, at 4,031 tons, followed by 3,247 tons of food. The organization also distributed 73,356 kits containing medical supplies and medicines, according to the report.

Caritas has deployed 3,360 volunteers throughout the affected areas, including members of Caritas Spain, Caritas Germany, and Caritas Puerto Rico.

Venezuela has been largely cut off from the international banking system since 2003, when the government imposed currency exchange controls, a restriction that complicates donations from abroad. Meanwhile, official state institutions are widely distrusted amid rampant corruption and even the Venezuelan Red Cross has been intervened by the Venezuelan regime and has been embroiled in corruption scandals.

That has left Caritas, which holds several international bank accounts and is broadly regarded as a reputable, transparent institution in Venezuela, to serve as one of the primary channels for international aid.

The report also highlights the pastoral involvement of the local hierarchy and the leadership of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference.

Venezuela renewed its consecration as a nation to the Blessed Sacrament on July 2.

During a Mass commemorating the consecration, Archbishop Jesús González de Zárate, president of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference, said that “at this time of tragedy that has plunged our nation into mourning, we proclaim that Jesus Christ is the way to heaven and that our departed brothers and sisters are called to share in the heavenly banquet.”

In his homily, González pointed to the spirit of solidarity that Venezuelans have shown since the earthquake.

“In every corner of the country, Venezuelans have shown themselves to be people of faith and goodwill, setting aside their differences to stand as one in the face of adversity. This love must be made present by putting aside the rivalries and struggles that impoverish us.”

“We are not alone, nor should we remain indifferent; we are built upon the firm rock that is Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the altar. The final call is to renew ourselves inwardly and to renew Venezuela,” he concluded.

At a Mass at the Caritas headquarters on the same day, Archbishop José Luis Azuaje of Maracaibo – vice president of the bishops’ conference and president of Caritas Venezuela – said in his homily that “Chaos, fear, and destruction do not have the final say. The final say belongs to the One who seemed defeated on the cross but rose again on the third day—to tell us that not even death itself can overcome His love or cause us to lose hope.”

Azuaje urged Caritas volunteers and members to become a “source of comfort in the midst of the storm. We are not an institution of empty words, but a mother who suffers alongside her children. At this critical moment, our parishes, our Caritas organizations, and our institution have become centers of activity and the heart of the Church.”

—
Diplomatic and Church sources told The Pillar they fear the final death toll could be around 20,000-30,000 or higher, with nearly 30,000 people still missing.

And after two weeks of rescue operations, most international specialized teams have left the country as hopes of finding survivors in the rubble have dwindled to almost nothing.

Several rescue teams complained of delays in obtaining authorization to enter the country or begin operations, harassment by local authorities, and the denial of entry to medical teams—particularly during the first days after the earthquake, widely regarded as the most critical period for finding survivors.

Local media reported that several people have taken to renting cranes and heavy machinery – at rates ranging from $3,000 a day to $5,000 a week, depending on the equipment – to clear rubble from collapsed buildings themselves and recover the bodies of loved ones, saying state-led efforts have been slow and insufficient.

More than 80 shelters have opened across the country for those whose homes were destroyed. But local and international experts have warned that poor conditions in those shelters could leave survivors newly vulnerable.

“In the coming weeks, the greatest health risks may stem not only from injuries caused ​by the earthquakes, but also from disruptions to health services, overcrowded conditions, deficiencies in water and sanitation and reduced access ⁠to vaccination and routine healthcare,” Jarbas Barbosa, director of the Pan American Health Organization told Reuters on July 9.

-

Northern Venezuela was struck by two back-to-back earthquakes around 6 p.m. on June 24, one measuring 7.2 and another 7.5 on the Richter scale.

Bishop Pablo Modesto González of La Guaira told Vatican News that most of the city is without electricity and many walls in the local seminary collapsed.

The papal almoner’s office quickly moved to donate 100,000 euros for humanitarian efforts to the Venezuelan bishops, in what papal almoner Archbishop Luis Marín de San Martín, OSA, described to The Pillar as “an initial urgent [measure of] help.”

“We’re in contact with the nunciature, we’ll try to respond to concrete needs,” Marín told The Pillar.

Archbishop Raúl Biord of Caracas told Vatican News that several parishes in the cities opened their doors to people who lost their homes so that they could spend the night in the parish churches.

Caritas Venezuela said in a June 25 statement that the national headquarters of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference would serve as a collection center for donations of drinkable water, non-perishable food, and essential medicines, while several diocesan Caritas would also establish local collection centers.

The statement also said that the “national and international bank accounts of Caritas de Venezuela are available to receive monetary donations, which will be used to help address the needs that our technical teams on the ground will be identifying with greater precision in the coming days, as the damage assessment progresses.”

The statement concluded by adding: “we pray for so many brothers and sisters who have lost their lives, their homes, and their possessions in these hours of trial… To them we say: you are not alone. The Church, through Caritas, walks at your side.”

“We call on all Venezuelans, both within the country and abroad, and we encourage the solidarity of all companies and people of goodwill, to come together with strength and generosity to support this network of solidarity, which today brings relief in moments of profound anguish. Every gesture of help, however small it may seem, becomes a tangible sign of God’s closeness to his people,” the statement ends.

Archbishop Víctor Hugo Basabe of Coro, one of the Venezuelan regime’s staunchest ecclesial critics, blamed the authorities for failing to prepare for the earthquake — a view echoed by many local observers, as initial rescue efforts were carried out largely by private citizens after emergency services were quickly overwhelmed by the scale of the destruction.

“They have spent 28 years mistreating, keeping on starvation wages and without supplies all emergency services, forced to work with almost nothing but their own hands and goodwill,” Basabe said on social media.

“We urgently need the help of the world. The years of destruction that we Venezuelans have endured over the past 25 years make it impossible for us to face the tragedy before us today with only the little we have left. International solidarity is urgently needed to save lives.”

Subscribe now

The Center for Opinion Studies, which conducts polls on behalf of the Government of Catalonia, found that 40.9% of surveyed residents aged 18 to 24 identified as Catholic, compared to only 34.6% of those aged 25 to 34.

Share

The survey, carried out in May and June and based on 2,000 face-to-face interviews, suggests a surprising openness to Catholicism among young adults in what is traditionally considered one of Spain’s most secular regions.

Catalonia, which has a population of 8 million people and is roughly the size of the U.S. state of Maryland, is one of Spain’s 17 autonomous communities. It is located in the northeastern part of the country, next to Spain’s border with France.

One of the reasons it is considered a more secular region is that Catalonia strongly opposed General Francisco Franco, who ruled Spain from 1939 until his death in 1975 and closely identified himself with the Catholic Church. Since the 19th century, Catalonia has been a heavily industrialized region with strong left-wing labor movements. The region has also seen significant international immigration since the late 1990s.

The study also found that 18- to 24-year-olds were more likely to express a high degree of trust in the Church than any age group except the over 65s.

The Religión en Libertad website noted that 12.3% of adults aged 18 to 24 rated their level of trust in the Church as seven or higher out of 10. This compared favorably with those aged 25 to 34 at 8.1%, those aged 35 to 49 at 8.2%, and those aged 50 to 64 at 9.2%. Only people aged 65 and over had a larger proportion of people showing high trust in the Church, at 14.4%.

The finding is based on a relatively small subsample — just 186 respondents aged 18 to 24 — so the gap with the older age groups may not be statistically distinguishable from chance.

More broadly, both the 18-24 and 25-to-34 age groups still identify as Catholic less often than the population overall (53.1%) — which could be read as a sign the decline is leveling off among the youngest Catalans, rather than reversing outright.

The survey concluded that out of the total population, 53.1% of Catalonia’s residents identify as Catholic, with 22.3% identifying as atheists and 16.5% as agnostics.

Religión en Libertad said the finding suggested that the decline of Catholicism in Catalonia had slowed, but not stopped.

Leave a comment

It pointed to previous figures for the percentage of Catholics in Catalonia issued by the Center for Opinion Studies. The Center concluded that 55.7% of the population identified as Catholic in 2015, 54.5% in 2019, 56.6% in 2020, and 53.4% in 2025.

But Religión en Libertad noted that the 2026 survey could not be compared directly to the previous surveys because the sample populations differed. The latest survey only interviewed adult Spanish nationals resident in Catalonia, while the older studies interviewed all residents of Catalonia aged 16 and over.

The Catalonia survey’s findings echo those of a national poll published in April by the SM Foundation, which was established by the Marianists religious order.

The SM Foundation report concluded that the proportion of Spanish people aged 15 to 29 who identify as Catholic rose from 31.6% in 2020 to 45% in 2025.

In the past year, Spanish and international media have reported extensively on anecdotal evidence of a rise in identification with Catholicism among young people.

Evidence cited has included Hakuna Group Music, a Catholic youth music group, selling out major venues.

Media have also pointed to the global success of the singer-songwriter Rosalía’s album “Lux,” inspired by the lives of female saints, and the commercial success in Spain of the film “Los Domingos” (Sundays), which depicts a 17-year-old girl considering whether to enter a cloistered convent. The album and film inspired a phenomenon that the media dubbed “nunmania.”

The media have also highlighted a rise in adult baptisms, which reportedly increased from 11,835 in 2023 to 13,323 in 2024, a year-on-year rise of 12.57%.

They have also pointed to the popularity of Catholic youth movements such as Hakuna, linked with the music group, and Effetá.

Young people played a prominent role in Pope Leo XIV’s June 6-12 visit to Spain. More than 600,000 people attended a June 6 youth prayer vigil in Madrid’s Plaza de Lima.

In his address, Pope Leo said: “Seeing you, dear young people, filled with this enthusiasm that comes from faith, I have high hopes for your ability to bear witness to Christ in the world — including the realm of digital media — and to communicate the values and beauty of the Gospel.”

Subscribe now

Share

Are you a paying subscriber?

1. Visit pillarcatholic.com/listen on your phone

2. Check the top right corner of the webpage to ensure you are logged into your Substack account.

3. Tap ‘set up podcast’ next to The Pillar TL;DR

Having issues? Email our producer Kate at kolivera@pillarcatholic.com

Show notes:

Paprocki: Cha…

Read more

Happy Friday friends.

If I am honest, I have been laboring under something of a lingering 4th of July hangover all week. I tried to shoot the festive moon last weekend: family in town, all day cook-out with friends from the parish, time at the pool, full-on fireworks display, the whole thing.

I concede now, as I am doing this week without the Barry Bonds-sized dosage of steroids which had me feeling so good last week, that I may have stretched myself a little thin, considering I’m still in the early stages of a recovery process I have already come to resent.

My recent convalescence meant I didn’t have this year my usual prep time for a long-smoke BBQ, so I pivoted to proper Chicago brats and sausage. I got a little over-ambitious with the homemade giardiniera and have been left with a… substantial quantity, currently hidden in the basement but soon to be discovered by my wife who will, no doubt, start asking awkward questions about what I plan to do with it all.

At one point, it looked like some summer storms were going to rain out the evening, but I ended up spending a good half an hour with my daughter watching transfixed on my lap as the fireworks exploded immediately overhead, launched from a baseball diamond, as we sat in the outfield while Ray Charles’s “America the Beautiful” played over the speakers.

I was basically living that scene from “The Sandlot,” and things got a little misty-eyed for a minute there.

It was a moment of profound gratitude for me. And, to be sure, I have a lot to be grateful for, with first thanks belonging to Providence, an appreciation for which has long been linked to celebrating The Glorious Fourth.

But my thanks properly belong also to the many of you reading this who are our subscribers. It’s a pretty incredible gig I have here, and it’s you who keep this show on the road.

Subscribe now

Thanks for that.

Here’s the news.

The News

When the U.S. bishops’ conference met in Orlando last month, bishops voted to pass a revision to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, the USCCB’s landmark safeguarding document, first issued in 2002.

But while the revision passed, it did so amid some criticism. Victims’ advocacy groups gave it mixed reviews. Some had hoped for a document with a much wider vision of safeguarding, including the abuse and manipulation of vulnerable adults.

But bishops involved in the document’s revision said they followed a process of consultation, and that the body of American bishops decided not to expand the Charter’s scope, but to instead address related issues in a spate of documents to be released in coming years.

The Pillar talked with one such prelate, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, who is chairman of the USCCB’s canonical affairs committee and was a member of the Charter revision working group. He addressed the consultation in the Charter revision process, what the USCCB will work on next, and his hope to address the challenge of electronic letters of suitability.

You can read that whole conversation right here.

—

Following the schismatic slate of bishops created by the SSPX earlier this month, July will likely see a second act of illicit consecration, this time by a much more obscure group, the so-called Transalpine Redemptorists.

If you have never heard of them, they are a kind of SSPX splinter faction — initially having broken away to rejoin communion with the Church under Benedict XVI but now well out beyond even the Lefebvrists for schism.

You can read all about them, and what they are planning, right here.

—

Nicaraguan human rights activists have raised alarm over the welfare and whereabouts of Bishop Abelardo Mata.

The bishop was briefly detained by the Nicaraguan regime on June 29 and while authorities claim he was returned home later that day, no one outside the security forces has been able to establish contact with him since.

Read the full report here, and pray for the bishop, and for the persecuted Church in Nicaragua.

And when you do, remember that it was the public act of praying for this intention that got the bishop detained in the first place.

—

Spanish Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, SDB, Archbishop of Rabat, Morocco, said this week that he will temporarily step back from public ministry, amid a Vatican investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior toward at least five women.

Meanwhile, a priest who is the cardinal’s cousin has appeared to confirm the veracity of the allegations in a newspaper column, and said the cardinal is privately prepared to lose his rank as a consequence.

This is, well, a pretty unusual sequence of events, as these things go.

You can read all about it here.

—

Norway’s Bishop Fredrik Hansen announced Wednesday that he is taking the first steps toward opening the cause for canonization of Nobel Prize-winning author Sigrid Undset.

Hansen, the Bishop of Oslo, made the announcement July 8, while celebrating Mass during an annual pilgrimage to the island of Selja in honor of St. Sunniva, the 10th-century martyr revered as Norway’s first saint.

If the cause reaches its conclusion, Undset would become Norway’s second female saint after Sunniva and the second Nobel Prize laureate to be canonized after Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

Read the whole story here.

—

The apostolic administrator of the Diocese of Quelimane, Mozambique, has condemned media speculation over last month’s killing of Bishop Osório Citora Afonso.

Bishop Afonso was killed in his home, which is a secured diocesan compound, by gunshot wound to his chest in June.

The initial theory of investigators was that armed criminals had scaled the perimeter and bypassed the security system, with what motivation was not clear.

Now, though, local newspapers have published reports that the working theory has shifted to an assassination plot from within the diocesan curia.

You can read all about it here.

—

The president of Seton Hall University has been cleared by an independent report into a previous independent investigation launched by the Archdiocese of Newark in the wake of the Cardinal McCarrick scandal.

An independent report, commissioned by Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark in early 2025 and published July 1, concluded that Msgr. Joseph Reilly had “acted promptly and substantively” in response to instances of sexual harassment at on-campus seminaries in 2012.

According to the report, complied by the law firm Ropes & Gray, Reilly failed to follow the university’s Policy Against Sexual Harassment by not informing the Seton Hall Title IX Coordinator about the incidents “because he was not aware that he was obligated to do so.”

Read all about the report, and what led to it, right here.

—

Germany’s 27 dioceses received a year-on-year increase in church tax revenue in 2025, despite losing more than 300,000 registered Catholics in the same year.

The German bishops’ conference announced this week that dioceses received 6.751 billion euros (around $7.72 BILLION) via the church tax system in 2025, up from 6.628 billion ($7.58 BILLION) in 2024 and 6.515 billion ($7.45 BILLION) in 2023.

German commentators have dubbed the counterintuitive phenomenon in which church tax revenue rises while the number of German Catholics shrinks the “church tax miracle” (Kirchensteuerwunder).

Read all about it here.

Subscribe now

Ascension’s beautifully designed edition features custom typography, original artwork, 8 ribbons, and durable materials built for daily prayer. Available in multiple cover materials and font sizes, every detail has been carefully crafted to support the Church’s prayer with lasting quality for generations. Preorder individual volumes or the full bundle now.

Private wars

Cardinal Robert McElroy gave an interview this week while in Rome, addressing his recent dismissal of Msgr. Stephen Rossetti from serving as an exorcist in and for the Archdiocese of Washington.

For those unfamiliar with the circumstances, Rossetti’s removal from service in the archdiocese last month followed his appearance on a popular YouTube channel, where he gave an interview in which he opined, inter alia, that “probably many, if not most, UFO sightings are in fact demons.”

At the time, McElroy explained that Rossetti’s comments “gravely undermine the Church’s very precise teaching on the devil, demons and exorcism.” And the priest in turn apologized publicly for any and all ways in which his comments may “have failed to remain fully obedient to the Magisterium of the Church.”

In his interview published this week, the cardinal explained his thinking a bit further, saying his objection wasn’t to Rossetti’s speculation about aliens and demons, per se, but more generally about the entire nature of the ministry of exorcism.

“It wasn’t touching on the question of UFOs. My major objection is that I think the traditional role of an exorcist is a very private one,” said McElroy. “It’s a sacred one.”

“I think the more traditional approach of an exorcist is a private, within-the-life-of-the-Church ministry to help individuals who are in crisis and seem to be demonically possessed. It shouldn’t go beyond that for people who are doing exorcism.”

Now, I don’t know anything definite about Rossetti, I have never spoken to him, and I am not in a position to render any kind of verdict on his particular case, so I want to be clear that I am not doing so. All I can say for sure is he seems to have made some ill-judged remarks on UFOs and the demonic, and received the correction of the local archbishop with exceptional docility and meekness, which speaks a great deal in his favor.

So again: I have no particular insight into, and therefore am not making a commentary on the specifics of the Rossetti case, one way or another.

But on the general principle, I have to say, I don’t always agree with Cardinal McElroy. But when I do, I really agree with him.

Read more

I’m Luke Coppen and I aim to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and commentary.

Read more

But while the revision passed, it did so amid some criticism: One bishop led an unsuccessful charge to delay a vote on the document, calling for more and broader consultation, of diocesan safeguarding leaders and priests, especially.

Victims’ advocacy groups gave the new document mixed reviews, and some sources close to the revision process told The Pillar that many people had expressed hope for a document which would broaden its scope to a wider vision of safeguarding, including the abuse and manipulation of vulnerable adults.

But bishops involved in the document’s revision said they followed a process of consultation, and that the body of American bishops decided not to expand the Charter’s scope, but to instead address related issues in a spate of documents to be released in coming years.

The Pillar talked with one such prelate, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, who is chairman of the USCCB’s canonical affairs committee, and was a member of the Charter revision working group. He addressed the consultation in the Charter revision process, what the USCCB will work on next, and his hope to address the challenge of electronic letters of suitability.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Leave a comment

Bishop, what are the important and positive revisions that have been made by the conference in its 2026 amendments to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People?

Well, I would refer back to the introduction that Bishop Knestout made when he gave his presentation to the bishops at our meeting recently in Orlando on June 10th.

In his presentation, Bishop Knestout focused on some of the areas that we changed. One of the most notable is the glossary — There’s a glossary that defines terms and refers to terms that are very important to the document.

We also have our mention of the presumption of innocence and reinforcing that for the accused.

We also talk about the mandatory Church reporters, to complement the mandatory reporting to civil authorities.

And then we also make a mention of the possibility of electronic letters of suitability. Right now we’re doing that with paper copies of letters of good standing and we’re looking at the possibility of trying to make [electronic letters] a national project.

Along with that is a recommitment to the Statement of Episcopal Commitment which came out when the charter was first promulgated back in 2002 [and was revised in 2019] — it’s a very strong statement and we reaffirmed that.

In the Charter revision process, the feedback we were getting was not to make any major revisions, that what we have has been working well — and so that’s the approach the revision process took.

Bishop Knestout mentioned in his remarks that there had been consultation with the body of bishops, and I know that various committees of the conference were consulted. During the floor discussion on the Charter, there was mention that the last full consultation of bishops on the topic was in 2022, and that many new bishops had been consecrated since then.

Do you think the consultation of the bishops themselves was sufficient? Do you think the process got an accurate reflection of the desires of the body of bishops?

Well, what we’re talking about is a revision of an existing document. So it’s not that bishops suddenly saw a new document for the first time.

I also think it’s important to look at the timeline for this.

It was at the November meeting in 2021 that the process was initiated for the revision of the Charter. I was asked to be a part of that in November of 2022, and in the year prior was the process of putting together the charter revision work group.

That charter revision work group includes the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, and it also involved the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance, the Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations, the Office of General Counsel for the USCCB, and — I’d say most importantly — the National Review Board, which is the board made up mostly of laypeople that gives us feedback and advice on these processes.

The work group began in earnest toward the end of 2022. At the June 2022 meeting, there were discussions on the revision at the [bishops’] regional meetings, and there was in December of 2022, a memo from the chairman of the committee for the Protection of Children and Young People to bishops, explaining the review process, requesting any revisions that they would have in consultation with diocesan deanery or presbyteral meetings of the diocese.

That was part of the process to get that feedback. At our [June] meeting, when there was a proposal to postpone this – to get more feedback from the bishops – I think part of the problem of doing that would’ve been to delay this even further.

I mean, the original timeline was to have the draft ready for vote and approval in November of 2024. So we’re already a year and a half behind on that, because we took time to consider some of the proposals that were still coming in, and to discuss them.

The bishops did vote down postponing it, but if we had extended this [process] to November of 2026, that would’ve delayed things even further.

And if the idea was to go get more input and feedback from presbyteral councils, for example, I would imagine that could have resulted in many more amendments that probably would not have even been finished by the November meeting, to discuss all that and get that in place into a final document.

So this had been moving along since November 2021, and a desire to get this finished. I mean, it’ll be reviewed again at some point, but I think we needed to get this done.

It seems you’re saying, Bishop, that bishops already had the opportunity to consult with presbyteral councils or with diocesan staff, and a delay would have been a second window to something that already could have been done. Is that right?

Yes, I do believe that there was an opportunity to get input.

And revision is not a major rewriting of the Charter as it was first presented, I know there are those who think that the Charter should have been expanded into other areas. The Charter revision work group received those proposals, and in the end it was decided not to do that.

Again, in Bishop Knestout’s introductory remarks, he acknowledged that. He said that the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People received feedback from the body of bishops at least three times, which reiterated that the committee was to keep the charter focused exclusively on the abuse of minors by priests and deacons.

So if there was a desire to expand that, our committee discussed that, and our response was that those are important issues – the vulnerable adults, for example, and abuse by church personnel other than priest and deacons – but the sense was that needs to be done in a different process, and not to complicate this or to dilute the focus here on minors being abused by clergy. The sense was that’s where we wanted to keep the focus.

Now that’s not to say there shouldn’t be other possibilities for dealing with [those issues] elsewhere.

For example, here in our diocese in Springfield in Illinois, we have two different bodies that deal with that in two different sets of policies. We have a review board which deals with allegations of clerical sexual misconduct of minors and then we have another body called the Special Panel on Clergy Misconduct, and that hears other kinds of misconduct — because they’re different in their nature and their difference in their response in terms of dealing with these.

And so I myself have found it helpful to have different processes rather than trying to combine that all into one.

The argument I’ve heard to the contrary is that while abuse occurs in different contexts, the phenomena of sexual abuse or sexual coercive activity in the life of the Church have also some commonality, and that there’s a desire for bishops to speak of them in a unified way, rather than fragmenting them.

Because the Charter is perceived as the bishops’ landmark document in the United States on abuse, omitting the abuse of adults from it, for example, or omitting the issues of child sex abuse material from it could seem to victims like an oversight, or could seem like a failure to recognize the degree to which those must be addressed in the Church.

Well, there are some of those things that are included now in the glossary, which is a new addition.

So for example, the mention of pornography, there is a glossary entry for sexual abuse of minors and it says, “In light of the Decalogue, for purpose of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, this term refers to any contact or interaction between a minor and a member of the clergy that is perpetrated to achieve sexual stimulation or to obtain profit.”

And then it says, “It encompasses a wide range of behaviors,” and it has a list of different kinds of behaviors including child pornography. So that is specifically mentioned in a glossary here.

I think in terms of why the Charter does not go into greater detail dealing with, for example, abuse or sexual misconduct by a priest or deacon with an adult, one reason is the potential ramifications — currently under the charter and the Essential Norms, we have a policy of zero tolerance and that is not necessarily the case with adult misconduct.

If we were looking to bring those kinds of things into the Charter, that would probably also mean bringing them into the Essential Norms [which correlate to the Charter, constitute particular law for the United States, and require Vatican approval to change].

Bringing them into the Essential Norms would be the whole process of having to take that to the Holy See, and just delaying this whole thing, in order to deal with these other issues under the Charter.

These issues should be dealt with, but I think the sense is “let’s get the Charter revised now and then we will continue to have the conversations about how we address those other kinds of misconduct.”

In the past, I’ve heard a reluctance from bishops to revisit the Essential Norms because of Vatican uncertainty about the American approach to “zero tolerance” — and the prospect the Vatican would urge a different approach once modifications were on the table.

But recent changes to canon law seem to adopt or support the American approach. In light of that, why would there be reluctance to revisit the Essential Norms?

Well, I think the primary reason is because we feel that the Essential Norms have been working pretty well for the last 25 years.

I think we’ve made great strides in addressing this issue and most newly made allegations continue to be historic claims, from sometimes 40 or even 50 years ago, or more.

In terms of what’s being implemented in the seminary formation of our priests, and the ways that we’re handling responding to allegations of misconduct with minors, what we have is working.

And sometimes there’s a sense of, “Well, why fix something that’s not broken?”

And if it’s working, let’s not make any major changes to it, as that process might have some unintended consequences of doing away with something, or changing radically something that is working and that we would be better off not changing.

Among safeguarding experts in the Church, there seems to be a call toward a comprehensive safeguarding model, which expands the focus from child protection to an approach that’s more comprehensive, and takes into account other kinds of abuse.

I know you’ve said there’s value to treating different things differently, but how much consideration has been given to that idea that an overarching Charter, which encompasses various kinds of abuse and misconduct, might be more reflective of where sort of the safeguarding conversations are going?

Well, again, I think we’re talking about different categories here, and I don’t think you can have something that’s going to address everything in a single broad statement that can cover all kinds of situations.

For example, a very basic approach for the protection of children and minors is for an adult never to be alone with a minor, that you always have a parent or a teacher or someone else present. But to do something similar with an adult, which says, “Well, you can never be alone with an adult unless there’s another adult present” — I mean, that doesn’t work in the same way.

So I mean, there’s going to be different approaches to how you deal with minors, versus how a priest would be talking to an adult who’s getting counseling or something like that, and that has to be addressed differently.

Another substantive criticism I’ve heard is that while the approach of “restorative justice” is becoming more commonly discussed in the Church, it was not included as an element of the Charter. Was there some consideration of that, or some reason it was not included in discussion?

As I understand it, restorative justice is concerned with how to restore justice for those who are victims or who have suffered at the hands of someone else. And I think we’re doing that.

And restorative justice, I understand it, is broader than simply opposing penalties on the offender. You want to make the person who is injured whole and I think we’ve been doing that. — at least in my experience as chancellor in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and now diocesan bishop here in Springfield in Illinois, we have a victim assistance coordinator. We reach out to victims, we meet with the victims and survivors.

We have various ways of providing counseling — and that’s automatic is when someone comes in and makes an allegation, we immediately offer counseling and any kind of assistance. And in terms of reparations, dioceses have been paying millions to victims and survivors to that effect.

With regard to victims, our goal is to reintegrate them as much as we can back into the life of the Church. And so if there are more specific suggestions on how to do that, I, for one, am certainly open to that.

But I would appreciate maybe a little more specific guidance on what people are looking for in that regard.

As to process, I understand that consultation on the Charter revision involved bishops in their regional meetings, through USCCB committees, and consulting the membership of the National Review Board, a freestanding committee created by the USCCB.

I have been told, however, that there is some concern that the work group did not seek out direct conversations with victims about the revision, even through groups which have engaged with the bishops’ conference in the past.

Is that accurate? Is there a particular reason that kind of consultation didn’t take place?

For a project like this, you have to have some kind of a defined process and some established mechanisms for consultation.

My understanding is that kind of feedback comes through a body like the National Review Board. As to setting up meetings with other specific groups, I’m not aware that there was even a request for that specifically.

But again, the USCCB committees themselves have consultants – outside consultants, not necessarily just staff members – and then there was input from the National Review Board.

Consulting could go on endlessly. And as I said, this has been a process that started November of 2021. It’s gotten a lot of feedback since then. And so here we are in June of 2026 finally approving this document.

And again, it’s built into the Charter that it be reviewed every few years. So it’s not like this is completed, and it’s going to be this way forever.

If people feel that there are things that need to be addressed in the Charter that we didn’t address well, again, there are ways of raising that.

One is to begin taking steps for the next review of the Charter. Or to say, in light of what this Charter revision work group did, is to “No, let’s not change the charter. If there are areas that need to be addressed like vulnerable adults or any other kind of employees, church personnel misconduct, we should deal with that with other documents and other committees that would be then responsible for doing that.”

The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors recently saw new statutes promulgated, and when they were released, the commission made a point to say that they had brought victims into conversation with the drafting committee for those statutes.

Is that something that the conference might look to in the future, patterned on the approach of the Pontifical Commission?

Well, it could be. I wasn’t directly involved in designing who was to be consulted in the revision; I was asked to be a member of the revision work group, and I don’t know exactly how that was put together.

But again, I think we do get input through the National Review Board. I know the review boards that I’ve worked with in Chicago and here in Springfield, usually have someone who’s a victim or a survivor on the review board.

So we do get input from people who are concerned in that regard and we take their input into account.

Bishop, I was surprised that the glossary omits a term that is as one of the most contentious on this topic: the term “credible” or “credibility.”

Was there some discussion about defining the notion of credibility, which is a term used by many dioceses, but with a great deal of inconsistency?

We did not define that term because I think that’s a term we don’t want to use.

It’s a term that civil authorities have used. Here in Illinois, for example, the attorney general is asking for a list of credibly accused, and I wound up using the word” substantiated,” which was, I think, a little more useful than “credible”.

And in the future, frankly, I think we’re looking towards talking about guilt or innocence. Because the notion of credibility is very imprecise.

I had a case here in Illinois. There was many years ago a priest who was accused; he’s now dead. The bishop interviewed the person making the allegation, interviewed the priest, wrote a memo to the file which said, “They’re both credible. I don’t know who to believe.” And that was the bottom line.

A person can come across as very credible and – well – in the case where both the person bringing the allegation and the priest seem credible, one of them is a good actor and is not telling the truth.

Was there any discussion about including in the Charter some moral commitment from the bishops about either transparency with regard to Vos estis lux mundi investigations, or the decision about whether a bishop will remain in ministry during the time under which he’s investigated under the terms of Vos estis? Was there any discussion about whether that might be appropriate fodder for the Charter?

No, because that would be beyond what the Charter is addressing.

We don’t even address that in terms of [priests and deacons]. Some dioceses have a policy where immediately upon the receipt of an allegation the priest is put on administrative leave. And other dioceses have a policy that it goes to the review board within 48 hours to determine whether or not the children are at risk and whether or not the priest should be put on administrative leave.

I’d say in terms of bishops, I would call attention to two things.

One is in the revised Charter itself.

In the very first footnote, is a reference to Vos estis lux mundi.

That first footnote says: “Since the last revision of the Charter in 2018, the Catholic Church has addressed instances of sexual abuse and misconduct that do not fall under the purview of this Charter.”

And then it makes reference to Vos estis lux mundi, issued by Pope Francis in 2023 and that it includes a means of reporting and a procedure for investigating reports of alleged sexual abuse by a bishop as well as a bishop’s interference with avoidance of civil or canonical investigation.

And then there’s also another document that Pope Francis issued in 2016. The Italian title is “Come una madre amorevole,“ which is English in: “As a loving mother,” and that provides a process for the removal of a bishop from office for misconduct.

So there are other processes out there that are referred to.

And then again, I would refer people back to the Statement of Episcopal Commitment.

The second provision of that says, “We will apply the requirements of the Charter also to ourselves, respecting always Church law as it applies to bishops. Therefore, if a bishop is accused of sexual abuse of a minor, the accused bishop is obliged to inform the Apostolic Nuncio. If another bishop becomes aware of the sexual abuse of a minor by another bishop, or of an allegation of sexual abuse of minor by a bishop, he too is obliged to inform the Apostolic Nuncio and comply with applicable civil laws.”

So the issue of abuse by bishops is addressed in the statement of commitment and the other process is referred to in that footnote.

Bishop, I heard from some Catholics — some closely involved in the process — the perception that the revised Charter does not reflect the lessons that the conference has learned, or ought to have learned, since the McCarrick saga, and what followed in 2018 and thereafter.

I wonder if you could give a response to that: Your sense of whether – and how – the conference and individual bishops have responded to the situation of McCarrick and what came after it.

The misconduct involving Cardinal McCarrick introduced, I think, to the spotlight very much the question of vulnerable adults — and in that case specifically with seminarians.

So I think that situation made us all very much aware of that, and we have taken more preventative steps to make sure that that doesn’t happen again.

I would point out that in the terrible situation involving Cardinal McCarrick, justice did prevail in the end: He was not only dismissed as a cardinal, but removed from the clerical state. So sometimes it takes a while, but justice is done. And again, that’s an important area in terms of the protection of vulnerable adults and other kinds of adult misconduct.

And again – at least in my experience – we do have a whole separate process for addressing that. And more and more dioceses are looking at those on a case-by-case basis; I know other bishops have asked how we approach that [in Springfield].

Our approach [in Springfield] is something I inherited. My predecessor, Archbishop George Lucas, was the bishop here before he went to Omaha and he’s the one who introduced what we call the special panel on clergy misconduct, and it was because of allegations involving adult misconduct with adults.

I think that process has worked very, very well here.

An important part of the Charter revision, the conference has said, is its attention to due process for priests. Obviously, the rights of priests under the Charter and Essential Norms have been a big question since 2002.

How does the revision aim to address that?

The Charter does talk very specifically about presumption of innocence and it reinforces that concept of the presumption of innocence. And I would say that that is something that perhaps has not been dealt with properly in the past.

For example, our earlier conversation about publicizing names of priests who are “credibly accused.” Well, they’ve never been found guilty in either a canonical or a civil process and some of those credibly accused priests very, very vehemently maintain their innocence, but still, they’re published.

But the publication of names is an area that is not addressed specifically in the Charter, is the publication of names. And so I think there still is a need for [addressing] that, it is an area our Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance is looking at. It’s my understanding that the Holy See is also looking at the question.

The dicasteries of the Holy See have said in some letters that a priest enjoys a presumption of innocence and his name should not be put on a list, unless there’s some finding of guilt either in a civil process or a canonical process. So I think that’s something that needs further attention and refinement and we will be looking at that very carefully.

Please say more about a topic that will be of interest to many — the question of electronic letters of suitability.

Well, that’s something our Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance is working on. It’s been implemented in France and in the province of Boston, and so we’re looking to see if it can be done more broadly. Paper copies are a lot of work to produce, and then a paper copy could be outdated as soon as within a day or two of its being issued. So if you have something electronic, hopefully that will be something that will be much more up-to-date.

It would be a game-changer for priests.

But I’ve always understood that one challenge is related to liability — that whichever organization maintained a system for electronic letters of suitability would incur potentially some liability.

I don’t think that would be the case, though I defer to our attorneys on that.

I’m an attorney myself, and I think that the way that I could see this being implemented would be that each diocese remains responsible for the content. We just need some common platform that we would agree on, and it does not even necessarily need to be the USCCB’s.

And I’m not an expert on the software, but I understand that it’s working very well in the province of Boston. And so I think there’s a possibility that we could do that nationally — it’s just a matter of getting some coordination of this, but without the USCCB taking on the responsibility. It would be up to each diocese to maintain the list of their priests and whether or not they’re in good standing.

As an attorney, similar information is available about attorneys. Myself as an example: If you go to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, you can just check and you’ll find that I’m a lawyer in good standing. And if a lawyer is disbarred or suspended, that shows up on the website. So I think it’d be easy enough to do something like that, but it’s just a question of coordinating it.

Subscribe now