The clarification came after several Iranian outlets reported May 12 that Pope Leo XIV had granted the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor to the Iranian ambassador, prompting social media criticism of the pope.

What is the award the Iranian ambassador received? Where does it rank among Vatican diplomatic honors? Does it say anything about the pope’s stance on political issues?

The Pillar explains.

Subscribe now

What happened?

On May 12, Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Iran’s ambassador to the Holy See, received the Grand Cross of the Papal Order of Pius IX along with 12 other ambassadors accredited to the Holy See.

Iranian media described the order as being “among the Vatican’s most distinguished knighthoods,” and “typically conferred upon ambassadors and prominent figures who have played a significant role in strengthening diplomatic ties and serving the cause of peace and dialogue.”

Some social media posts claimed that the pope had personally granted the award to the Iranian ambassador, while one Iranian outlet said that “the award and the pope’s denunciation of the aggression are closely linked to the ongoing efforts of the Iranian embassy at the Vatican to promote messages of peace, justice, and opposition to warmongering.”

Share

So was the Vatican giving the Iranian ambassador an exclusive honor?

Soon after the Iranian media posts gained attention, the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See contested the account they presented. The U.S. Embassy posted on twitter.com that the pope had not “bestowed an exclusive special honor on the Iranian Ambassador to the Holy See. This decoration is given to all accredited ambassadors to the Holy See after 2+ years of service and has been standard practice for many years.”

In a statement to The Pillar, the Vatican press office confirmed that the award “is an honor bestowed upon ambassadors after two years of service at the Holy See.”

“Yesterday, the Sostituto [of the Secretariat of State] presented it to 13 ambassadors, including Iran’s ambassador,” the press office statement continued.

The awards were presented by the papal chief of staff, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli, and the certificates attesting to the honor were signed by secretary of state Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Leave a comment

What is the Order of Pope Pius IX?

The order, also referred to as the Pian Order, is a papal order of knighthood that was originally established by Pope Pius IV in 1560.

It fell into disuse years later, but was revived by Bl. Pius IX in 1847.

The order itself has several ranks:

• Knight/Dame with the collar: Reserved for heads of state.

• Knight/Dame Grand Cross: Typically awarded to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See or distinguished laypersons for exceptional contributions.

• Knight/Dame Commander with Star: Granted for extraordinary merit in diplomatic or ecclesiastical service.

• Knight/Dame Commander: Granted for significant contributions to Church and society.

• Knight/Dame: Rarely bestowed and reserved for lay Catholics from ancient European noble families.

King Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Albert II of Belgium, and King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden have all received the collar of the order. King Charles III of England became the most recent head of state to receive the distinction in his latest visit to the pope.

The original members of the Order of Pope Pius IX were members of the pope’s lay court. They served as his escort, resided in the Apostolic Palace, and accompanied him in his daily tasks.

Each class of the order has some unique elements of insignia:

• Knight/Dame with the collar: The insignia includes a gold chain adorned with papal symbols, such as the papal tiara, the keys of Saint Peter, and two doves.

• Knight/Dame Grand Cross: They wear a wide dark blue silk sash with a red border from the left shoulder to the right hip and a large silver star on the left side of the chest, with the medallion of the order.

• Commanders: The insignia includes a small star on the left side of the chest, and commanders wear a badge with a ribbon around the neck.

• Knight/Dame: They wear a small badge without a star on the left side of the chest.

  Share The Pillar

Is it the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor?

Yes and no.

Technically, the Supreme Order of Christ and the Order of the Golden Spur are considered higher in precedence, but both are dormant.

The last person to receive the Supreme Order of Christ was Frà Angelo de Mojana, 77th prince and grand master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The last living member of the order was King Baudouin of Belgium, who died in 1993.

The last living member of the Order of the Golden Spur was Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg, who died in 2019.

The Order of Pope Pius IX is the highest diplomatic honor that the Holy See has bestowed upon diplomats or heads of state in almost 40 years.

Leave a comment

Does receiving the Order of Pope Pius IX make one a nobleman?

Not anymore.

When Pope Pius IX reinstituted the order, knights received the privilege of personal nobility through their membership. At the time, it was the only way to become a nobleman in the Papal States.

However, Pope Pius XII suppressed the privilege of nobility in November 1939. Before the suppression, the recipients were entitled to use the title of “Nobile di S.S.” (Noble of the Holy See).

The recognition of nobility also gave them precedence in certain Vatican ceremonies, the recognition of nobility in other European monarchies, and inclusion in the papal court.

Subscribe now

“We reiterate what has already been communicated,” wrote DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, “the episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the requisite papal mandate.”

“This act will constitute ‘a schismatic act’ (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and ‘formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law’ (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).”

The canonical crimes and consequences of the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations have already been made clear, and explained for those directly involved — that is to say those who impart or receive ordination as a bishop without a papal mandate.

But as the date of the proposed schismatic act draws near, some Catholics have begun to ask what the effects will be for the priests and laypeople who have joined the SSPX, or who regularly attend its liturgies.

So who, exactly, is going to be excommunicated? What is the nature of the impending schism? And who, exactly, becomes a “schismatic” if it all goes ahead as planned?

The Pillar explains.

Leave a comment

Remind me again, what exactly is the SSPX planning to do, and why is it a crime?

We’ve been over this a few times now.

But alright — in the words of Peter Parker — let’s do this one last time:

Episcopal consecration without a papal mandate — a bishop ordaining a man as a bishop without the explicit permission or instruction of the Bishop of Rome — is a specific crime in canon law, which carries the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication.

This means the bishop who does the consecrating and the one who is consecrated are both excommunicated by the act itself.

The SSPX superior has repeatedly made it clear in recent months that he knows this, and is going to do it anyway.

So consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate is what canon law means by ‘schism?’

Again, we’ve talked about this in detail here.

But the short answer is this: In addition to illicit consecration of a bishop there is a separate canonical crime called schism — “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

In 1988, Pope St. John Paul II stated directly that SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s plan to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate would constitute an act of schism.

John Paul wrote that “this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

He also wrote that “the root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops.”

After illicit episcopal consecrations, a penalty of excommunication was formally declared by John Paul II against SSPX bishops, and then remitted by Benedict XVI, who hoped that lifting the penalty would be part of an effort to reunite the group with the Church’s hierarchy.

In recent months, SSPX superior Fr. Davide Pagliarani has written several public letters and given interviews explaining that he and the SSPX still hold to the notion of tradition described by John Paul II as “incomplete and contradictory.”

And as Cardinal Fernandez made clear on Wednesday, if the consecrations go ahead in July, the SSPX will be committing the same act their previous leaders did in 1988, for the same reasons, and will incur the same consequences.

If the SSPX consecrations happen, who actually commits the schism — the bishop consecrating, the bishops being consecrated, or everyone in the room?

Well, according to the norms of canon 1387, those who perform and receive the consecration are excommunicated because of the illicit consecration itself.

As for who commits the schism, the same men are obviously and directly committing an act of schism as described and defined by the Holy See, both by St. John Paul II and by recent warnings and clarifications issued by the DDF.

But Cardinal Fernandez made a very important point on Wednesday — one not noticed by every reader.

The DDF’s statement said two things.

First, that the episcopal consecrations are an act of schism.

Second, that “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law.”

That means something in canon law: That those who formally associate themselves to the schism of the organization’s leadership can incur their own excommunication. It’s a broad and significant statement — and one worth diving into.

Well, what does ‘formal adherence to the schism’ mean — how does a person formally or informally adhere?

Now we’re getting into the canonical nitty-gritty of this situation.

While the term “formal adherence” might seem very vague, it was actually defined back in 1996 by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, now the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, in reference to the schismatic nature of the SSPX.

The explanation said that “such adherence must imply two complementary elements:

• one [element] of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);

• another [element] of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).”

In other words, a person could share in the schism of SSPX’s leaders — and be subject to the same excommunication — if he placed the SSPX and its actions above obedience to the pope, and manifested that disposition by some external action, which could include exclusive participation in SSPX liturgies.

Does that mean everyone goes to an SSPX Mass after July 1 is committing schism?

Not necessarily.

According to the Vatican’s statements, there is clearly some room for at least some people to participate in SSPX liturgies either without agreeing with the group’s schismatic actions, or without sufficiently manifesting that agreement externally, even if they do go to SSPX liturgies.

That’s among the reasons, for example, that attending Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel has not been ruled out as a way to meet the Sunday obligation.

In short, there is a grey area of connection to the SSPX.

But the Vatican has been clear that this grey area does not cover every lay person, and does not seem to cover SSPX clergy at all.

“In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems clear that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (n. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence,” the 1996 guidance says.

“In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation.”

TL;DR: In 1996 the Vatican said that SSPX clergy would seem to meet the requirements to be declared in schism — and be excommunicated — but that not all laypeople who attend their chapels meet those requirements.

If this document was issued in 1996, does that mean SSPX clergy have been excommunicated for schism all that time?

Well, here’s what can be said. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts guidance indicated that SSPX priests and deacons meet the requirements of “adhering to schism” — and thus to incur the penalty of excommunication.

But, even if actually incurred, the Apostolic See has not formally declared those priests to be in schism, or declared their excommunication.

And in recent decades, the Vatican has used other language to describe the SSPX’s status — using phrases like “imperfect communion.” At least some experts view that rhetoric as an exercise in politely veiled language; figuring that one is either in communion, or one is in schism, whether material or formal.

For some, the status of the group has seemed a bit muddled since Pope Benedict XVI lifted in 2009 declared excommunications on the surviving SSPX bishops, leading some to claim a new status, or era, for the entire society.

But when he lifted those excommunications, the pope aimed to clarify that his move was personal, not institutional, and changed nothing for the society as a group.

Benedict explained that “The excommunication [and its lifting] affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.”

“The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties,” Benedict wrote.

“In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

In other words, Pope Benedict was clear that he intended his act — lifting excommunications — to be a personal act, for those particular bishops, and not a kind of institutional approval.

After that, the matter got even more complex.

In the 2015 Year of Mercy during the pontificate of Francis, SSPX clerics were given confessional faculties, and also delegation to witness marriages. And while that was framed as an act of mercy toward the laypeople who attend SSPX chapels, it indicated a solicitous Vatican approach to the SSPX.

That’s why the statement from Fernandez this week has been taken as such a strong statement.

The language Fernandez used this week — and the citations in his statement — would seem to suggest a return to a more exacting legal standard for the treatment of SSPX priests and deacons — a move away from the conciliation of Benedict and Francis, toward the hardline stance to the group of Pope St. John Paul II.

OK, but if SSPX priests are in schism, does that mean their sacraments are invalid?

You might reasonably expect that, but actually no, not according to the law.

Excommunicated clergy are, among other sanctions, prohibited from “exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions,” from “celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments,” and “from administering sacramentals and from celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship.”

But being prohibited from doing a thing is not the same as being incapable of doing it — if they were the same, then the episcopal consecrations in July could just be declared invalid and there would be a lot fewer headaches for the Vatican.

There is no question that priests of the SSPX can celebrate Mass validly.

And since 2015, priests of the SSPX have had the faculty to hear confessions validly in all circumstances, not only in danger of death. Regardless of what happens in July — and even if an excommunication were declared against the priests of the SSPX — that faculty would have to be explicitly revoked to render their confessions invalid.

But while sacraments administered by SSPX clergy would still be valid — even if there was a return to the general state of schism and excommunication — there is still the legal expectation that the Church’s proper authorities would take steps to stop them from offering sacramental ministry.

In fact, canon 1331 states that if an excommunicated cleric is attempting to offer a sacrament, he “is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary.”

The reason for this is that medical penalities like excommunication — called censures — have as their primary aims the reform of the offender and the avoidance or mitigation of scandal to the wider community. That is why there is also a significant canonical difference between the external effects of a penalty like excommunication, depending on whether it has been publicly declared by a competent authority, or simply incurred automatically but not yet declared.

The law presumes that the excommunicated cleric would be in a place where the liturgy could be suspended by Church officials — imagine an excommunicated cleric trying to offer Mass in an ordinary diocesan parish church, for example.

But because the SSPX have their own buildings, it seems unlikely that diocesan bishops would have much success suspending their liturgical celebrations.

Still, the law articulates an expectation that the illicit celebration of sacraments will be stopped by competent ecclesiastical authorities — and leaves to individual bishops the discernment about the degree to which that is possible for them.

So what about ordinary laypeople who go to SSPX liturgies? What’s their status?

Well, here things get a little complicated.

In order for a crime like schism to be committed, it is necessary that there be both an internal disposition and intention to commit the crime (as defined by the competent ecclesiastical authority) and an external manifestation of the internal disposition — a clear and unambiguous act which allows the Church to judge acted on the internal intention.

As we have seen, the Vatican has made it clear that just occasionally attending SSPX liturgies doesn’t qualify as a sufficient external manifestation of “adhering” to the society’s schism.

But the 1996 PCLT text cited by Cardinal Fernandez does say that “the most evident sign [of adhering to schism] will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church.”

That means it is at least possible for the Church to consider as schismatic — and subject to excommunication — a person who chooses to attend only SSPX liturgies, especially if schism is formally declared for leaders after the planned July episcopal consecrations.

The PCLT cautioned that possibility would have to be considered on a “case-by-case basis” — but it remains to be seen whether the Vatican will continue emphasizing that possibility — as its statement’s citations did this week — after the expected consecrations in July.

Moreover, diocesan bishops can legislate in their own dioceses to remove any ambiguity about the question.

In the same year the PCLT text was issued, one bishop declared that Catholics who join SSPX chapels can be subject to excommunication, an act which was upheld by the Vatican on appeal, and which remains particular law in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.

But the PCLT has emphasized that the moral questions about attending SSPX liturgies are the ones most important for Catholics to consider.

In other words, Catholics might not be declared in schism for attending SSPX liturgies.

But as the group’s communion with the Church becomes ever more fractured, Catholics who want to be obedient to the Church — and avoid even an undeclared-but-still-very-serious excommunication — have to consider seriously their own obligation to maintain ecclesial communion.

Subscribe now

Share

But that is the phrase Cardinal Charles Bo used to sum up the Catholic Church in Myanmar.

Read more

A 25-year-old software engineer, Joe struggled to find a long-term relationship, so he took his desire to prayer. Later that month, he met a woman named Cameron at a parish retreat.

Now, a year later, the two are engaged.

Joe has some advice for other young men facing a challenging dating scene: “Just go for it.”

“You kind of have to take things seriously yourself, and make sure that you’re entering into the dating scene with the right intentions,” Kuebler told The Pillar.

Subscribe now

But that’s a lot easier said than done, as Joe can confirm. Dating as a Catholic can be challenging. Actually, according to recent data, dating for anyone in Gen Z is no longer light and breezy, nor fun and simple.

A series of recent studies has confirmed that a growing number of young people are just not dating.

Experts cite a variety of reasons.

Financial instability may contribute to a hesitancy to pursue a relationship, while a greater focus on career may leave romantic relationships on the back burner. The rise of smart phones has brought with it the tendency toward constant distraction, as well as widespread availability of pornography, which can decrease both interest in forming romantic relationships and ability to do so.

In addition, Gen Z has unprecedented levels of anxiety, including social anxiety. It’s a generation that saw many formative teen social experiences - like prom, football games, and high school classes - canceled or altered during the Covid pandemic.

In the years since the pandemic, social interaction has not returned to pre-Covid levels. Remote work, restaurant delivery, grocery pick up, and Zoom meetings continue to be a normal part of life.

As a result, Gen Z just hasn’t developed the social muscles that previous generations have, said Dr. Timothy O’Malley, associate director of research at Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute.

“Human interaction is fairly low amongst this group that is much more comfortable communicating via device than in person, especially when it comes to having uncomfortable conversations,” he told The Pillar.

“The post-Covid world has become so digitalized and remote that there’s just so little need for human interaction anymore,” Kuebler added.

“Our social circles become so small because there’s no real, in-person interaction happening.”

Share

A study from the Survey Center on American Life found that nearly half of Gen Z adults went through their teen years without having any dating experience. And the majority of single Gen Zers – both men and women – say they are not optimistic that they will find a compatible partner.

As dating becomes less of a normal experience for young people, there’s less social expectation and pressure to spend the time and money pursuing a romantic relationship.

Dating at Villanova University has become so bad that Dr. Anna Moreland, director of the university’s honors program, has had to institute a dating assignment for her class, “Shaping an Adult Life.”

The assignment: go on a date with somebody.

She’s been teaching the class for seven years now, and every year she has to adapt the course to address new problems. The newest one: students do not know what dating even looks like.

“I find them as ill-equipped in a lot of ways to date,” Moreland told The Pillar.

“Their romantic muscles now are much weaker than they were when I arrived at college as a student, when dating was still alive in high school culture.”

Leave a comment

Vague language, vague commitments

As dating trends have shifted, so too has the terminology surrounding dating. Rather than clearly defined relationships, with a committed boyfriend and girlfriend, the young adults of today are more likely to say they are “talking” with another person.

But “talking” can mean anything from having regular text conversations to having sex, rendering the term basically meaningless in conveying actual information about a relationship between two people, Moreland said.

There’s also the “situationship” – in which two people act as though they are dating, but without formal terms or commitment.

“The language is intentionally vague,” Moreland said. Fluid terms offer a measure of self-protection to ward off potential hurt that comes from the possibility of ending a serious relationship.

But the lack of commitment among young people today has been difficult for those who are seeking a serious relationship. Nathan Henshaw, a 31-year-old engineer in Denver, said he has been on many dates, but none have stuck.

“The dating culture is pretty terrible,” Henshaw told The Pillar. “Everyone is super kind until you get to that commitment phase and then everyone just flutters out. I’ve heard so many times, ‘I need to go and pray and reflect on that.’”

“I now just assume that line is a soft no.”

The lack of committed dating is augmented by the use of social media to connect. Rather than buying a girl a drink at a bar or slipping a phone number on a napkin, guys today “slide into a girl’s DMs” to flirt.

“Even for my Catholic friends, they meet a girl and then they’re like Snapchatting, things just kind of become a relationship. It is a lot more low stakes than asking somebody out,” Danny Callaghan, a junior at Notre Dame told The Pillar. “Few people go on actual dates anymore.”

Give a gift subscription

Challenges for Catholics

Christine Emba, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Catholic, penned a recent op-ed for the New York Times examining Gen Z’s lapsed dating habits.

Emba’s article focuses on the secular dating culture. But, she told The Pillar that while she thinks Catholics probably date more than their secular counterparts, she still sees some of the same problems play out at her parish, Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C.

Catholic young adults seeking a spouse often face many of the same obstacles as their secular peers – and there are additional challenges for Catholics in the dating world as well.

One is that some Catholics put too much pressure on a date – even a first date, said Emba.

“With Catholics, there is this mindset, ‘Oh, if I ask this person on a date, it means something really serious.’ Many do not know how to treat a date as a date.”

Anna Kelly, a senior computer science major at the University of Notre Dame, agreed. She said she observes the phenomenon playing out on campus. She believes it’s antithetical to a healthy dating culture in the Church.

Kelly herself is currently single, after spending two years in a relationship earlier in college. But she knows about eight people who have gotten engaged so far this year.

She told The Pillar there are some social circles at the university where hookup culture is prevalent, but others where the focus on marriage is serious – maybe a little too serious. In particular, the desire to be engaged before graduation can create a “ring by spring” mentality that puts unnecessary pressure on relationships.

While the desire to take dating seriously may stem from the hopes of discerning marriage, and a reaction against the casual nature of the hookup culture, an overemphasis on the importance of a single date may make young Catholics hesitant to ask someone on a date, or to accept an invitation to one, Kelly suggested.

“There’s almost the mindset that asking someone out on a date has to be kind of like the end-all be-all, that you need that ring by spring, which creates some hesitancy for people there,” she said. “Guys won’t ask a girl out, and then it’s kind of like the girl can’t really do anything. That’s frustrating.”

Share The Pillar

Like Moreland, Dr. O’Malley gives students in his theology marriage course the assignment of going out on a date. And he tells them that a date should not be too serious.

“My super, super, super Catholic students have been formed to think that the beginning of every date should commence with plans to put a down payment on your 12-passenger van that you’re going to need in eight years,” O’Malley said.

“Sometimes, at the beginning of a date, you just talk to someone … so that something akin to a friendship might form,” he suggested.

Another factor cited by experts in the decline of dating is the drastic political divide by gender within Gen Z. While men of all generations tend to poll more conservative, and women tend to poll more liberal, the gap in Gen Z is far greater than in any other generation.

This divide can spill over into Catholic circles, where the image of a “trad” Catholic lifestyle has become more prominent in recent years.

The concept of a “tradwife” — a submissive stay-at-home wife invested in a traditional lifestyle — has become particularly prevalent on social media.

Rachel B, a 28-year-old artist in Denver, said in her experience, many men are looking for a “tradwife,” and this expectation creates an imbalance in a relationship.

“The random Catholic guys that I’ve gone out with want a very trad-seeming girl,” Rachel told The Pillar. “I noticed that with a lot of my friends where the relationship feels a little controlling with some of the really, really Catholic guys.”

Emba agreed, saying this mentality is both “objectifying” and “controlling.”

“There are more young men who profess to be really trad or have adopted politically right wing postures where they are only looking for submissive women who stay in the home, et cetera, et cetera,” she said. “That is not particularly attractive to women and can contribute to a negative dating culture.”

Leave a comment

Dating apps: a double-edged sword

Some Catholics looking to find someone who shares their values turn to dating apps. In addition to the plethora of secular apps, there are a number of Catholic-specific dating apps and websites.

These apps can serve as tools helping to connect likeminded Catholics. But Emba cautioned that many of these apps are built for profit, and can prioritize visuals in a dehumanizing way.

“Even Catholic dating apps, depending on the way that they’re set up, can still be like secular dating apps in the way that they emphasize visuals, how someone looks or like sort of the qualities you can list on an app instead of conversation, personality, values,” Emba said.

Henshaw, the 31-year-old engineer from Denver, compared the experience of most dating apps to window shopping.

“In an hour, I can like 40 to 50 girls on an app and you’re almost devaluing the experience of meeting someone in person,” he said.

Taylor O’Brien, the co-founder of Candid, a Catholic dating website and app, agreed that dating apps in general can be dehumanizing.

To counter a “window shopping” mentality, Candid was intentionally created without a swipe feature.

Instead, users meet in virtual speed dating events.

“Dating apps have made us see each other as a commodity. The swiping has taken away the human person, the dignity, the element of actually remembering that there’s a person on the other side of the screen,” O’Brien said.

Candid has also hosted in-person events, including two speed dating events at recent FOCUS SEEK conferences, with each drawing more than 2,000 participants.

CatholicMatch, the Catholic dating website that was founded back in 1999, has also begun hosting live events in recent months, both virtually and in-person.

Mariette Rintoul, director of community experience at CatholicMatch, told The Pillar that the events have become popular among Gen Z, who make up the majority of CatholicMatch members.

Still, Rintoul believes online dating will continue to be the bulk of what CatholicMatch offers.

“Gen Z, they want the apps, they want that convenience, and also they just like the wide range of potential people that are on our app,” she said.

Share

Encouraging dating

The in-person approach is one that Father Charles Gallagher embraced when he realized that young people at his parish weren’t pursuing relationships.

Gallagher is the pastor at Immaculate Conception Parish in Washington D.C., where some 75% of the congregation, he estimates, consists of young adults in their 20s and 30s.

A few years ago, the priest noticed that while there were plenty of young adults, they didn’t seem to be doing much dating.

In past generations, he said, relationships often began at churches. But churches are no longer the cultural centers of community that they once were.

Gallagher wanted to change that.

He started with increased opportunities for prayer, offering more chances for Eucharistic adoration and confession. He’s currently working to open a perpetual adoration chapel.

That emphasis on the spiritual life, Gallagher believes, has helped to foster a healthier dating environment.

“We have been trying to get people to really go deeper in their prayer lives because it’s from that, that they are able to be clearer about what God’s calling them to do. And not only to be clear about it, but to get the courage to pursue it,” he said.

In addition, he decided to host more social events for young people to meet one another and interact.

The parish now hosts one to two social events every month, including speed dating events, service opportunities and formal dances.

“These are just great opportunities for young people to meet each other and form friendships,” Gallagher said.

And these efforts have borne fruit, with several couples who are now engaged or married at the parish.

Young adults who spoke with The Pillar agreed that regular live events are good opportunities to meet people. But, they cautioned, the atmosphere should be lighthearted, not pressured.

“Smaller, more dedicated events would really help,” Henshaw said. “When there is a Catholic meetup and there’s 180 people, that’s just distracting and overwhelming. But smaller groups would help people be more intentional.”

O’Brien believes that even talking about dating more frequently can help normalize the experience.

“We need to make sure that as a Catholic community, that we’re supporting Gen Z and reinforcing healthy dating habits,” O’Brien said. “Making sure that people understand that it is fun and good and normal to date, that we need to bring intentionality back and take the pressure off of the all-or-nothing mindset.”

Emba added that friends and family of Gen Zers should encourage them to date – anything from a simple “you should ask her out” to an offer to set friends up on a blind date.

“Everybody should be setting everybody up more,” Emba said. “This is a clear role that anyone could play.”

And, of course, the men and women involved need to be willing to pluck up the courage to go out on a date.

“Guys need to ask out girls, girls need to say yes, and we need to tamp [down] our expectations,” said Kelly, the University of Notre Dame senior.

“When you’re asking someone out, you’re not asking them to marry you. You are just asking them out to coffee.”

Subscribe now

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

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

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

Subscribe now

What is the Georgian Orthodox Church?

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

The Georgian Orthodox Church traces its origins back even further, to apostolic times. According to its tradition, its earliest communities were established directly by St. Andrew the Apostle. It was recognized as an independent, self-governing church in the 5th century.

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

Subscribe now

The Georgian Orthodox Church suffered persecution under Soviet rule, driven by Joseph Stalin, who, in a grim irony, had studied for the Orthodox priesthood in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, before becoming a communist revolutionary. The era forged outstanding figures, including St. Gabriel Urgebadze, who set fire to a giant portrait of Lenin at a May Day event in 1965 while denouncing the crowd’s idolatry.

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

From 1977 to March 2026, the Church was led by Ilia II of Georgia, a beloved national figure. Concerned by the country’s low post-Soviet birth rate, he offered to serve as godparent to the third child onward of Georgian families. At his death, he had around 50,000 godchildren and was credited in some quarters with singlehandedly reviving the birth rate.

When Ilia II died March 17, at the age of 93, he was the longest-serving patriarch in the Georgian Orthodox Church’s history. He had ensured that the Church returned to its historic place as Georgia’s paramount religious institution. His death appeared to mark the end of an era of revival, and signal the start of a new and uncertain epoch for Georgian Orthodox Christians.

Who is Shio III?

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

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

Shio oversaw churches in Tbilisi and Moscow before his appointment as bishop in 2003. In addition to governing the Senaki and Chkhorotskuri eparchy in Georgia, he was responsible, from 2009, for Georgian Orthodox Christians in Australia and New Zealand.

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

What does his election mean?

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

Both men, for example, have not endorsed the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople’s decision to grant recognition to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in 2018. This stance underlines that the Georgian Orthodox Church has a closer affinity with the Russian Orthodox Church than the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

But there are many nuances. Ilia II reportedly criticized Patriarch Kirill of Moscow’s support for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While Shio III has biographical ties to Russia, he is now head of a fully independent Eastern Orthodox Church, not a satellite of the Moscow Patriarchate.

On relations with Rome, Ilia II’s position could be described as respectful but distant. He became the first Georgian patriarch to visit the Vatican in 1980. He welcomed Pope John Paul II to Georgia in 1999 and Pope Francis in 2016, where they also met with the country’s small Catholic community, which numbers around 112,000, according to the Vatican.

But Ilia II had reservations about the ecumenical movement that restricted his engagement. The Georgian Orthodox Church continued to be involved in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, but it was more hesitant than other self-governing Eastern Orthodox Churches. For instance, Georgian Orthodox theologians expressed concerns about the language of a 2016 Catholic-Orthodox document on primacy, but did not block its publication.

Shio III is said to share Ilia’s doubts about ecumenism and possibly be even more cautious. This may explain why the Vatican was quick to send its congratulatory message and may be eager that its representatives meet with the new patriarch at the first opportunity.

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 TL;DR

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

Show notes:

A bishop with t…

Read more

According to sources close to the situation, Fr. Louis Salman was interrogated by Israeli officials in late April, and soon after informed by Church leaders that he would need to leave the country for his safety. Salman was then notified officially that his visa would not be renewed, and that he should leave the country before Monday, May 11.

No official reason was given for the decision.

Hundreds gathered at his parish in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, for a farewell Mass on Sunday before the priest left for his native Jordan.

Salman is known for being a very committed and energetic pastor, local Catholics told The Pillar.

As chaplain of the Youth of Jesus’ Homeland ministry he organized frequent events, including yearly summer camps, and led dozens of young Palestinian Christians to Rome in 2025 for the Jubilee of Hope.

But he was also an outspoken critic of the actions of Israeli forces in the West Bank, and the challenges Palestinian Christians faced in their daily lives because of them.

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which has jurisdiction over Latin Catholics in the Holy Land, has not made any official comment on the situation. A source in Jerusalem told The Pillar that the patriarchate is declining to make any public comments while it prepares for what it expects to be a drawn-out legal battle over the decision. The source said this is widely believed to be the first time Israel has involved itself in the patriarchate’s personnel decision in such a direct manner.

A person close to Salman confirmed to The Pillar that the priest had left Israel Monday “at the request of the patriarch, and for his own safety,” and that he had decided not speak publicly about the situation.

According to some reports by local press, Israel’s decision was driven by Fr. Salman’s role in organizing a prayer vigil for a Christian journalist working for Al-Jazeera who was killed during a May 2022 Israeli military operation.

Shireen Abu Akleh, who held U.S. and Palestinian citizenship, was shot in the head from a distance while she covered the operation in Jenin. Several investigations concluded that the shots had come from Israeli soldiers, but no charges have been filed in Akleh’s death.

The journalist’s funeral drew crowds and Israeli police intervened more than once during the procession, beating protesters and pulling Palestinian flags from mourners surrounding Akleh’s coffin. Israeli authorities said they were attempting to maintain public order in the face of rioters at the funeral procession.

The deadline given by the Israelis this month for Salman to leave the country coincided with the fourth anniversary of Abu Akleh’s death.

But a Christian source from the Holy Land with knowledge of the situation said that issue was not the main reason for the decision not to renew Fr. Salman’s visa.

“While that event drew significant attention, it is important to understand it was not the primary issue. The core of his problem lies in his vocal positions against daily acts by settlers in the West Bank, and the various measures implemented by the occupation authorities on the ground.”

The reference to settlers includes the activities around Taybeh, the last fully Christian town in the West Bank.

For several months, Jewish settlers have harassed the town’s residents, vandalizing buildings, destroying crops and even setting cars on fire, according to residents. To date, no settler has been arrested in connection to unrest in Taybeh.

“These actions directly impact the presence of Christians in the Holy Land, testing their resolve to withstand overwhelming socioeconomic pressures. This constant strain is stretching the local Church’s resources to their absolute limit,” the source said.

“We cannot ignore the reality that is right in front of us. These issues are visible to all who look, and they form the true context of our current situation, yet the authorities wanted him to close his mouth and act as if nothing is happening.”

Salman’s removal from the Holy Land comes at a time when tension between Israel and Christians are high.

Recent incidents include the reported assault of a Catholic nun in the Old City of Jerusalem; repeated cases of spitting on Christian religious or in the doorways of churches; at least two acts of desecration of Christian images by Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon and the decision by Israeli police to block Patriarch Pierbattista Pizzaballa from celebrating Mass in the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday.

The backlash against the Palm Sunday events, which drew widespread international criticism, led Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu to appoint a Special Envoy to the Christian World, on April 23.

George Deek, an Orthodox Christian Israeli Arab who was the first Christian ambassador of Israel, has weighed in on several of the recent incidents. In an interview with Italian Agenzia Nova, he pointed out that the spitting and violence in Jerusalem “offend not only Christians, but also the principles of dignity and mutual respect for which Israel stands.”

Regarding the desecrations in Lebanon, he told the same outlet that “what matters is how a nation responds. In both cases, the Israeli leadership clearly condemned the acts and took action.” Four soldiers were convicted and sentenced to a few weeks incarceration, as well as facing other disciplinary measures.

But in other high-profile cases no charges have been filed, including the shooting by sniper fire of a mother and a daughter in the Catholic compound in Gaza in 2023, and the shelling of the same Catholic church in July 2025, which Israel attributed to a “technical error.” Three people died in that attack, which took place three days after Cardinal Pizzaballa made a widely publicized visit to Taybeh, to show solidarity with the Christian community there and denounce settler violence.

Despite George Deek’s diplomatic overtures, local Christians charge that the situation has grown significantly worse under Benjamin Netanyahu’s current government and the appointment of Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of national security.

After the Hamas attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, Ben-Gvir pushed to accelerate weapons permits and to distribute weapons in Israel and in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Critics argued this empowered extremist groups and would contribute to increases of violence in the region.

Fr. Nikodemus Schnabel is the German Benedictine abbot of the Dormition Monastery in Jerusalem, which also runs a residence in Tabgha that was attacked in 2015 by extremist settlers who set fire to part of the building.

In an interview with AsiaNews, he explained that “the lawyer who defended the arsonists at the time was Itamar Ben-Gvir. This man, who hates Christians – who really hates Christianity – is now in charge of my security, and this is really horrible.”

Subscribe now

The Vatican announced May 11 that the pope had named Bishop Steven Lopes, the head of North America’s Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, as apostolic administrator of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.

Observers had expected a leadership transition at the Australian ordinariate since March, when Leo XIV named its previous apostolic administrator, Bishop Anthony Randazzo, as prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts.

Randazzo, the bishop of Australia’s Broken Bay diocese, had overseen the local ordinariate since July 2023. The Vatican confirmed May 11 that the pope had concluded Randazzo’s mandate following his Rome appointment.

Lopes discussed the significance of his nomination in a May 11 interview with The Pillar.

To put his comments in context, it’s worth recalling the background of the Australian ordinariate, which was founded in June 2012, following the creation of the U.K. Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in January 2011 and the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter in January 2012.

Subscribe now

The Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross is the smallest of the three in terms of the number of laity, priests, and parishes. But it also covers the widest geographical area, serving Japan, New Zealand, and other parts of Oceania, in addition to Australia. This helps to explain why its 13-year existence has been marked by struggle.

The Australian ordinariate was led initially by the English-born Msgr. Harry Entwistle until his retirement in 2019. He was succeeded by the Canadian Msgr. Carl Reid, who resigned in 2023, paving the way for Randazzo’s appointment.

Some ordinariate members have questioned why the new apostolic administrator isn’t another Australian bishop. But the Texas-based Lopes is already familiar with the Antipodean ordinariate because he conducted an apostolic visitation in 2022, coinciding with its 10th anniversary.

The Pillar understands that following the visitation, Rome expressed a strong commitment to the Australian ordinariate and sought ways to strengthen it. This included the appointment of Randazzo, who had also participated in the visitation.

Ordinariate members credit Randazzo with building up the organization. On April 21, he ordained two new deacons for the body.

In a May 11 message to ordinariate members, Randazzo said that Lopes was “a man of the Church and will strongly encourage the continued growth and mission of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.”

In one of his first moves, Lopes reappointed Fr. Stephen Hill, a liturgical expert ordained as an ordinariate priest in 2013, as the Australian ordinariate’s vicar general.

In his Pillar interview, Lopes addressed the debate about the Australian ordinariate’s viability, his hopes for the body, and the obstacles to realizing them.

People have questioned the viability of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross since it was established in 2012.

Does the appointment of a second apostolic administrator in succession suggest it may not be viable in the long term?

Or does it show, on the contrary, that the Church as a whole is committed to its future?

I certainly understand some of the impressions that one can have looking at the relatively small Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross from the outside. After all, I participated in the apostolic visitation several years ago that came about precisely because of some of these impressions. But what we found, even in that process, was that impressions do not tell the full story. Or even part of it. Actually, there is plenty of life and robust faith in this ordinariate.

I recall a lecture I attended several years ago by a great Australian, Professor Tracy Rowland. She described the realized ecumenism of the ordinariate as “reweaving the ecumenical tapestry.” The face of a tapestry is a thing of great intricacy and beauty. But the back is a mess, with threads going every which direction and little discernible pattern. The early years of the ordinariate have felt and looked a bit like that!

Subscribe now

Just this past March, the Holy See published a reflection on ordinariate patrimony. It affirmed that the things that make the ordinariate distinctive, which we call patrimony, “is a way of receiving and living out the faith … it is a living reality, which looks to the future in the transmission of the faith to future generations. [It] not only equips the ordinariates to welcome communities and individuals into full communion, but also continues to shape their distinctive participation in the Church’s mission well into the future.”

So this transition of leadership is to be seen in precisely that context. This is another step in the Church’s commitment to foster the patrimony and draw out the mission of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross. The ordinariate has been given unique tools for evangelization, and I have no doubt that these tools can and will bear great fruit for the Church in Australia and Oceania. Because it already is.

And for some inside baseball, notice that my official appointment is “sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis.”

The “ad nutum” part is pretty standard in the appointment of an apostolic administrator. It simply means I’m going to work with the Holy See until such time as the Holy Father decides on the next, permanent provision of leadership.

But the “sede vacante” part is new, as this was not the case under Archbishop Randazzo. In declaring that the see of the ordinariate is vacant, the first thing I observe is that the Holy See is recognizing that it is, in fact, a see. It is a true Particular Church juridically configured to a diocese.

My role is therefore that of a custodian. I am there to offer pastoral support and governance until such time as the ordinariate receives its own bishop, as has happened in North America and in the United Kingdom.

New dioceses are not simply created out of nothing. They grow and mature over time as the parishes that constitute them grow and mature, until such time as the Church recognizes they have the ecclesial elements that call for the apostolic ministry of a bishop. I see hints of that even in how my appointment is structured.

What are your greatest hopes for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross?

I simply want more people to see the vitality that I see in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross. If you look beyond the seeming smallness of our parish communities, you will see the Church at its best. There are priests in their 70s and 80s working harder than men half their age and covering great distances for the good of souls. There are young parents finding new ways to draw on the rich English patrimony to transmit the faith to their children in a highly secular environment. There are young men and women discerning vocations and finding courage to pursue them. There are liturgies celebrated beautifully and reverently, thanking God for these blessings.

Happily, some of these things will become apparent rather quickly. Later this year, the ordinariate will celebrate the ordination of two men to the priesthood.. We will also see the dedication of a new parish church in Perth, which is the first church construction project undertaken by the ordinariate in Australia.

Vocations and parish growth do not just happen. This is grace at work, and real people faithfully receiving that grace and allowing it to bear fruit in tangible ways. That gives me hope. Real hope, which is not just a feeling but a deep trust in the Lord’s promises and not just in our own strength and ingenuity.

What do you think are the biggest obstacles to realizing these hopes?

A common challenge for the ordinariate in Australia, as well as North America, is what I have begun to call the “tyranny of distance.” Our parish communities are so far apart from one another. It becomes very difficult to gather the clergy together, let alone any of the lay faithful.

Forming a lively sense of our identity and mission in the Church is complicated enough, but when you feel isolated — that your own parish is an island — it’s all the more difficult.

Another challenge that will simply take time to overcome is that the narrative about the ordinariate is often created by people with very little actual experience of it. Simply stated, our fellow Catholics often don’t know how to describe us and so the Ordinariate gets painted with all sorts of different brushes. We are often called the “Anglican Ordinariate” … which is ecumenically insensitive to actual Anglicans and can be downright offensive to ordinariate members, many of whom entered into full communion with the Catholic Church at great personal cost.

In North America, several of our parishes from the Pastoral Provision have been in existence nearly 50 years. That means we have generations of our faithful who have grown up with our distinctive form of liturgy and parish life as simply their expression of what it means to be Catholic.

Distinctions imposed from the outside — like convert or cradle Catholic — are meaningless in the actual context of our parish life. This will be all the more true as our parishes continue to mature and grow.

Subscribe now

Hey everybody,

Last week, I wrote about bagels, and then a very kind New York City bagel maker promptly sent me a case of bagels, cream cheese, salmon, and a t-shirt. It was awesome.

That’s why this week I’ve decided to mention how much I love visiting beautiful beach and lake houses with my family. Really, there’s nothing better. And if you need our summer availability, just reach out.

—
Anyway, today’s the feast of St. Pancras, who was martyred in the year 304 (or so) when he refused first the bribes of the emperor Diocletian to apostasize, and then the emperor’s threats.

Pancras was only 14 when he was beheaded outside of Rome; he had been a Christian for only about five years, and he was beloved in the local Church of Rome.

A few hundred years later, when St. Augustine of Canterbury was sent to evangelize Britain, he brought with him some relics of St. Pancras. Because of that, early churches in England were often dedicated to him, with his relics placed in their altars.

It might be that St. Pancras Old Church in London is one of those ancient sites of Christian worship. No one is sure how old it is. But it is the namesake of the St. Pancras neighborhood, and, therefore, the St. Pancras Railway Station, one of the busiest rail stations in the UK.

The original St. Pancras station was a beautiful Gothic revival building done in red brick and wrought iron — when it opened in the late 1860s, it was boasted to be the largest enclosed space in the world.

At one end of the train shed, set high above the terminal floor, was once a massive and beautiful clock — the biggest in any English railway station.

It spanned almost 18 feet in diameter. Its face was slate. The minute hand of that clock was more than seven feet long. It was accurate, too, which is an important attribute for a clock anywhere, I suppose, but especially at a railway hub.

One hundred years after the clock went up, it was time to take it down, for cleaning and repairs. It being the late 1960s or early 1970s, it’s possible the workmen were under some herbal influence, or possibly just caught up in the spirit of the age.

In either case, the massive clock was dropped. It fell to the floor of the station, and shattered.

(There’s an alternate history which says the clock was being sold to an American collector when it fell. So far as I can tell, that’s a midnight myth.)

The broken clock was a tragedy, but not one which left much time for mourning. With the shattered clock clogging up the platforms, British Rail was keen to get rid of it. And in a stroke of good luck, a retiring railwayman named Roland Hoggard offered to buy the whole thing, for the fair price of £25. The railway accepted.

It took him weeks to get all the pieces home, using a borrowed van after work. And it took him 18 months to rebuild the thing, on his barn wall of the ramshackle farm property where he lived. The barn was a fitting place for a railway clock, because Roland had already been storing a steam engine there, which he’d also bought from the railroad to “tinker” with.

To get the clock ticking again, he built new parts, and powered the whole thing with a car battery — a regrettable modernization, but a necessary one, given that Roland was too old to be winding the clock, a job that once took two men.

As it happened — and as is fitting for St. Pancras’ clock — Roland’s farm sits on what was once the property of an Augustinian priory.

Roland Hoggard died in 2013. I suspect St. Pancras is interceding for him, just like clockwork.

Leave a comment

The news

England’s Bishop Marcus Stock has a lot to juggle right now.

Stock is the diocesan bishop of Leeds, a northern English diocese of 170,000 Catholics.

He’s also the apostolic administrator of Middlesbrough, home to another 100,000 Catholics.

Oh, and in March, the pope appointed him administrator of Hallam, and its 66,000 Catholics.

Three hats means three presbyterates, three finance councils, three chanceries, three cultures, and three histories.

It’s a lot for one man.

And while he does the day-to-day work, Bishop Stock is also overseeing a consultation on whether the three dioceses should be merged to one — and that consultation may well become a global template for merging dioceses around the world.

Stock talked with The Pillar about all of that — and about his goal of moving the process expeditiously, filing a report with the Vatican “by the end of the summer.”

You can read all about it, right here.

—
A recently unsealed arrest warrant in the case of Bishop Emmanuel Shaleta details the extent of financial crimes alleged against the prelate.

The warrant confirms reporting on the case from The Pillar, which in February broke the news that Shaleta had been accused of embezzlement and personal misconduct, amid a Vatican investigation that ended when both Shaleta and former Chaldean Patriarch Cardinal Rafael Sako saw their resignations from office accepted March 10.

The bishop, who could face more than 10 years in prison, is next due in court for a hearing in June, with an eventual trial likely to begin in August.

Shaleta has said he is the victim of a media campaign against him — by that he seems to mean The Pillar — and of Chaldeans in his diocese who opposed his leadership.

Read all about it.

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.

The Institute for Works of Religion — a Vatican bank sometimes called “The Vatican Bank” — posted its best financial results in a decade, according to its annual report released Monday.

The IOR is a commercial bank used by Vatican curial institutions, religious orders, and Catholic dioceses and institutions internationally, usually based in countries without a reliable financial sector, as well as Vatican employees and city state residents.

Its financial health is important for its customers, but also for the curial ministry of the pope — the bank pays a dividend to the pope, which can be important for shoring up Vatican finance.

And the IOR’s very good year comes as a high note for its departing leadership team after more than a decade of reforming work.

Here’s the latest.

—

Several Venezuelan bishops decried on Friday the Venezuelan regime’s admission that a political prisoner died under law enforcement custody.

While the government claims that Victor Hugo Quero Navas died of respiratory failure after suffering a gastrointestinal hemorrhage, human rights activists and several Venezuelan bishops have cast doubt on the official account, calling for an independent investigation into his death while in custody in July 2025.

Archbishop Víctor Hugo Basabe warned that those responsible for Quero’s death will “have a lot to answer for before God.”

Here’s the story.

—

The Metropolitan Museum of Art opened recently a major retrospective on the life and work of Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (1483-1520), the multi-faceted Italian Renaissance painter, architect, and designer known simply as “Raphael.”

An important enough Renaissance artist to be a Ninja Turtle’s namesake, there has not previously been a major American exhibit on the man — which might come as a surprise.

But art critic William Newton took to The Pillar this weekend to point out that the exhibit fails to do the great man justice.

Here’s why.

Subscribe now

Love you madly

I have a friend who is an extremely attentive husband.

He never misses a held door for his wife. He is constantly bringing her a fresh cocktail, or a glass of wine, or just a glass of water. Before she knows she’s cold, he’s brought her a blanket.

He is attentive to the little things — and it sometimes drives me nuts.

The problem is that he’s not doing any of that stuff to show off. He doesn’t even notice he’s doing it. He just loves his wife, and what began as paying attention has become in two decades of marriage just a reflexive habit of love. If I said he was a better husband than me, he’d just laugh and say, “yeah right.”

Then he’d bring his wife, and probably mine, a cupcake or something.

He reminds me of all the ways I might love my wife better. She’d never say anything, of course, because Mrs. Flynn is a kind woman — but this man’s love for his wife is obvious, and palpable, and practiced, and consistent, and you can’t help but see it.

And, sure, it drives me nuts because it makes me question my own levels of attention to my beloved spouse.

But still, you’ve gotta admire him for it.

From someone else, the same behavior might seem contrived. If I tried to reach his level of attentiveness all at once, Mrs. Flynn would decide I was laying things on just a bit thick, and wonder what the hell kind of angle I was working, and what I was after — or what I was making up for.

Read more

Join Dr. Scott Powell, JD Flynn, and Kate Olivera as they look ahead to the readings for the Ascension— including a liturgical psalm that is key to understanding the Ascension, and the Jewish paradigm at play in Jesus’ final words to the Apostles in the Gospel of Matthew.

Share

This episode is brought to you by the 2026 Amazing Parish Leadership Summit, taking place August 3-5 in Houston, TX.

Join leaders from across the Church - from bishops to pastors, parish staff, volunteers or just on fire parishioners looking to experience and lead renewal.

Learn more at amazingparish.org/pillar

Subscribe now

Already read the readings? Skip ahead to 6:15.

Reading 1 - Acts 1:1-11

Psalm 47: 2-3, 6-9

Reading 2 - Ephesians 1:17-23

Gospel - Matthew 28:16-20

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

Read more

A redacted arrest warrant — omitting the names of key witnesses in the case — was ordered unsealed April 12 in the criminal case against Shaleta, who is facing money laundering and embezzlement charges.

The arrest warrant confirms reporting on the case from The Pillar, which in February broke the news that Shaleta had been accused of embezzlement and personal misconduct, amid a Vatican investigation that ended when both Shaleta and former Chaldean Patriarch Cardinal Rafeal Sako saw their resignations from office accepted March 10.

Leave a comment

—

Shaleta, who previously led the Chaldean Catholic eparchy covering the western half of the U.S., was arrested at San Diego’s airport March 5, as he attempted to leave the United States with more than $9,000 in cash.

The bishop is accused of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash from his eparchy, attempting to reimburse missing funds with checks signed by him from a cathedral charity account.

Shaleta pled not guilty March 9 to 16 criminal counts of money laundering and embezzlement, and saw his resignation from office accepted by Pope Leo the next day.

While most documents in the case remain sealed, the bishop’s recently unsealed arrest warrant details the case against him.

Consistent with The Pillar’s reporting, the warrant says that Shaleta first fell under suspicion in December 2024, when “discrepancies” were noticed in eparchy and cathedral bank accounts, including “approximately $427,345 missing from the [eparchy’s ‘needy account’] over an eight-month period.”

The warrant details the allegation that Shaleta perpetrated a rent scam, by directing a tenant to pay him monthly rent on an eparchial property in cash, and then writing checks from the eparchy needy account to cover the missing money in the cathedral account.

Between March 1 and October 31, eight such checks were written from the needy account, the arrest warrant recounted — most for $33,990, but the first for $34,000.

“The cash received by Bishop Shaleta was never placed into the [needy] accounts to reimburse the checks written to the [cathedral accounts],” the warrant alleged.

In addition to the rent scam, the arrest warrant recounted the charge that, “it appeared Shaleta would receive cash for church related trips, perpetual Masses, and other rental hall related costs.”

When that and other funds were found to be missing, “Bishop Shaleta was unable to provide documentation or records of how the cash was spent,” and “later claimed the cash was given to those in need in Iraq without providing further information,” the warrant’s affadavit alleged.

The bishop was released from jail in early March after making a bail of $125,000. A San Diego judge ordered the bishop to undergo GPS monitoring until his trial, noting the amount of money he is alleged to have stolen, and the fact that he was arrested while at the airport, with a flight booked to Europe, and more than $9,000 in his possession.

Shaleta is next due in court for a readiness hearing in June, with an eventual trial likely to begin in August.

Share

—
The Pillar first reported a Vatican investigation into Shaleta in February, concerning both the financial crimes detailed in the arrest warrant and the prospect of personal misconduct.

The bishop is alleged to have made frequent trips to a Tijuana brothel linked to the human trafficking industry, and known to have maintained a longstanding and close relationship to a woman with whom he shared a bank account and unfettered access to each others’ homes.

The Pillar also reported that while Shaleta submitted a letter of resignation from his diocesan post in late January, Sako lobbied at the Vatican and among Chaldean bishops to see the bishop transferred to an administrative post in Baghdad, as a high-ranking official of the Chaldean patriarchate.

Sako had previously acknowledged to The Pillar that he raised the prospect of a transfer to Vatican officials, but suggested the idea was floated only before the Vatican-ordered investigation into Shaleta was “clear.” Sources have told The Pillar that the dicastery received a report on the case in late 2025, well before Sako polled Chaldean bishops about a transfer this year.

Sako’s resignation was accepted March 10, the same day as Shaleta’s, in a move widely taken among Chaldeans as indication of Vatican displeasure with the patriarch’s involvement in the case.

For his part, Shaleta has said he is the victim of a media campaign and of Chaldeans in his diocese who opposed his leadership.

If convicted, Shaleta could face 15 years in prison.

Subscribe now

The institute, commonly referred to as the Vatican bank, is the sole commercial financial institution of the Vatican City state. For the financial year 2025, the bank posted net income of 51 million euros — a 55 percent increase from the previous year’s 32 million euro profit, and the strongest result since 2015.

As an institution owned by the Holy See, the IOR paid an annual dividend to the pope of 24.3 million euros, an increase of more than 76 percent from the previous year, while allocating a further 600,000 euros in direct charitable donations.

The IOR, the only Vatican financial body subject to external inspection and international financial regulation, has nearly 6 billion euros of assets under management for its 12,000 clients. Its financial statements are independently verified by the international auditing firm Deloitte & Touche.

According to sources close to the bank, the year-on-year increased profits were considered especially positive because they represented “higher quality” revenue as well.

“In previous decades, the institute had to pursue a more aggressive means of generating revenue,” said one official not authorized to speak to the press. “The Secretariat of State expected a certain amount as a contribution to the [Vatican] budget and it had to be delivered, by going into the bank’s reserves if necessary.”

“Now, after years of reform, the revenue returns have been shifted to more reliable less volatile sources,” the official said. “This allows not only for increasing dividends to be paid but, crucially, for the bank’s reserves to be reinforced.”

The IOR customers include Vatican curial institutions, religious orders, and Catholic dioceses and institutions internationally, usually based in countries without a reliable financial sector, as well as Vatican employees and city state residents.

In addition to increased profits, the bank also boasted an enhanced capitalization and liquidity. Because there is no “lender of last resort” in the Vatican, the bank has a policy of maintaining an above industry standard of risk mitigation.

Each year, the IOR publishes its intermediation margin — the difference between how much it made on interest versus how much it paid in interest to clients. In 2025, the margin was 66.3 million euros, up from 51.5 million in 2024.

The bank also reports annually on its Tier 1 capital ratio, an international standard measuring liquidity and institutional risk exposure for financial institutions. The minimum international banking requirement is a ratio of 6%. The ratio for larger U.S. banks is usually somewhere between 13% and 17%, for smaller private banks the ratio is usually around 25%.

In 2025, the IOR had a Tier 1 ratio of 71.9%, up from 69.4% in 2024.

Sources close to the bank explained to The Pillar that while the “pure” number of the Tier 1 ratio could appear unnecessarily high, the “functional” size of the bank’s capital ratio were approaching what would otherwise be considered standard best practice.

“It has to be borne in mind that because there is no lender of last resort, IOR has to be its own ‘backstop’,” said a senior official. “In addition to providing against a catastrophic market event, mass customer exit, or something similar, there is also a separate employee pension fund which has to be properly capitalized and guaranteed.”

“Once you properly assess the costs of these needs, the effective [Tier 1 ratio] number is closer to 23 percent, which is about right for an institution of this size.”

Subscribe now

The increased profits and reserves for the bank mark a high note for its departing leadership team after more than a decade of reforming work.

The annual accounts’ approval last month marked the end of term for the president of the IOR’s Board of Superintendence, Jean-Baptiste de Franssu, and director general, Gianfranco Mammí, both of whom have served past the usual limit of two five-year terms in office.

De Franssu led the IOR from 2014 until last month — exceeding the maximum term allowed under the bank’s governing regulations after being asked to remain in post by Pope Francis.

Under his leadership, the bank became both profitable and financially transparent, coming under the oversight of international regulations and inspections, posting a series of year-on-year increases in profits despite broader Vatican financial headwinds.

Earlier this year, the bank launched two ethical investment indices “designed to serve as a reference for Catholic investments,” composed of 50 companies each in which the IOR said investment would be fully consistent with Catholic ethical principles.

In 2021, the IOR’s former president became the first person to be handed a jail sentence by a Vatican City court for financial crimes, after defrauding the bank of millions by using his position to sell parts of the IOR’s property portfolio to himself and co-conspirators.

Following that result, de Franssu hailed the recovery of more than 17 million euros by the bank “which had been stolen from the [IOR] before 2014” as “amongst the important achievements” of 2022.

De Franssu and Mammí also became the locus of a battle for wider Vatican financial reform in the Secretariat of State’s London property scandal, after they rebuffed a request for a 150 million euro loan from the secretariat to refinance the building after its acquisition in 2018.

Under pressure from senior Vatican officials to approve it, despite their regulatory concerns, the two bankers flagged the loan request to prosecutors, triggering the investigation that ultimately led to the financial crimes trial, currently being heard on appeal, which convicted former sostituto Cardinal Angelo Becciu and eight others.

While De Franssu and Mammí faced retaliatory action from the Secretariat of State for those events, Pope Francis broadened the influence and importance of the IOR in response, ordering that all curial assets and investments be handled by the bank.

That reform was rolled back by Pope Leo XIV last year, who authorized Vatican dicasteries and institutions to effectively choose their own investment vehicles and managers.

Effective April 28, de Franssu was succeeded by François Pauly, previously an IOR board member, in what the bank described in a press notice as a “carefully managed succession process” aimed at “ensuring continuity in the governance of the Institute.”

Pauly, a Luxembourgian national, has served as a member of the Board of Superintendence since 2024. He is currently Chairman of La Luxembourgeoise Group, and sits on the finance council of the Archdiocese of Luxembourg.

According to the IOR statement, he was elected by the bank’s board in December last year, receiving the approval of the IOR’s Commission of Cardinals at the end of January.

He previously served as CEO and Chairman of Banque Internationale à Luxembourg, and until 2021 was a member of the Vatican Pension Fund.

Subscribe now

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

Read more

Subscribe now

On May 7, the Ministry of Penitentiary Services in Venezuela published a statement saying that political prisoner Víctor Hugo Quero Navas died in a military hospital on July 24, 2025 after being arrested in January 2025.

While the government claimed Quero died of respiratory failure after suffering a gastrointestinal hemorrhage, human rights activists and several Venezuelan bishops have cast doubt on the official account, calling for an independent investigation into his death.

In a statement to The Pillar, Archbishop Jesús González de Zárate of Valencia, president of the Venezuelan bishops’ conference, called Quero’s death a “regrettable event, which once again highlights the serious deterioration of the Venezuelan justice system and calls on us, once again, to demand the full release of those detained because of their political views or for expressing their opinions on the Venezuelan situation.”

Archbishop Víctor Hugo Basabe of Coro, one of the most vocal episcopal critics of the Venezuelan regime, also spoke up about Quero’s death. In a social media post, he denounced “the repressive organs of Venezuela’s criminal regime.”

Basabe highlighted the “heartbreaking” suffering of Quero’s 82-year-old mother, Carmen Teresa Navas, who has become one of the most visible advocates for the more than 500 political prisoners still held in Venezuelan jails, even after an amnesty law led to the release of hundreds of detainees.

He also questioned the regime’s delay in acknowledging that Quero had died while detained in a Venezuelan prison.

“Why deny a mother the right to mourn and bury her son when she has long been asking to be granted the right to know where he was being held? Why such cruelty toward a poor mother whose only wish was to find her son so she could at least visit him?” he said.

Basabe warned that those responsible for Quero’s death will “have a lot to answer for before God.”

“In Venezuela, for there to be true peace, there must be justice,” he continued. “Such criminals cannot expect to go unpunished for the harm they have caused.”

Share

Quero, a businessman who had served briefly in the military, was arrested by the DGCIM, one of Venezuela’s secret police agencies, in Caracas on Jan. 1, 2025. He was charged with treason, conspiracy, and terrorism.

Quero had no contact with family members or legal counsel after his arrest, and no information was provided about him, including the location where he was being held. The government later said that when he was arrested, he provided no information about family, and no family members requested a prison visit.

However his mother, Carmen Navas, became a symbol among the families of Venezuelan political prisoners, traveling to various prisons across Caracas and demanding information from Venezuelan authorities about her son’s whereabouts.

Quero is the 15th political prisoner to die in law enforcement custody in Venezuela since 2020.

According to the Venezuelan government’s statement, Quero was hospitalized in the Military Hospital of Caracas on July 15, 2025 due to gastrointestinal bleeding and a fever, and died nine days later due to respiratory failure.

Several Venezuelan political prisoners who were released following a January 2026 amnesty law told Navas that Quero had been at the El Rodeo I prison and had become very sick the previous summer with a stomach disease after he was fed only beans for months.

Leave a comment

The Venezuelan Church had become generally more timid in its denunciation of the Maduro regime after a 2024 crackdown on dissent, which followed a presidential election held that year in which Maduro won under suspicions of fraud.

However, since Maduro’s capture by the United States on Jan. 3, the Venezuelan bishops have regained their voice in criticizing the regime.

On Jan. 14, Archbishop Polito Rodríguez of Barquisimeto delivered a homily calling for change in the country.

“Regrettably, for decades, corruption has become part of our culture. We’ve gotten used to it in our families, in our institutions, in our homes, in the economy, in politics, which has resulted in an ethical and moral decomposition that affects all,” he said.

“We pray for all the [political] prisoners, for their families. We applaud that some of them have been freed, but many more are missing, whose cries can no longer be ignored. Therefore, their prompt release shall be a gesture of reconciliation and justice,” he said.

In February, the two Venezuelan cardinals, Cardinal Baltazar Porras and Cardinal Diego Padrón, published a letter encouraging the local Catholic Church to work for the release of all political prisoners, an end to repression of free speech, and respect for the results of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 presidential election.

Also in February, the Venezuelan bishops’ conference released a letter criticizing the presence of foreign actors in the country under the Chávez and Maduro regimes.

The bishops said in their letter that “it is necessary to rebuild democratic institutions; restore the independence of public authorities; establish a credible Supreme Court of Justice and National Electoral Council that guarantee free and fair elections; ensure the state’s territorial control of the country.”

They quoted Pope Leo’s Jan. 4 Angelus address calling for the good of the Venezuelan people to prevail “over any other consideration,” and saying that “the life of the Venezuelan people has been marked in the past years by generalized poverty… generalized and unpunished corruption, violations of human rights, including freedom of speech, and the right to due process and [legal] defense.”

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 Podcast

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

Read more

Then, they talk about a Vatican-ordered Vos estis investigation in the Diocese of Baton Rouge.

Share

This episode is brought to you by the 2026 Amazing Parish Leadership Summit. This August, leaders like you from across the Church will gather for three days of inspiration, encouragement and equipping.

Learn more at amazingparish.org/pillar

-
Photo credit: Pope Leo in St. Peter’s Square via Vatican Media.

The 64-year-old has served since 2014 as the Bishop of Leeds, a historically influential northern English diocese with around 170,000 Catholics.

Since December 2025, he has been the apostolic administrator of the neighboring Diocese of Middlesbrough, with roughly 98,000 Catholics.

And since March 2026, he has also been the apostolic administrator of another neighboring diocese, Hallam, which has approximately 66,000 Catholics.

That means he’s now responsible for a grand total of 334,000 souls, located mainly in the historic county of Yorkshire. This daunting assignment could become permanent, as Pope Leo XIV has asked Stock to lead a consultation over whether the three dioceses should be merged.

One factor favoring a merger is that the dioceses have a common historical origin. When Pope Pius IX restored the Catholic hierarchy in England in 1850, following centuries of anti-Catholic persecution, he established the Diocese of Beverley in Yorkshire.

The Beverley diocese was divided in 1878 into the dioceses of Leeds and Middlesbrough. The Hallam diocese was formed in 1980 with territory taken from the dioceses of Leeds and Nottingham. A merger of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam dioceses could therefore be styled as a reunification of sorts.

But why is a potential triple merger on the table now? How is the consultation being conducted? And does it have a predetermined outcome? Stock answered these and other questions in a May 8 interview with The Pillar.

Subscribe now

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

What was the background to the pope’s request that you begin consultations on the future of the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam?

The first I knew about it was when I was asked to be the apostolic administrator of Middlesbrough diocese. That was just before Christmas last year. The nuncio contacted me and said the Holy Father had appointed me as the apostolic administrator of Middlesbrough diocese, and asked if I accepted the appointment, which I did.

That was initially to talk about the reunification of the Middlesbrough and Leeds dioceses. “Reunification” is my word. I don’t want to put that into the mouth of the Apostolic See. But effectively, that’s what it is, because obviously we were one diocese many years ago.

Then just before Holy Week, I was contacted again by the nunciature to say the Holy Father had appointed me also as the apostolic administrator of Hallam. So that’s how it came to be the three dioceses. The appointments didn’t take place together.

Middlesbrough followed the retirement of Bishop Terry Drainey after turning 75. The other one followed the resignation of Bishop Ralph Heskett because he had been unwell.

What are the reasons for considering an amalgamation of the three dioceses?

I’ve been having consultation meetings. There are nine organized across the three dioceses. I’ve done six so far. The sixth was last night in Bradford. Part of the explanation I’m giving to people is that we mustn’t feel singled out by the Holy See. This process of looking at whether dioceses should merge has been going on for a number of decades now, across various jurisdictions around the world. In Italy, it’s been going on for decades and in Ireland for quite a number of years. We’ve already had our first merger in Wales: Cardiff and Menevia.

In relation to Middlesbrough, specifically, in the ad limina report that Bishop Drainey submitted to the Holy See in 2018, he said that perhaps now was the time to consider whether Middlesbrough diocese should be merged with another diocese, though he didn’t specify Leeds.

This followed discussions that had taken place even earlier within the diocese, about the future viability of the diocese, because of the relatively small number of priests incardinated in the diocese — that is, priests that are actually members of the diocese itself, rather than religious priests or priests from missionary institutes.

So that question was already buzzing around. As I understand it, the intention was that following the ad limina visit, the metropolitan archbishop [of Liverpool] would be invited to come and look at that question with the bishop across the diocese. But then COVID intervened, and that wasn’t followed up.

Presumably, after COVID, Bishop Terry was approaching his retirement, so probably it was then put on hold, but I don’t know for certain.

If that’s in an ad limina report, then it would have been noted and picked up. When any subsequent bishop is appointed, they look at the ad limina reports to see what the state of the diocese is when they consider who they might appoint.

Quite a number of statistics are provided to the Holy See in those reports, and they would be looking at that as well.

There would be some questions over whether, even in 1878, Middlesbrough was going to be a viable diocese because of the way the borders were drawn up. There was an academic study in 2014 which argued that from day one it didn’t really have much of a chance because of the way the division took place.

And you could also argue the same in 1980, when Hallam was created.

Subscribe now

It didn’t have enough people to sustain it?

Enough people, and also the number of diocesan clergy and the vocations that historically have come from those areas was quite low.

What reactions have you had to your presentations in the dioceses?

Remarkably positive so far, from both clergy and laity. The meetings are being conducted in the synodal fashion, if you like. Having attended the synods myself, I decided to try and mirror the process. Participants are divided into smaller groups, tables of about 10 people, sometimes a few less or few more, depending on the total size.

People are invited to discuss the two questions in the consultation document. The consultation responses are being collated by my secretary in Middlesbrough, who will help me to draft a report that we will then share with the laity and clergy of the diocese before I submit a final report to Rome.

Is this the ‘conversation in the spirit’ method, with people seated at a round table?

That’s correct. I explain to people what we did in Rome, that we went around the table once, with each person being able to say what their thoughts were about the proposition and not being interrupted by anyone.

We went around the table a second time and people were then invited to reflect on what they had heard others say. And the third time, you go around the table to see if there are points of convergence or divergence on what is being discussed. And that forms the report from that table.

Then we receive the feedback from those tables, so people can hear the feedback from each other. Then I make a response, if I can, to any of the points, for clarification.

It’s important to note that these aren’t open meetings. What I asked for was the clergy from each parish, the chair of the parish finance committee (or their delegate), and the chair of the parish pastoral council (or their delegate). If a parish doesn’t have a parish pastoral council, then a leading lay person who is very active in the life of the parish.

The reason for that is because, obviously, the chair of the finance committee and chair of the parish pastoral council are people who are already investing time and energy in the life of their parish. But also they bring to the consultation meeting quite critical knowledge. The chair of the finance committee will have a good understanding of the life of the parish in terms of its resources. The person from the pastoral council will have a good understanding of the wider life of the parish, its pastoral and spiritual needs.

The information we’re getting at the consultation meeting is to the point. The last thing we need is any old person coming along and telling me what flavor of ice cream they like. You need information that’s going to actually help you in the consultation process.

This sounds like a middle way between a fully open public assembly and a narrow consultation with, say, just the priests of the diocese.

The consultation is also open to anyone to make comments online. We encouraged parishes to meet as groups and make a response as a group or as individuals through the online consultation. It will all be considered as part of the information that’s collated.

Subscribe now

Why did you choose to have a fairly expansive consultation, rather than a quick and narrow one?

Well, I’m trying to do it quickly. I would hope to have a report by the end of the summer that I can send to the Holy Father, because a lack of certainty is not very helpful to people in these situations. That’s why I’ve tried to conduct the whole process fairly expeditiously.

I just think it’s important to follow the sign that the Holy Father has asked us all to undertake, which is to act synodally in the way we operate as bishops.

This will have an impact on the life of both the clergy and the faithful. You could argue that the impact of whether it’s one diocese or three dioceses isn’t necessarily felt at a very local level, at a parish level. But it will do eventually as we look at the needs and capacity across the diocese to provide priests, and how we’re going to support local communities to live out their mission in the future.

What would you say to the cynic who argues that, despite the synodal element, this is essentially a tick-box exercise: you’ve been asked by Rome to unite these three dioceses, regardless of what anyone has to say about the issue?

The fact is, the Holy Father hasn’t asked me to unite them. He’s asked me to conduct what he called “a phase of study” and discussion about the possibility of the dioceses being united. I haven’t been given a task to undertake other than the consultation.

It will be his decision, not mine. I’ve been saying rather cheekily, I suppose, at these meetings that if there’s any one person who’s got an investment in it all going pear-shaped it’s me — because I get to go back to being just the Bishop of Leeds and having far less work to do.

Could you foresee the return, in some form, of the Diocese of Beverley, which covered the whole of Yorkshire from 1850 to 1878?

I can see the benefits of it, despite the inconvenience and extra work for myself. I can see that strategically it makes good sense, especially when you look at the statistics regarding the number of clergy and the number of parishes that we currently have across the three dioceses. There does need to be some real strategic thinking about how we’re going to exercise our mission in the future.

Is the consultation in Leeds, Middlesbrough and Hallam part of a broader review of dioceses in the British Isles?

The Scottish bishops, for example, have been asked to reflect on “whether the present situation of eight dioceses is suitable.”

I’m not aware of any request from the Holy See for our own episcopal conference — that is, England and Wales — to undertake a review at this time, although it is just generally part of our responsibility as bishops anyway to look at whether the borders of our dioceses need to be adjusted.

Quite often, there are adjustments to diocesan borders, for instance. I’ve transferred parishes to other dioceses and other dioceses have transferred parishes to me when it makes geographical sense. But that’s slightly different to what you’re talking about, which is mergers of dioceses.

But the open and transparent answer to your question is: if there’s been a request made to the president of the bishops’ conference, it’s not been told to me.

Any other observations about the process?

It’s a challenge for me, but it’s exciting. I know the three presbyterates are very much behind it, which surprised me, because I thought there might be resistance.

I suppose it’s because many of our priests know each other already over the years. There is this sense of being part of the one historic county of Yorkshire. There’s a willingness to make it work.

Rather touchingly, they’re all rather more concerned about me than they are about the process, which is lovely.

Subscribe now

Like so many Gen Xers, I have a complicated emotional relationship with recycling. We grew up absolutely flooded with exhortations to recycle, and saw many, many illustrations of the process: A smiling child tosses a juice bottle into a green bin, and it smoothly emerges seconds later as two elegant wine glasses. Or sometimes the global nature of the system was emphasized: A rising tide of grimy, tattered, worthless trash threatens to swallow the earth, until it’s collected and crushed into formless potentiality. Then a cloud hides it from our sight, and it is all reborn as tidy stacks of sparkling, desirable consumer goods. Recycling will save the world.

I still recycle, and I definitely still think it’s worthwhile to reduce and reuse as much as possible; but I’m way more cynical about what actually happens when we toss something into a recycling bin. Some of that transformative magic does happen, especially with metal and glass. But a lot of it is more complicated. There’s a lot of waste, a lot of fraud, and a lot of inefficiency, and I don’t blame people for wondering if it’s not all just a giant scam, especially with plastics. Much of the push to recycle, it turns out, was really a push to use plastic.

But wow, the imagery in all those optimistic PSAs was compelling. Sometimes the recycled trash would straight up transmogrify into a flower — usually some kind of daisy, a clean, white blossom adorably stretching its leaves like a child waking up from a dream. A yawn, a stretch, and a pop! Beauty, fresh and new, sprung forth from a heap of what was once refuse.

That image is so nice. Isn’t it nice? Wouldn’t it be nice if things really worked that way?

Oh friends, have I got good news for you.

Every time we take a sin and give it to God, he makes it into something good. Every time we take our suffering and pain and sorrow and offer it up, he makes it into something beautiful. This is a foundational truth of our faith, of human life: Nothing needs to be wasted. Everything can be transformed. All you have to do is give it to Jesus.

Thus endeth the part of this essay that can easily be read in a youth minister voice.

What Jesus does is not recycling. Even in the ideal recycling scenario with no waste or disfunction,, the best that can possibly happen is something undesirable gets its materials rearranged into something more useful. And that’s good! But what you get still just a product, and it can never be anything more than that. Eventually, everything manufactured will run out of reboots and will have to be trashed. It is the blight man was born for. Even recycling can’t stave off moth and rust forever.

Jesus does not recycle.

Read more