To elaborate on the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is our mission on Plinthos (Gk. "brick"); and to do so anonymously, so that, like any brick in the wall, we might do our little part in the strength of the structure of humanity almost unnoticed.
"The SSPX should refuse to suspend its episcopal consecrations."
I can only note with sorrow and indignation the statement released today by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, at the end of his meeting with Don Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.
After decades of humiliation, inconclusive dialogues, partial concessions revoked with “Traditionis Custodes,” deafening silences regarding doctrinal and liturgical deviations widespread throughout the Church, and even more serious doctrinal and moral errors promoted by the Highest Throne, Rome now claims to make the suspension of the episcopal consecrations announced by the SSPX for July 1st a preliminary condition for dialogue. These consecrations are not acts of rebellion, but a supreme act of fidelity to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, deprived for almost sixty years of Bishops who preach the integral Doctrine and administer the Sacraments without compromising with error.
The Dicastery's statement subtly repeats the same modernist scheme seen in 1988: it offers a "theological dialogue" on issues the Holy See has always refused to seriously address—religious freedom, destructive episcopal collegiality, pan-heretical ecumenism, the Nostra Aetate declaration that equates false religions with the one true Faith, the Abu Dhabi Document—while threatening "schism" for the only gesture that could guarantee the certainty of Apostolic Succession. But who wields "schism" as a weapon today?
Who excommunicated the Bishops consecrated in 1988 for defending Tradition and its beating heart, the Catholic Mass?
Who excommunicated me and silenced me, while promoting declared heretics and covering up abuses of every kind?
Who forced the faithful to submit to an authority that has renounced immutable Catholic doctrine in the name of a "new humanism" and a "synodality" that is nothing other than the cancer of democracy applied to the Catholic Church to destroy from within its divine hierarchical Constitution and Petrine Primacy? The true schism is not that of those who consecrate Bishops to guard and transmit the Catholic Faith in its entirety, but rather that of the conciliar and synodal Hierarchy, which has rejected Apostolic Tradition, replacing Doctrine with heretical ambiguities, Catholic Worship with a Protestantized liturgy, and Authority with a totalitarian power exercised against the faithful who refuse to apostatize.
The Society of Saint Pius X does not need the permission of those who have renounced the Faith to do what Providence asks of it: namely, to perpetuate the episcopal line faithful to Tradition. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted not out of schism, but out of necessity; the same state of necessity that persists today, aggravated by the systematic persecution of the traditional Mass and the imposition of false doctrines that contradict the perennial Magisterium. Therefore, with the clarity that the situation requires and with the responsibility that falls to those who have sworn to defend the Faith to the point of shedding their blood:
* I urge the Society of Saint Pius X to categorically refuse to suspend the announced episcopal consecrations. They are non-negotiable: they are a sacred duty before God and souls;
* I urge you to reject any "theological dialogue" that starts from the assumption that the Second Vatican Council is compatible with Tradition. The problem is not "interpreting" Vatican II, but recognizing that it introduced errors that undermine Catholic doctrine on essential points and jeopardize the salvation of souls; * I declare that true ecclesial communion is not measured by canonical recognition by a Hierarchy that has lost the Faith, but by integral fidelity to divine Revelation, to the two-thousand-year-old Magisterium, and to the Holy Sacraments transmitted without adulteration. * I invite all Catholics of good will—clergy, religious, and faithful—to recognize that the state of necessity endures and that the salvation of souls requires pastors who do not compromise with error.
I am certain that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X will continue to pray for the conversion of unfaithful pastors and for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And that it will not exchange the Truth for a recognition that would mean accepting error and betraying the legacy of its Founder, the venerated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
Viterbo, February 12, 2026
__
Plinthos postscript.
In this age of "listening" and of every manner of "tolerance" this excommunicated Archbishop makes many very valid arguments for rejection of negotiations with the catholic hierarchy regarding the celebration of the Roman Mass of the Ages. When will the Vatican finally officially admit the total failure of the Second Vatican Council?
We need to try something new! Bold, Unapologetic, Tradition!
TO THE PRESBYTERATE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MADRID ON THE OCCASION OF THE "CONVIVIUM" PRESBYTERAL GATHERING
Dear Sons:
I am pleased to address you with this letter on the occasion of your Presbyteral Gathering, and I do so with a sincere desire for fraternity and unity. I thank your Archbishop and, from the bottom of my heart, each one of you for your willingness to meet as a presbyterate, not only to discuss common matters, but also to support one another in the mission you share.
I value the commitment with which you live and exercise your priesthood in parishes, ministries, and diverse realities. I know that this ministry often unfolds amidst weariness, complex situations, and a silent dedication witnessed only by God. Precisely for this reason, I hope these words reach you as a gesture of closeness and encouragement, and that this encounter fosters an atmosphere of sincere listening, true communion, and trusting openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who never ceases to work in your lives and mission.
The times the Church is living through invite us to pause together for serene and honest reflection. Not so much to dwell on immediate diagnoses or emergency measures, but to learn to deeply understand the moment we are living in, recognizing, in the light of faith, both the challenges and the possibilities the Lord opens before us. On this path, it becomes increasingly necessary to cultivate our vision and practice discernment, so that we may perceive more clearly what God is already working, often silently and discreetly, in our midst and in our communities.
This reading of the present cannot disregard the cultural and social framework in which faith is lived and expressed today. In many circles, we observe advanced processes of secularization, a growing polarization in public discourse, and a tendency to reduce the complexity of the human person, interpreting it through ideologies or partial and insufficient categories. Within this framework, faith risks being instrumentalized, banalized, or relegated to the realm of the irrelevant, while forms of coexistence that dispense with any transcendent reference become entrenched.
Added to this is a profound cultural shift that cannot be ignored: the progressive disappearance of shared points of reference. For a long time, the Christian seed found largely fertile ground, because the moral language, the great questions about the meaning of life, and certain fundamental notions were, at least in part, shared. Today, that common ground has weakened considerably. Many of the conceptual assumptions that for centuries facilitated the transmission of the Christian message are no longer evident and, in many cases, even comprehensible. The Gospel encounters not only indifference, but also a different cultural landscape, in which words no longer carry the same meaning and where the initial proclamation can no longer be taken for granted.
However, this description does not fully capture what is really happening. I am convinced—and I know that many of you perceive this in the daily exercise of your ministry—that a new disquiet is stirring in the hearts of many people, especially young people. The absolute pursuit of well-being has not brought the expected happiness; freedom divorced from truth has not generated the promised fulfillment; and material progress alone has not managed to satisfy the deepest longing of the human heart.
Indeed, the dominant proposals, along with certain hermeneutical and philosophical interpretations of humanity's destiny, far from offering a sufficient answer, have often left a greater sense of weariness and emptiness. Precisely for this reason, we observe that many people are beginning to open themselves to a more honest and authentic search, a search that, accompanied by patience and respect, is leading them back to an encounter with Christ. This reminds us that for the priest, this is not a time for withdrawal or resignation, but for faithful presence and generous availability. All of this stems from the recognition that the initiative always belongs to the Lord, who is already at work and precedes us with his grace.
This is how it is becoming clearer what kind of priests Madrid —and the entire Church— needs at this time. Certainly not men defined by a multitude of tasks or the pressure of results, but men configured to Christ, capable of sustaining their ministry through a living relationship with Him, nourished by the Eucharist and expressed in a pastoral charity marked by the sincere gift of self. It is not a matter of inventing new models or redefining the identity we have received, but of proposing anew, with renewed intensity, the priesthood in its most authentic core—being alter Christus —allowing Him to shape our lives, unify our hearts, and give form to a ministry lived from intimacy with God, faithful dedication to the Church, and concrete service to the people entrusted to us.
My dear children, allow me to speak to you today about the priesthood using an image you know well: your Cathedral. Not to describe a building, but to learn from it. For cathedrals—like any sacred place—exist, like the priesthood, to lead us to an encounter with God and reconciliation with our brothers and sisters, and their elements hold a lesson for our life and ministry.
By simply looking at its facade, we learn something essential. It is the first thing we see, and yet it doesn't say everything: it indicates, suggests, invites. Likewise, the priest does not live to show off, but neither does he live to hide. His life is called to be visible, coherent, and recognizable, even if it is not always understood. The facade does not exist for itself: it leads inward. Similarly, the priest is never an end in himself. His entire life is called to point to God and accompany the journey toward the Mystery, without usurping God's place.
Upon reaching the threshold, we understand that it is not fitting for everything to enter, for it is a sacred space. The threshold marks a passage, a necessary separation. Before entering, something remains outside. The priesthood, too, is lived in this way: being in the world, but not of the world (cf. Jn 17:14). At this crossroads lie celibacy, poverty, and obedience; not as a denial of life, but as the concrete means by which the priest can belong entirely to God while still walking among men.
The cathedral is also a common home, where everyone has a place. This is how the Church is called to be, especially toward her priests: a home that welcomes, protects, and never abandons. And this is how priestly fraternity must be lived: as the concrete experience of knowing oneself to be at home, responsible for one another, attentive to the lives of our brothers and sisters, and ready to support each other. My sons, no one should feel exposed or alone in the exercise of the ministry: resist together the individualism that impoverishes the heart and weakens the mission!
As we walk through the temple, we notice that everything rests on the columns that support the whole. The Church has seen in them the image of the Apostles (cf. Eph 2:20). Likewise, the priestly life does not stand on its own, but rather on the apostolic witness received and transmitted in the living Tradition of the Church, and safeguarded by the Magisterium (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13-14). When the priest remains anchored on this foundation, he avoids building on the sand of partial interpretations or circumstantial emphases, and instead rests on the firm rock that precedes and surpasses him (cf. Mt 7:24-27).
Before reaching the sanctuary, the cathedral reveals to us discreet yet fundamental places: at the baptismal font, the People of God are born; in the confessional, they are continually renewed. In the sacraments, grace is revealed as the most real and effective force of the priestly ministry. Therefore, dear children, celebrate the sacraments with dignity and faith, being aware that what is produced in them is the true power that builds up the Church and that they are the ultimate end to which all our ministry is ordered. But do not forget that you are not the source, but the channel, and that you too need to drink from that water. Therefore, do not neglect confession, always returning to the mercy you proclaim.
Several chapels open up around the central space. Each has its own history and dedication. Although different in style and composition, they all share the same orientation; none is turned inward, none disrupts the harmony of the whole. This is also true in the Church with the various charisms and spiritualities through which the Lord enriches and sustains your vocation. Each one receives a particular way of expressing faith and nurturing inner life, but all remain oriented toward the same center.
Let us look to the heart of it all, my children: here is revealed what gives meaning to what you do each day and from where your ministry springs. On the altar, through your hands, the sacrifice of Christ is made present in the highest action entrusted to human hands; in the tabernacle, He whom you have offered remains, entrusted anew to your care. Be adorers, people of deep prayer, and teach your people to do the same.
At the end of this reflection, to be the priests the Church needs today, I leave you with the same advice of your holy compatriot, Saint John of Ávila: “Be all his” ( Sermon 57). Be holy! I entrust you to Our Lady of Almudena and, with a heart full of gratitude, I impart to you the Apostolic Blessing, which I extend to all those entrusted to your pastoral care.
Vatican City, January 28, 2026. Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor of the Church.
Bad Bunny's performance at last night's Supper Bowl was weird. His singing, exclusively in Spanish, was not singing at all but a recitation, a telling of his supposed sexual exploits, with musical accompaniment. He did it in a beautiful white suit though he groped his crotch throughout, while humping the air with his hips. And there were dozens of what appeared to be all-female dancers, scantily dressed (cheerleader-like attire), also with quite indecent gesticulations throughout, emphasizing their butts and the crotches. That was the first half of the half-time performance.
In the second half of the performance the crowd of dancing performers was now in very nice traditional tropical attire. Lady Gaga came out singing and gesticulating, waving the tattooed arm in the air. Again, the dancing movements were, as throughout the entire performance, excessively abrupt, violent! The dancing consisted of continual jerking back and forth, giving the overall impression of great uneasiness and discomfort. Very little of harmonious and continuous flow which should be typical of graceful dancing.
All of this is a testament to the confusion of generation Z. It is largely of Latin American descent but is trying to find itself in America.
The fact that Bad Bunny's entire performance was is Spanish can be taken in two ways. The first is that this was obviously intended to be a great affront to the American viewing public, which is notoriously xenologophobic! Americans notoriously, though quite unreasonably, hate people to speak languages other than English in America. This was predictably very offensive and provocative to many. The second is the undeniable demographical fact that the majority of generation Z and generation Alpha have some Latin American descent. Furthermore, the Spanish language is historically more a part of America than any other language. Spanish has been continually spoken in this part of the world from 1492 to the present. And now it is the language of many millions of the young people today, and of their Spanish forebears. And, much more importantly, their heritage is Catholic! They mainly identify with the Catholic faith! It is because of this high concentration of hispanidad in the youth of America that they identify more as Catholic than as Protestant.
What I have to say, therefore, about that woeful performance of the Bad Bunny disgrace last night is that at least he's of Spanish descent. He is a bad representative of a very good and burgeoning population of young Latinos.
Here is what President Trump had to say about the performance.
“The Super Bowl Halftime Show is absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER! It makes no sense, is an affront to the Greatness of America, and doesn’t represent our standards of Success, Creativity, or Excellence,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, calling the event a “slap in the face.” “Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching from throughout the U.S.A., and all over the World.”
In a rare instance of Super Bowl counter-programming, Turning Point USA aired its own halftime show. Turning Point’s lineup featured Kid Rock and a handful of lesser-known country music stars: Lee Brice, Brantley Gilbert and Gabby Barrett.
The alternative performance was streamed on YouTube, garnering more than five million viewers online.
—— Recently released emails, documents, and testimony contained in the Epstein files point to more than a network of abuse, revealing what appears to be an insular worldview grounded in hierarchy, entitlement, and contempt for outsiders. In private communications attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and associates, non-Jews are repeatedly referenced with mocking or derogatory language, reflecting what critics describe as a supremacist mindset operating alongside the abuse itself. Several of the released emails show Epstein using the term “goyim,” meaning non-Jews, in a dismissive and contemptuous manner. In one exchange with AI theorist Roger Schank, Epstein refers to profits from shipping futures by writing about “how the Jew makes money,” adding, “let the goyim deal in the real world.” Other communications show similar language used casually, suggesting that this worldview was normalized within Epstein’s private circles. In another email exchange, Hollywood publicist Peggy Siegal asked Epstein whether an event would be “100% Jew night,” to which Epstein replied: “No, goyim in abundance — JPMorgan execs, brilliant WASPs.” In a separate message, Epstein accused a recipient of behaving “just like the GOYIM you do not respect,” language that further underscores the recurring pattern of contempt reflected in the files. An older testimony from Epstein survivor Maria Farmer adds further context. In a 2020 interview, Farmer said her abusers were motivated by an ideology of Jewish supremacy, citing a 1996 conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell in which she was told she would not be served food at an exclusively Jewish country club. Farmer stated that exclusionary attitudes toward non-Jews were a consistent theme among Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. Maxwell has long been widely believed to have acted as Epstein’s handler or overseer within his broader operation. Taken together, the material suggests that the Epstein files document not only systemic sexual exploitation, but also a closed ideological environment in which power, identity, and hierarchy were intertwined, and in which contempt for non-Jews was expressed openly and without apparent concern.
"[M]any of the chief men also believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." John 12:42-43
ROME, 22 January 2026 — Pope Leo XIV has sent a Message to participants in the annual March for Life, being held on Friday, Jan. 23, in Washington, D.C..
Released this evening by the Vatican, the Holy Father’s Message reads:
To the Participants in the 2026 March for Life
I send warm greetings to those of you participating in the 2026 March for Life. I likewise express heartfelt appreciation, and assure you of my spiritual closeness as you gather for this eloquent public witness to affirm that “the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation of every other human right” (Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 9 January 2026).
Indeed, “a society is healthy and truly progresses only when it safeguards the sanctity of human life and works actively to promote it” (ibid.). In this regard, I would encourage you, especially the young people, to continue striving to ensure that life is respected in all of its stages through appropriate efforts at every level of society, including dialogue with civil and political leaders.
May Jesus, who promised to be with us always (cf. Mt 28:20), accompany you today as you courageously and peacefully march on behalf of unborn children. By advocating for them, please know that you are fulfilling the Lord’s command to serve him in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:31-46).
With these sentiments I entrust all of you, as well as those who support you with their prayers and sacrifices, to the intercession of Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States of America, and I gladly impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of abundant heavenly graces.
The international media outlet The Pillar —in my opinion, one of the most serious publications on religious topics— has just announced that Cardinal Victor Fernandez, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, will receive Father Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the SSPX, next week.
A first thought is that a little pressure has been good to get the Vatican to move.
And a second, more important point. Despite appearances, I believe this is good news . Everyone on this blog knows my opinion of Cardinal Fernández. However, to be fair, I must say that he was not, nor do I believe he ever will be, hostile to the Traditional Latin Mass. Moreover, as Archbishop of La Plata, he established a personal parish for the faithful of the Traditional Latin Mass, which, as far as I know, is the only one of its kind in Argentina.
On the other hand, the cardinal was a favorite disciple of Bergoglio, who professed sympathies for the SSPX.
Let us agree, then, that with this background, it is much better that the one who receives Father Pagliarani is Fernández and not Parolin or Roche.
Of course, the best thing we can do, as those of us who see the issue from the outside, is to pray, and pray a lot for that meeting.
International Una Voce Federation (FIUV) on Future SSPX Consecrations
Una Voce International and the Latin Mass Society have heard with concern the announcement by the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Fr Davide Pagliarani, that the SSPX will carry out Episcopal consecrations on 1st July this year.
Our ardent wish, shared by many Catholics of good will, is for the canonical regularisation of the SSPX, which would enable its many good works to bear the greatest possible fruit. This announcement is an indication that this outcome is a more distant prospect than it has seemed for many years.We share the SSPX’s goal, that the Church’s ancient liturgy be made available as widely as possible for the good of souls. We do not share the SSPX’s analysis of the crisis of the Church in all its details. In particular we know many Catholics able to attend the Traditional Mass with all the necessary permissions from the Church’s hierarchy, such that it is not necessary for them to seek it in any irregular context.
We also know, however, that for others, attending the Traditional Mass has been made very difficult: in some places, this is despite the desire of qualified priests to celebrate it for the faithful, and even the willingness of the local bishop to allow this. This creates an environment in which the SSPX argument of a ‘state of emergency’ gains sympathy.
We urge our bishops, and above all His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, to be mindful of these pastoral realities, which are at this moment precipitating a crisis whose consequences no one can foresee.
What Catholics attached to the ‘former Missal’ desire is not some harmful or novel liturgical form. Pope St John Paul II called our desire for this Missal a ‘rightful aspiration’ (Ecclesia Dei, 1988), and later Pope Benedict XVI described it as a source of ‘riches’ (Letter to Bishops, 2007).
The time to act is now.
Joseph Shaw President, Una Voce International, and Chairman, Latin Mass Society
Monika Rheinschmitt Vice President and Treasurer, Una Voce International
Andris Amolins Secretary, Una Voce International
(FIUV is the largest international association of diocesan Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass.) __
SSPX Announces Future Consecrations for July 1st, 2026
—- Communiqué
On this February 2, 2026, the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, during the ceremony of imposition of the cassocks which he presided over at the International Seminary of St. Curé d'Ars in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain, France, publicly announced his decision to entrust the bishops of the Fraternity with the task of proceeding with new episcopal consecrations on July 1.
Last August, he requested an audience with the Holy Father, informing him of his desire to filialy explain the current situation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. In a second letter, he explicitly addressed the Fraternity's particular need to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops, who have been traveling the world for nearly forty years to respond to the many faithful attached to the Tradition of the Church and desirous that the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation be conferred for the good of their souls.
After much prayerful reflection, and having received a letter from the Holy See in recent days that in no way responds to our requests, Father Pagliarani, supported by the unanimous opinion of his Council, believes that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves requires such a decision.
The words he wrote on November 21, 2024, for the fiftieth anniversary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's historic declaration, reflect his thoughts and intentions more than ever:
"It is only in the Church of all time and in her constant Tradition that we find the guarantee of being in the Truth, of continuing to preach and serve it. [...]
"The Society [of St. Pius X] does not seek first and foremost its own survival: it seeks primarily the good of the universal Church and, for this reason, it is par excellence a work of the Church, which with unique freedom and strength, responds adequately to the specific needs of an unprecedented tragic era.
"This single goal is still ours today, just as it was fifty years ago: “That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we continue our work of priestly formation under the star of the Magisterium of all time, convinced that we cannot render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Supreme Pontiff, and to future generations (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of November 21, 1974).””
In the coming days, the Superior General will provide further explanations on the present situation and on his decision.
“Nos cum Prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria. May the Virgin Mary bless us, together with her divine Son.”
Here is the short list of the American Cardinals made by Pope Francis. Most, if not all, were very much McCarrick favorites. Therefore, we could very safely say that the American Cardinals made by Francis were also very much made by McCarrick. That cloud over the Church is very concerning. The cloud of faggotry, a McCarrick legacy, hangs heavy over the Church right now.
The morale of the Church hierarchy is at an all time low. And Pope Prevosto seems sound asleep, "a good listener," in this present confusion. Perhaps a McCarrick pick himself! He needs to prove to the Church that the McCarrick heritage is over and that he has nothing to do with the lavender mafia which has been manipulating the Vatican my entire lifetime. The confused liturgy and the disfunction of the Church's pastoral activity are symptoms of an evil hand: La Mano Nera! "An Italian gentleman, very influential in Rome, told me to push for Bergoglio...In five years he could re-make the Church." --McCarrick on the 2013 pre-conclave.
Half of the Cardinals made by Francis were made while Cardinal McCarrick was still in good standing, having been wrongly fully rehabilitated by Pope Francis after he had been told to lay low by Pope Benedict. By this list is seems obvious that McCarrick was closely advising Pope Francis on his American appointments. Cupich (2016-present) and Tobin (2021-[present?]) were on the Dicastery for Bishops under the Prefect of that Dicastery Robert Prevosto (2023-2025). This is very worrisome!
Also, Cupich and Farrell, since 1 June 2022, are members of the Dicastery of Divine Worship.
Cupich, born 19 March 1949 is 76 years old, soon to be 77! Why has he not been resigned?
N.B. There are three modern idols: Jewry (the transhistorical international anti-Christ/anti-Catholic/anti-God movement), Usury and Faggotry: the devil, the world and the flesh. The solution is the evangelical counsels: Obedience, Poverty and Chastity. The solution, as always, is Christ, in His Church, boldly and generously following Him and His Gospel of life and love in the Communion of the Saints and of the Sacraments.
The fact that the Church's College of Cardinals is presently manipulated by Pope Francis appointed McCarrick favorites, is a fact that cannot be lost on Pope Leo XIV. But The Lion seems to be sound asleep!
When the foxes are in the henhouse someone has to chase the foxes away! It is the chief job of the shepherd to ward off the abusers of the flock, the abusers in every respect. The present day ubiquitous liturgical bullying is akin to the widespread moral effeminacy among the pastors of the Church, and to it's twin, weakness in sound leadership.
Consider the "wolf in sheep's clothing" of the Regensburg Bishop's Garden, "The Goose-Sermon Fountain!" It is in the center of the Cathedral courtyard beside the medieval cathedral of Regensburg, Ratzinger's Regensburg!
The Gänsepredigtbrunnen (goose sermon fountain, 1980) depicts the medieval story of the Goose Sermon: a fox who was too slow to catch geese dressed up as a clergyman and gave a sermon to the geese. When the geese fell asleep, he was able to catch them. It’s an allegory about false preachers and their gullible believers.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." --Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:15)
Here is the oath made by each cardinal at inserting his ballot at a conclave: "Testor Christum Dominum, qui me iudicaturus est, me eum eligere, quem secundum Deum iudico eligi debere."
"He's a good theologian, he's an excellent philosopher!" McCarrick on Francis' teaching.
One great irony is that McCarrick's only conclave elected Joseph Ratzinger Pope! I sense some regret for that in this speech.
McCarrick died on 3 April, Bergoglio on 21 April 2025.
N. B. "On the other hand, maybe the devil did not have your accommodations ready." Pope Francis to McCarrick on the key to the latter's longevity.
Requiscant in pace!
__
Here is the full McCarrick speech manuscript, faithfully taken down by Plinthos, in case the YouTube video should become unavailable. This is a very important speech for the state of the present Papacy!
Villanova University does not endorse and assume no liability for the material appearing or opinions expressed in this video. [split-second flash on the screen as McCarrick appears]
It’s really a pleasure to be here and to talk about one of, I think, the favorite subjects of most priests in the world, Pope Francis. I am happy that some of my family is here. And, of course, one of my nieces is one of your outstanding students, as you indicated to me yourself, Father President, earlier.
I’m gonna take my watch off, because, although I really don’t have to, my gauge usually is when two-thirds of the group is snoring, then I stop. So that, I’ll watch carefully to see when that happens in this community. As long as one-third is still awake then I’ll continue to go on. I don’t know how long it will last. I may not,...I may be one of those who fall asleep first because I had a great meal. I thank you Father President for that,...for that great treat.
I wanna start by saying, I’m very prejudiced, I’m very biased. I think this is an extraordinary man, the one whom God has given us as Pope. And I just thank the Lord every day. I really do, for this Holy Father. A strong man. A wise man. But more than anything else, a really good man. A man who understands people. A man who understands right and wrong, who understands weakness, who understands strength. I believe the Lord gave us the best He could find. And that’s, of course, always a great blessing because you get then someone very, very special. And I think Jorge Bergoglio is someone very, very special.
I wanna start with three stories. [Some audio adjustments] Because if I don’t start now, I’m never gonna finish. And, you know, the bad thing is you’ve heard them all before. The good thing is it’ll make me happy if I tell them. Because I think they’re great stories about the Holy Father. One is the Swiss Guard story. You all heard the Swiss Guard story? Well, thank you Father President, that’s very nice of you.
The Pope moved in to other rooms in the guesthouse. There is, in the Vatican, a guesthouse. It’s a hotel-like building. It has rooms with bathrooms and beds and everything like that. It has, it’s four floors and on the second floor was the room that they had always set aside for special guests. And, when he became Pope, they moved him in there, just for a day or two. Well, he was happy there. And, he doesn’t wanna leave. And I don’t...they’re gonna have to get him out with a screwdriver because he’s not gonna leave, as far as I know. But in order to, I’m using an expression, jazz it up a little, they decided to put the Swiss Guards all around, and, so, now they have Swiss Guards at the door of the guesthouse, and when you go inside the guesthouse, and then on the second floor, where he lives, right outside his room they have a guest,...they have a...Swiss Guard. And he stands there all the time as is proper, you know, this is a, this is the Pope. But, one day, right after they began to do this, the Holy Father gets up, I guess at 5 and he goes down to pray at 6 and o’er his Mass at 7. So at 6 o’clock he opens his door to go down and start his meditation to get ready for Mass. And he opens the door and he sees this kid there, the Swiss Guard, holding the halberd there at attention. The Holy Father looks at him. And he says to him. He says, “Son, how long have you been standing here?” “Since midnight, Holy Father.” The Pope says, “Since midnight?” “Yes, Holy Father.” The Pope goes back into his room. And a minute later he comes out with a chair. And he puts it down and he says “Sit down.” And the kid says “Holy Father, we’re not allowed to sit down.” And the Pope says “Sit down anyway.” And, the other part which I think may be apocryphal. He says “Are ya hungry?” But is very much like to Pope to do it, so I believe it could be possible. No cause he says “No, Holy Father.” He says “Ya want be to get ya a sandwich or something?” He says “No, Holy Father.” Cause, the kid is now terrified. When the sergeant comes and sees him sitting down, holding his sword. And eating a sandwich, even worse, eating a sandwich. So the Pope goes and, within fifteen minutes every Swiss Guard in the whole Vatican heard that story. Because, it was just, suddenly you have someone who really worries about people. Really worries about them and is concerned about ‘em, and is not afraid to do something about it. Even if it means he lifts up a chair himself and brings it out and says “Sit down.”
The second story is the reason why he stayed at Santa Marta, the guesthouse. The Jesuits, obviously want to take advantage of this poor fellow because he’s a Jesuit. If he was an Augustinian you guys would be trying to get at ‘em too. So, they have a number of high schools in Rome, in the Roman area, and they said “Holy Father, can we bring the seniors before they graduate and have a visit with you. So, he said, “sure.” So, he goes in there; they set up a hall somewhere and they have his chair on the side and he won’t use a throne. They know that now. In the beginning they put a throne and he would pick up the throne and put it down on the floor. And they said “Holy Father, you shouldn’t be carrying it.” And he said “You shouldn’t be putting it up there.” So, this is such an extraordinarily, this is a human being, someone,...in every way. So, he’s sitting down, and he says “OK, I have a talk. And as I look at you; you’re gonna be bored with my talk. So, rather than me talk, and you bored. Let’s put the talk away, and we’ll just talk.” And so, he starts to talk. He says “Do questions.” So, they asked him all kinds of questions. And, he answers them. And, you know, he’s funny. And he’s, even in the humor and everything, there’s an extraordinary streak of holiness in this fella. That, it’s wonderful to behold and wonderful to listen to. But, at the end of the thing. It’s almost over now. A little girl raises her hand. And he says “Yes?” And she says “Holy Father, why won’t you move into the palace?” You know, ‘cause he decided to live in this guesthouse. And he gives this wonderful answer after a minute’s thought; he says “for psychiatric reasons.” And everybody like jumps, and he waits, for,...he’s getting good on jokes now. He pauses for a moment then he says “I would go nuts up there.” So those are his psychiatric reasons, he says “I have to be with people. I have to be with people.” And, indeed, we think he does. And so he, but, just to come out with “for psychiatric reasons.” When I first heard I thought, this is insane. And I had a chance to speak to him shortly after that. I said “I was amazed at what you said, the answer that, “for psychiatric reasons” and we both started to laugh. And we laughed so hard Swiss Guard came to the door to look in to make sure nothing was happening in there. Because, he enjoys his own jokes. Which, I guess, I do too. We all do.
And then, the last one, the last story I wanna tell ya, then we’ll go’it a little more serious, is, I got very sick in Rome. In fact everybody thought I had, they thought I had died because they couldn’t get any life signs; so, they found out I had some,...my heart was slowing down, and, so, I have a pace-maker now. My whole family knows my story. So, I know, I...recovered. I did not die. I thought I should tell you that, in case you had some question about that. I recovered. And, that night, when they, I got back to the seminary where I was staying, I get a call. And it’s from the Pope. And, he calls; he says “How are ya, I heard you were, you were very sick, and, they say you weren’t at the Mass, ‘cause I missed his Mass. And, this is the night of his instillation; he took the time to call. And at the end, I was very honored, and at the end of the conversation I said to him; I said, very piously, as you try to be with the Pope, I said “Holy Father, I guess the Lord still has some work for me to do.” And there was a pause. And then the Holy Father said, this is a quote, the Holy Father said, “Well, that may be true. On the other hand, maybe the devil didn’t have your accommodations ready yet.” To which I said nothing. But, inside I’m saying You think that was an infallible statement? OK. This is our Pope. He enjoys life. He enjoys humor. He enjoys people. And he understands people, to an extraordinary degree. I think that we will get to know this as time goes by all the more. He’s preaching almost every day. And, you know, without notes. He goes in and he starts to preach, to the people. And I have gotten in the stage now, and I think many of us have, every day the Vatican Information Service releases what he says in the homily; and we’re all reading it. It’s almost become a new catechism to listen to the Holy Father every day talk about God, talk about the gospels, talk about our faith, an extraordinary gift. And we’re getting this from the Pope. And, because of the electronic age, we can get it within a couple of hours. We get the mind of the Holy Father, the prayerfulness of the Holy Father as he goes through. So it’s an extraordinary grace. And, but, what I wanna do, if I may now, is talk about what we know before the conclave. And then, right after the conclave. And then, what we can maybe judge from those, from that, passage of time.
Before the conclave, nobody thought there was a chance for Bergoglio. There’s a great Irish “bet-master” I guess. I don’t know what you call ‘em, whose name is Paddy Powers, in Rome,...in Dublin. And he bets on everything. He’s the great odds maker in the world. And, that’s where he makes his living; and he’s a multimillionaire. So, he, the Pope, what a great opportunity to bet on the conclave. And, so, he puts out his odds and he waits, you know, after a lot of consideration. And Cardinal Scola, the Archbishop of Milan was the favorite, as you know, it was in all the papers. And, he was three to one; which is pretty decent. And, other cardinals, Cardinal O’Malley was like twenty to one. But somehow he stuck in Cardinal Bergoglio who was two hundred to one. Just think what I could have made!, had I had some small change around when that was going on. I could have gotten my nephew Matty to raise some money for me. We could’ve been multi-millionaires. Two hundred to one! But it was interesting, as time went by the odds changed. Scola’s didn’t change because the leaders sort of continued in there. Cardinal Scola got a lot of, he got good odds. Cardinal Scherer, the Archbishop of Brazil, got good odds. Who others? Cardinal Ouellet, the Candadian, got good odds. But, and then, suddenly; and, how this happened, I don’t know. Suddenly, Paddy Powers, as he’s doing the odds, brings the two hundred guy down to a hundred to one. And, as the conclave was beginning, he was at forty to one. Well, that’s a big improvement from two hundred to one. How he got that I don’t know, to whom he was talking or how it came about. But it interesting as you saw this whole thing.
Bergoglio was a friend of mine. Because I live in a religious community in Washington, and it’s a community that was founded in Argentina, so, you know, they were always talking about Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Argentina. And that was maybe why I became;...and then, as Father said, in the College of Cardinals we’re always in precedence; you always know whose gonna be in front of you, you always know whose gonna be in back of you in lines. And I was like number sixty seven in the precedence, cause we had a hundred and fifteen. I was sixty seven; he was seventy two. So, we’d all be close by. The Archbishop of Bogota was the one most, next senior to me. But he would never know where he was going. So, he would yell out, when they would say “Your eminences would you please line up.” “McCarrick, where are you?” So I’d say, Pedro, here I am. And then, because he would yell so and usually yell where I was, so Bergoglio would come around, our time in the College. So, we would all get there.
Before the vote began there were two parts to the vote. All the cardinals are summoned to Rome, even those who can’t vote. And, if you cannot go you have to get excused, you have to you’re sick or you’re...planning a trip to the moon, or something like that,...you cannot go. So, we all go, but, the ones of us who are over eighty cannot vote, as you know. So I could not vote, I’m eighty three. So, what would happen is that, in the first week the meetings are called The General Congregations. All the cardinals are together, the voters and the non-voters. And they all talk about what is going on in the Church and what they would like to see the new pope be like, and things like that. What problems they see in the Church that the new pope should solve, and things like that. And you’re allowed four minutes to talk,...five minutes to talk, sorry. And, just about all of us talk. Especially the old guys talk because we got no chance to talk later on so we might as well talk now. I we have to say anything we have to say it now or no one is gonna listen, so. So I spoke. Some guys go like ten minutes!, you know, they figured they had a lot to say. But I was gonna say I’ll only go five. Well I only went five minutes and like fifteen seconds. Somebody clocked me. They said “you went over.” I said I didn’t. He said you went over by fifteen seconds. I said, ghee, you must be paying close attention to what I’m saying. He said “No, I was just playing close attention to how long you were saying it.” But, when, before we went into that, and then, of course, after about a week of that then you go into the conclave when we cannot even go near the place. Only the voters are allowed in. What goes on there, I just don’t know. Because, I was in another conclave; but, every conclave is different. About, maybe, just before we went into the general conversations when everybody can talk a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman came to ask if he could come to see me, so I said sure. He came to see me at the seminary, the North American College, where I was staying. We sat down. This is a very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome; and he, we talked about a number of things. He had a favor to ask me, for, back here in the United States. But then he said “What about Bergoglio?” And I was surprised at the question. I said what about him? He said “Does he have a chance?” I said I don’t think so, cause, I, no one’s mentioned his name. He hasn’t been in anyone’s mind, I don’t think it’s on anybody’s mind to vote for him. He said “He could do it, you know.” I said what could he do? He said “He could reform the Church. If we gave him five years he’d put us back on target.” But he’s seventy six. “Yeah, five years, if he had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.” I said, that’s interesting. He said “I know you’re his friend.” I said, I hope I am. He said “Talk ‘em up.” Well, we’ll see what happens. You know, this is God’s work. So, that was the first that I heard that there were people who thought Bergoglio would be a possibility in this election.
Then, we had the General Congregations. I spoke, for five minutes and fifteen seconds, as the cardinal who timed me said. I said three things. I said that, number one, we’re getting away from the poor, and, to a certain extent, I’m afraid, in some areas of the world we were getting away from the poor. But that’s very dangerous. And I said I hope that the new, the one who is elected pope will be someone who, if he is not himself a Latin American will at least have a very strong interest in Latin America cause half the Church is there! So that you really have to begin to think of that, that’s where the people are. I forget what the third thing I said was. Probably wasn’t any good. Anyway. And then, a number of bishops, I would say, of the non-voters just about everybody spoke. Of the voters, maybe half spoke because they, you know, they could speak later, in the halls, in the lunch room, walking around. The, almost the last day, they called on Bergoglio. And he spoke for four minutes, period!, without a note, although he had obviously prepared. And without a watch. And he went on. And he spoke about something which we’ve heard from him now quite a bit: the Church on the periphery. That’s the word he used—periferio—in Spanish, he spoke in Spanish. And he said, “That’s where the Church has to be now. The Church has to be where people are hurting, people are discriminated against, where people are very poor, where people are very sick, where people don’t have homes, where people don’t have rights, where people are afraid, “I do not know how to love God anymore,” where people don’t have comfort in God’s presence anymore.” And he went on for four minutes and stopped. And, for the first time, I’m trying to think did I make this up after he was elected, I don’t think so. For the first time in those other days—there was a silence after he spoke, about thirty seconds, and nobody, Cardinal Sodano didn’t say “Thank you, your Eminence, I now call on Cardinal so and so.” It was just a pause there. Because he hit a nerve! There was some contact there, and I think, there was an Italian newspaper that found out about this, that’s why I can talk about it, and wrote in the paper, “Four Minutes that Changed the Conclave.” Because before the conclave began we had four minutes of Bergoglio talking about things that others have talked about, but doing it in a special way, and it made a difference. Was that part of it? Who knows? Was it my friend who said “Push Bergoglio,” did it say it to a lotta people? I don’t know. Because, what I wanted to do now is to talk about something that is very special to me. And I don’t know if you know about it. I want you to know about it.
You know, when the pope is elected, the cardinals who are electors go into the Sistine Chapel. You know, some have you have seen the Sistine, have been in the Sistine Chapel, so you know what it looks like. It’s a sort of long and relatively narrow room. Well, let’s say the altar is up here, the door there. There are two long wooden benches, on this side, two long wooden benches on that side. The cardinals sit behind them. And you can get like thirty people on each bench. You have a hundred and twenty voters, that takes care of it. Thirty, thirty, thirty, thirty, a hundred and twenty. There were a hundred and fifteen, a hundred and fourteen voters at this last election. So, they were there. And, what you do, in order, always, you know. When I went the last election in front of me was the Cardinal of Dublin, behind me was Pedro Rubiano, the Cardinal of Bogota. We’re always together. And what you do, you fill out your little card. You have card. It says “Eligo in Summorum Pontificem…” “I elect as Holy Father, as Supreme Pontiff...” and you write a name in. You have it in your hand. And you walk up with it in your hand. When you get to the altar, now this is the Sistine Chapel. And those of you who have seen pictures or have been there you know that behind the altar is this wonderful, powerful painting of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment. And, in front of that, you take this oath. You’ve taken oaths of secrecy before, but this is the last oath you take. And, every time you vote you take it. You know, if you vote five times, the last election they had five times, every time you vote, before you put your piece of paper with a name on in the urn you say in Latin “testo Dominus Jesus Christus qui me iudicaturus est,” its the only part I remember, it’s in Latin. “I call on Jesus Christ my Lord to be my witness, He Who will judge me.” Here you are standing before this great powerful, wonderful picture of the Last Judgment, “He Who will judge me. The man I am voting for is the one who, under God, I believe should be pope.” Now, what does that do? If you really believe that and you say it, it means this is no longer an election. This is a discernment; you are trying to discern God’s mind. You’re trying to find out what God wants. “I, the man whom I am voting for is the one whom I believe God wants to be pope.” Not the one who I would like to be pope. Not my buddy. Not the fellow who’s gonna give me a better diocese, or give me a place in Rome. Not the fellow whose gonna give me a lot of auxiliaries. The one that I believe, under God, that God wants to be pope. That really takes it out of the realm of elections, out of the realm of, you know, “my buddy, my friend;” it puts it in the realm of God. You try to read the mind of God. That’s precisely what the fellas did. And, I think that they read the mind of God; and I think that they came up with Cardinal Bergoglio.
I wanna talk about the beginning of Bergoglio. Almost every has seen that scene on the balcony; they announced who it was, and they didn’t come right out. And, I think they may have had a little bit of a quarrel in the back before he came out. They probably said “Holy Father, here is an ermine cloak to put on.” And, knowing him he probably said “Oh, thank you very much but I’m not cold.” And they said “Holy Father, here is a gold cross that you should put on.” And he probably said “No, no, I have my own, thank you very much.” And so he comes out in his plain white cassock and with his old cross on and he goes out. And the fist thing he said, every body remembered, he says “Good evening.” And with that “Buona sera” he won over Rome. Because every other Holy Father, even the great John Paul II, you know, came out with a great wonderful statement, right away. And this fella comes out and he says “Good evening.” And it hit them, because the emotion at this moment for everyone in Rome...Someone said to me, and it’s a great remark; and I wish I had said it myself. When the white smoke went up, finally we had a pope. The crowd began to sing “Viva il Papa!” “Long live the Pope!” they had no idea who it was gonna be. But, the faith of our people, our faith, this Catholic faith, we know who it is, “Long live the Pope!” “We are the Pope’s people!” “We are the Pope’s men and women!” “This is our Leader!” This is our Shepherd!” “This is our life!” “Viva il Papa!” Whoever he is! Cause nobody knew. It took an hour till they found out. During that hour some wise guy in the crowd would shout out “Viva il Papa!” and then another hundred thousand would start to cry “Viva il Papa!” And then he comes out. And they look at him. They don’t know, nobody knows who he is. Even CNN, that I was watching, didn’t know who he was. They couldn’t figure out what the name was. Then when they say his name is “Francis,” he’s gonna take the name Francis? Everybody says “This is crazy. Nobody has ever taken “Francis.” They couldn’t pronounce the name “Bergoglio.” He comes out and he says “Good evening.” They are some way or other entrenched by this. And then, remember what he does?, he says, “Before we do anything else let’s pray for Pope Benedict. And he leads them in prayer for Pope Benedict. Then he says “Now, I’m gonna take this job, this is a very tough job, would you all pray for me? And he puts his head down. And somebody starts praying for him, an Our Father, a Hail Mary, a Glory Be. During that time he’s praying. A pope has never asked people to pray for him. Oh, they have, but they, he’s never put his head like “OK, I’m gonna stop now, you pray for me.” He did. And then, the conversation. I remember the wonderful, extraordinary short talk of JPII, when he became pope. I was magnificent. No, it was something you would remember, you could memorize. But this fella was totally different! It’s not something you would want to memorize. It’s just a friendly conversation. It was like he took everybody there and was chatting with them. Everybody in the whole place and said “Well, now here I am, thank you for praying for Pope Benedict, thank you for praying for me. This is what we’re gonna try to do, and tomorrow I’m gonna go here and I’m gonna go there.” And meanwhile the guys are writing down figuring out what he wants to do the next day. And then when he gets to the next day what does he do? He visits Our Lady. There’s this great Roman icon of Our Lady The Salvation of the Roman People. He’s Bishop of Rome. He makes that clear. He’s bishop of Rome. Some of the popes have just let the Rome thing just wander by and they’re popes, they’re universal pontiffs. That he is, of course! But he is so conscious of the fact that all of this has come to him because he is bishop of Rome. They elected him bishop of Rome. He said “The cardinals have come together and they have elected someone from the ends of the earth. It’s had to get farther away from Rome than Buenos Aires, Argentina. It’s a long way off! And here he is. And he himself is amazed by this. His beginning, then, is so remarkable. Apparently he went, after he was finished he went, he waves to everybody, he goes inside and he calls his Father General. He’s a Jesuit. He never forgets that. He calls Father General. And, of course, the General is watching it on television. He’s not paying any attention to what his phone’s doing. So he calls the switchboard. And he says “May I speak to Father General, it’s Father Francis.” The operator, who is a brother, I guess, says “Father Francis who?” He says “Father Francis from the Vatican.” He says “Father Francis who?” And then the Pope says “Is this Artilio?” He says “Yes.” “Artilio, I haven’t spoke to you.” Because he knew...”Artilio I haven’t spoken to you for…” And they had this conversation for about two minutes before the guy, the operator, maybe an old gentleman, says “You are the Francis who’s pope!” And he says “Well, yes.” He said. “Hold on.” So he tries to find the General. And they can’t find the General. Finally, they find the Assistant General. There are about six Assistant Generals in the Jesuits. And they find one of the assistants and they say “The Pope is calling the General.” So, you never, I guess, you never burst in on the General. You always, you know, knock and you wait, and, whatever. They knock in and the poor General is watching the television and they say “The Pope is on the phone, The Pope is on the phone.” And it’s these strange, totally simple, and yet, extraordinary things. And then, remember the next day? He goes to pay his bill? At the Vatican hotel? It belongs to the Vatican. It’s his hotel now. But he goes to pay his bill. And, I couldn’t figure out really why he would do that. I thought, ghee, maybe it’s for show? And then I found out later on there’s a very stupid custom. Some of the bishops don’t pay. You know, they say “I’m here on business.” And they walk out without paying. They won’t do it anymore. They won’t do it anymore. So, these little things that he does, there’s always a reason. There’s always a special something there that he has in mind. So he’s, this is a brilliant man. This is a man who plots the strategy as it goes along, a man who does not forget. And then, the first days were so extraordinary.
He had Mass with the electors the second day, after the election, the day after the election he had Mass; I wasn’t there, cause I’m not an elector. But, in the old days the pope would always vest by himself. And suddenly he would appear and the procession would begin. And, suddenly, while the cardinals are getting dressed, someone comes out with another table. They say “What are you doing that for?” They said “The Pope’s getting vested.” They say “Here?” Cause the cardinals never see the Pope get vested. He always gets vested inside. He comes in. He puts his own stuff on. Talks to them while he’s getting vested, you know. This never happened. Then, I wasn’t there, I’m not an elector, but, what I hear, he goes up and they put the throne up for him. He doesn’t say anything that day. But the next day he says, you know, I’m not comfortable on a throne. Just put chair there. So he’s sitting. “Here Holy Father.” “I know what I’m gonna say.” They say “But it’s been prepared.” He said “Good, hold on to it, we may use it someday.” So he goes in and he talks, a wonderful homily. But the cardinals were there, cause they all coming back then, after that, where I was saying. And, you know, the story of the homily. Everyone had the story of the homily. How thoughtful it was. How powerful it was. How careful it was. I guess what I am more than anything trying to say, this is a real person. This isn’t a make-believe. With loves, and fears and hopes and concerns and desires and longings and prayers.
Now, watch this message. Here you know more than I. I’m not going to talk about his encyclical. I hope you read that. But, its clear, what he’s trying to do. Someone said to me earlier “You can see where Benedict stops and Francis begins in the homily. Yes you can and you can’t. Because he will take the threads of Benedict and weave them into his own theology, you know. This is not a bad theologian. He’s a good theologian; he’s an excellent philosopher. I hope some of you read the article that was in America magazine. And it was in Jesuit magazines around the world, cause he did them this great favor. He gave them this huge interview, to Jesuit publications all over the world. And they ask hard questions and he answers them. Just as he’s on the plane, coming back from Brazil. They asked him hard questions and he answers them. And he answers them gracefully, thoughtfully, clearly, prudently, and honestly. You can’t do better than that! I’m not sure I answer questions that clearly, that courageously. Do I, and do you, maybe, scoot around answers we don’t want to touch the difficult things. Not with him. What you see is what you get. What you see is what you get. And the things you get are pretty wonderful.
His first homily, to the people, he did it in that little church right outside the Porta, the Gate of Saint Ann. There’s a little church of Saint Ann. It’s the Vatican parish church. Of course it’s run by the Augustinians. Everybody knows that. And very holy Augustinians, like they all are. So, anyway, he goes there. And they say “We can only fit like two hundred people in this church.” He says, “That’s alright, there won’t be any more than that.” Well, of course, there were two thousand. And so, he goes out into the street. And the cops go crazy. The people go crazy too, they’re so happy to be with the Pope. But the cops are saying “They’re gonna kill him. Some nut’s gonna kill him.” And that’s my fear too. And I said that to him once. And he said “I know that. I know they worry about me. But, don’t you realize that the more they worry about me the more careful they are and the safer I’ll be.” But, I think his basic conviction is “God wants me to continue. If God wants me not to, I won’t.” I think that’s where he is. That’s where he’s coming from. And it’s hard for us, cause I’m not at that stage, where I have that kind of trust and faith. I should have it, I’m 83, and I’ve been a priest for fifty five years. But he has it. He is that much in tuned with God. You know he says “Lord, you want me tomorrow, I’m ready. You want me ten years from now, I’m ready. I’m just here because you put me here. I’m just gonna do what I think you want me to do. I’m just gonna say what I think you want me to say. This is what my life is gonna be. Let me live it joyfully.” Because he’s always smiling. He’s always smiling. And then, of course, his homily that day was about the woman taken in adultery. Who can throw the first stone? The Pope had a mantra that people heard time and time and time again. He said “We must never get tired of asking for forgiveness. That God never gets tired of forgiving. We can sometimes get tired asking for forgiveness. But He never gets tired. So, since He never gets tired of forgiving we should never get tired of asking Him. But then it doesn’t matter what we’ve done, it doesn’t matter what haunts us, it doesn’t matter what we think the state of our soul is or anything like that.” That’s why he said that “We must always remember God never gets tired of forgiving. We must never get tired of asking for forgiveness.” They said to me, the papers had it too, that, there were more confessions in Rome that day than in the history of man. Rome never had that many confessions. And people were saying “If God really is so anxious to forgive I might have well give Him a chance.” Someone was saying that that also was true, it happened also at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. I don’t know that, but, in Rome, that’s true. And this great Holy Father. And the power of his message. And, of course, going back now, he talks again about the periphery, that he talked about in the General Congregations. People who are outside the veil, the people who are far away, the people we don’t think about, the people who need help and we don’t give it to the, the people who are so poor, the people who are hungry today, the people who live in our world still on a dollar a day and can’t feed a family. I travel, I’ve seen these people. I’ve seen these refugees coming. Three weeks ago I was in Jordan. And, I went to the hospital there where they were trying to treat some of the refugees. And, the saddest ones of all are the Iraqi because they’re on their second bounce. The Christians who have fled from Irag to Syria and were getting together a little security there and now they’re fleeing from Syria, so they’re on the second bounce of this terrible sorrow. And the children, the little children, they don’t know what’s going on, and they hug you and because they just are so anxious to find somebody who’s goins to love them. Their parents will, but their parents are so sad. This is the periphery of which Pope Francis speaks. And, of course, he made it so clear in that visit to Lampedusa, that little island, that little Italian island off the coast of Malta, where so many refugees from Africa have been trying to come to Europe. They are people in boats that are seldom not sea-worthy. And so many of them drown. And he went out into a boat, and on a plane wooden blank altar he offered Mass. And he offered it “For these who have drowned, especially for our Muslim brothers and sisters who have drowned in the waters here, trying to find a better place for their children. You know, I close my eyes and I think, this is what Jesus would’ve done. This is what the Lord would’ve done. This is what he would want us to do. So, this is your Pope. This is the man whom God has given us. I think he will always be gracious to the rich. Sometimes people who are wealthy are concerned that maybe he’s mad at them. But that, we’ve had conversations, and he’s not. He’s only mad at them if they won’t help the poor, if they turn their backs on the poor. But those people who have wealth and who share it with the poor, he’s right with them 100%, as we would expect him to be. As long as people love the poor and wanna help the poor, this pope is their champion and this pope is their friend. His love for the poor is biblical, it’s like in the days of the bible. It is that powerful, that...centered on the Lord Jesus, on God’s goodness. So, he has this great thing. And he’s a wise man, you know. I don’t know, when you read that article, if you have a chance to read it, I really would recommend it, in the Catholic magazines, where he, on and on, he talks about his life and he talks about everything and,...you can see that the citations there, this is a brilliant man, this is a man of culture, this is a man who has had extraordinary contact with the world, with literature, with philosophy,...the quotations back and forth; this is in conversation, he doesn’t know what they’re gonna ask him. And yet he has this ability to talk so freely and so powerfully, so wonderfully about things going on in the world, and cites the great philosophers and cites the poets and cites the ancients and puts it all together! There’s a wonderful, there are two books that I know of, one is Conversations with Him. An Italian reporter, an...Argentinian reporter. It was in Italian. Where he asks him all kinds of trick questions, not trick questions, but difficult questions. And his answers are just like the answers we have seen just like when they ask him… This is a man that… we speak of the Lord sometimes, I don’t wanna say that… I think he’s like the Lord; the Lord is semper idem. Well you Latin scholars, you know, he’s always the same. The Lord never changes. He’s never,...he’s always loving, he’s always forgiving, he’s always gentle, he’s always gracious. That’s what Francis is like. And that’s why, around the world, young people especially are saying “...A man we can listen to.” Cause he’s authentic. Cause he’s telling it like it is. And, understanding of human nature. Understanding that he says some things that maybe would surprise us. But the interesting thing is that if you examine what he’s saying, it’s what the Church has said all the time. Maybe not what the canonists have said all the time, or what different theologians have said all the time. But the teaching of the Church all the time, is the teaching of John Paul...of Pope Francis. Compare it with Saint John Paul II. It’s there. Even with Pope Benedict! This man is not saying new things. Sometimes there are unfortunately bishops who will go too far to the left, too far to the right. We must be in the center. I’ve always told my nephews, stay in the center, you gotta stay in the center. And this is really the, this is the, I think, the secret of holiness, it’s the secret of Pope Francis. And not to be afraid. Almost here is his predecessor, Karol Woytila, who became JPII, saying, “Do not be afraid.” Its as though you would here that whispering it into his ear. And what a great thing it will be when he canonizes JPII and John XXIII. Because this is a man who has so many things like them! He’s like the great saints in so many ways. With an understanding of human nature. In prayerfulness...when he says “I’m not gonna judge. Jesus is the judge. My job is to be His agent in bringing people back to Him. So that He can judge.” And Jesus constantly says “I...judgment belongs to My Father, Who loves you."
CNN wanted to do a, and I guess they’ll do it next month, a six month analysis of Francis, and they came and they asked me to do a part of it, and so they had me on the TV for about an hour and a half. Now, you know, if I get two sentences in there or three words it’ll be remarkable. But, they did ask me, they said “In a word, what’s the difference between Francis and Benedict and all the rest.” And I thought for a minute and I said the others are great popes. But Francis is a pastor. I think that maybe, that’s what I wanna end up by saying I think Francis is a pastor. I think we have maybe never had a pastor in so long a time. JPII, whom I loved, whom we all loved, who I had the privilege of knowing reasonably well. JPII strode across the stage of the world with his enormous charism, his enormous power. Francis doesn’t have that. He will walk across the straits of the world and people will follow him. They will find in him like they found in the pied piper of Hamelin, they will find in him a certain charism, that reminds them that this is what God’s love is all about. And this is what Francis is all about. So, it’s 8:26, so I’m gonna leave it there, and wonder if you have any questions. Easy questions! Thank you.
And I want to congratulate the ones in the back who did not snore. I saw you sleeping! But you did not snore, and I thank you! That was very nice.
I have left you so puzzled! Ha Ha.
I thought sure my niece would have a question, but she…
Q. Do you think he’s changed the papacy?
I’m gonna give you a statement that’s not courageous. I’m gonna wobble and say if he has two years he will have changed the papacy. But I think it’s gonna take more than six months. What’s gonna be very interesting, his first consistory of cardinals. Unfortunately Pope Benedict, anytime he had vacancies he would fill them, pretty quickly. So there are only like six vacancies now. So that, ah, Pope Francis is not going to be able to suddenly to remake the college of cardinals. Hopefully. Doesn’t matter whether I die, I can’t vote anyway. But if, and I’m not gonna say hopefully some of the younger guys will die! But, I think, ah, enough will turn 80 within the next couple of years that he’ll have a good group, and then if he names enough cardinals who are of his mind...I could name twenty right now, around the world, who would be archbishops in major places of his mind. Or even curial officials who would be of his mind. He has to have time to do that. Because right now, if God forbid anything happened to him, almost everybody would be in place who was in place before, only a few changes he has been able to make. But the longer he’s in the more I think it is likely that we could say that he has changed the papacy. He’s done some things, even already. With regard to transparency. This in not really in the spiritual area but in the area of finance. There’s much more transparency, in fact the Instituto Pro Opere Religione, the IOR, which have the Vatican Bank, their situation has been very much changed, re-done. That just came out today, with a statement, was very well done. The banking agencies around the world were saying “gee that’s wonderful.” He’s gotta keep doing that I think. Not just in the financial area. Especially in the area of the nomination of bishops. That’s none of my business, cause I’m done. We have wonderful, holy bishops. But you can have holy bishops who are very conservative, and you can have holy bishops who are very liberal, and I think the Lord needs a lot of holy bishops who are right in the middle.
Can I tell you one JPII story? I’ve almost run out of Francis stories. I have one JPII story I can tell ya.
When I was archbishop, this is a real true story. My family has heard it I think sixteen times. I love this story! JPII came to Newark. There were some cardinals and bishops of the United States who said “It’s a waste to go to Newark.” But the Holy Father said “I promised Archbishop McCarrick I would go to Newark. And so I go to Newark.” And that was the end of it. So he came to Newark. He came that one afternoon, it was raining. It rained the whole time. It was horrible. But, anyone who was there, who was in Giants Stadium, 80,000 people in Giants Stadium! Teaming rain. Cathy, where you there? Hm. My own family. Ha Ha. This rain was terrible and I could see people not going, but it teamed, and people from all over New Jersey and some from New York and some Pennsylvania, just a powerful, powerful time! Before he went out there, he stood in the back with an umbrella over him. There’s two stories. He was gonna put his cope on and his miter on he looked at me and I go like, made a grimace. He wondered why, he looked around. And then he realized, and he could read my mind, he could read people’s minds, and I could read his mind, because he would grunt. You had to know his grunts. JPII was a great grunter! And you know he would say, hm! Hm. Hm. And you could know this was totally different things that he would say. And so his grunting was very good. But, anyway. He looked at me, and I looked like that and he saw what was happening. They were putting everything on him. And my thought was this. Anybody could walk down, any bishop can walk down the isle with a cope and a miter and a crosier. I did it myself. I was archbishop, that was my job. The only guy in the world who could do it, who could walk down in a white cassock was him. And if he put all that other stuff on he’d be just like the rest of us, it wouldn’t be that... So he says “I think I go just with cassock.” So he took it off. So I have a big smile. He looked at me. Cause, he knew.
Then he comes to the back of the Cathedral. And, it’s a large cathedral, larger than St. Patrick’s actually. And, he stopped. And he knew, according to our plan, that he was gonna go down one isle and through the secret service and then go into the sacristy. Usually when he would visit something he’d go down one side and go back the other so that he would be able to touch, you know, everybody on each side. So he stopped, and he knew that that was not gonna be happening this time, so he tried to figure it. He figured what’s it gonna be. His knees were bothering him. His legs were bothering him. Cause he was, you know “I do what I have to do.” He would say. Just an extraordinary, powerful man! So he put his arms out! And he walked down, with difficulty, because ya, if ya have your arms out ya don’t have the kind of balance to go down. People grabbed him on both sides. Three times the size of this isle. And I remember that so well! I said to myself, this is a lesson to me from God. Be in the middle. Ya gotta be able to touch both sides. If you’re on one side you’re gonna lose the other. If you’re on the other side you’re gonna lose one. The only way you can try to reach all your people is by staying in the middle and reaching out to them both. And that’s what he did. I learned that lesson. And I think this Holy Father knows it beautifully. Stay in the middle. You stay where Jesus was. You stay where the popes have to be. They have to be in the middle. They can’t be too conservative. They can’t be too liberal. They’ve gotta be both liberal and conservative; they’ve gotta be centrist! They’ve gotta be where Jesus is and Jesus is Central of all things. So, I will never forget that story. I hope I have tried to do it my own life. I’m not sure I have but that’s what we have to do. And this pope I think does that. He understands it in a special way. Thank you.
We find ourselves in the early days of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, and there are reasons for cautious optimism. Several signs suggest that the Holy Father wishes to address some of the more pressing challenges inherited from his predecessor. Among these is the thorny question of access to the Traditional Latin Mass (what was once called the Extraordinary Form or Tridentine Mass) and the restrictions imposed by Traditiones Custodes.
I approach this question with the disposition we ought to have toward any successor of Peter: giving the benefit of the doubt, assuming good faith, and trusting in his pastoral intentions. Thus far, I do not detect in Pope Leo XIV any ill will toward those attached to the Traditional Mass. Yet good intentions alone do not guarantee wise policy, and two proposals currently being discussed as potential ‘solutions’ to the current impasse give me serious pause. Both, I would argue, fail to address the underlying problems and may even compound them.The Ordinariate Proposal: A Gilded Cage
The first proposal involves creating some form of personal ordinariate to oversee communities attached to the Traditional Mass. This has a certain administrative logic to it: provide a dedicated structure, remove these communities from the direct oversight of potentially hostile diocesan bishops, and create a stable canonical framework for their existence.
But this apparent solution conceals a fundamental problem: it would create a liturgical ghetto. The genius of Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum was precisely that it refused this ghettoization. Pope Benedict recognized the Traditional Mass not as some exotic rite requiring special permissions and separate hierarchical structures, but as part of the Roman Rite itself: never abrogated, always legitimate, and available as a right to the faithful and to priests. The ordinary-extraordinary form distinction was meant to emphasize continuity, not division. It acknowledged that the Church prays in two forms of the same rite, both equally Roman, both equally Catholic.
An ordinariate structure, by contrast, would effectively declare: ‘This Mass is so problematic, so divisive, so other, that it cannot exist within normal diocesan structures.’ It would enshrine in canon law the very separation that Pope Benedict sought to overcome. Worse still, it would do nothing to address the problem of hostile bishops. In fact, it might embolden them. A bishop who has shown himself ungenerous—or outright antagonistic—toward the faithful attached to the Traditional Mass would simply have his prejudices validated: ‘See, these people and their liturgy are so different they need their own separate structure. They don’t really belong here.’
The faithful would be protected, perhaps, but at the cost of being formally marginalized. This is not a solution; it is an institutionalized retreat.
The “Reform of the Reform”: Necessary but Insufficient
The second proposal focuses on improving celebrations of the Novus Ordo; what is often called the ‘reform of the reform.’ Proponents argue that if the Ordinary Form were celebrated with greater reverence, solemnity, and attention to the sacred, many of the concerns driving people toward the Traditional Mass would dissipate.
This is not entirely wrong. Much of what ails Catholic liturgy today stems not from the Novus Ordo itself in its official form, but from the liberties, innovations, and abuses that have become routine in its celebration. A more reverent Novus Ordo: celebrated ad orientem, with Gregorian chant, in Latin where appropriate, with careful attention to rubrics, etc. This would undoubtedly be a vast improvement over what many Catholics experience on a typical Sunday.
But this approach, while laudable, does not go far enough. It treats the problem as primarily one of implementation when there are also questions of structure and theology embedded in the rite itself.
The Novus Ordo was not the product of organic liturgical development but of committee design. This is not a polemical claim but a historical fact. The post-Vatican II liturgical reform, whatever its intentions, created a rite that was substantially different from what preceded it; not through the gradual, Spirit-guided evolution that characterized liturgical development for centuries, but through deliberate committee construction in a remarkably short period of time.
Pope Benedict XVI himself was deeply aware of this problem. In his writings both as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope, he expressed concerns about the rupture in liturgical continuity and the dangers of treating the liturgy as something we construct rather than something we receive. His whole project in Summorum Pontificum was, in part, to restore that sense of organic continuity.
More troubling still is the way the Novus Ordo, in its typical celebration, places the priest at the center of the liturgical action. The structure of the rite, particularly when celebrated versus populum, tends to make the priest’s personality, choices, and even charisma central to the experience. The priest becomes, whether he wishes it or not, a kind of performer. The liturgy becomes, to a troubling degree, his creation.
This is not to say that priests celebrating the Novus Ordo are acting in bad faith or that Christ cannot be encountered there; of course He can and is. But the structure of the rite makes the centrality of Christ dependent on the priest’s willingness and ability to efface himself, to suppress his own personality, to resist the temptation to innovate or ‘personalize’ the liturgy.
In the Traditional Mass, by contrast, the priest’s personality is structurally suppressed. Facing the same direction as the people, following a more fixed and detailed rubrical structure, praying large portions of the Mass quietly, the priest becomes almost anonymous; a mediator rather than a protagonist. Christ is at the center not because the priest is particularly holy or particularly skilled, but because the structure of the rite itself directs all attention away from the priest and toward the altar, toward the sacrifice, toward the Lord.
It is no accident that so many churches built or renovated in the Novus Ordo era look like stadiums or auditoriums rather than sacred spaces. If the liturgy is fundamentally about what the priest does, about the community’s celebration, about active participation understood primarily as external activity, then the architectural logic follows: create a space where everyone can see the action, where the priest is visible and audible to all, where the focus is on the human gathering rather than on the divine presence.
A more reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo can mitigate some of these problems, but it cannot fully overcome them without structural changes so substantial that we would be, in effect, creating a different rite.
The Pastoral Ends
The real solution is not complicated, though it requires courage and perhaps a willingness to disappoint certain constituencies who have grown attached to the restrictions of Traditiones Custodes. The solution is to return to the dispensation of Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio was wise precisely because it addressed all the problems that the current proposals fail to solve:
1. It dealt with hostile bishops. By establishing that priests have a right to celebrate the Traditional Mass without needing episcopal permission, and that faithful have a right to request it, Pope Benedict removed the question from the realm of episcopal whim and placed it on firmer canonical ground. A bishop could not simply forbid what the universal law of the Church permitted.
2. It refused ghettoization. By insisting on the ordinary-extraordinary form distinction, Pope Benedict kept the Traditional Mass within the normal life of dioceses and parishes. It was not an exotic import requiring special structures, but part of the Church’s living tradition.
3. It respected the freedom of the faithful. Pope Benedict understood that the faithful have a right (not merely a privilege) to access the Church’s liturgical heritage. The liturgy is not the property of bishops or popes to manipulate at will, but a sacred trust handed down through generations.
4. It created space for mutual enrichment. Pope Benedict hoped that the two forms of the Roman Rite would enrich each other: that the reverence and sacral character of the old would influence the new, while the new rite would encourage Catholics to engage actively with the liturgy, to better understand the texts, and to participate vocally in their appointed parts. These devotional habits, once cultivated, naturally enhance one’s experience of the traditional rite as well. But for this enrichment to work, it requires proximity, not separation.
Conclusion
Pope Leo XIV faces a difficult situation, and I do not envy him the task of navigating these troubled liturgical waters. But the path forward should not require novel structures or half-measures. Pope Benedict XVI, in his wisdom, already showed us the way. Summorum Pontificum was not perfect (no merely human legislation ever is) but it was fundamentally sound in its principles and generous in its pastoral vision.
What is needed now is not innovation but restoration: restoration of the freedom Pope Benedict granted, restoration of trust in the faithful, restoration of confidence that the Church is big enough to hold both forms of her Roman liturgical tradition without one threatening the other.
The Traditional Mass is not a problem to be managed or a crisis to be solved. It is a gift to be received, a treasure to be preserved, and a heritage to be passed on. The sooner we return to treating it as such, the sooner we can move past these exhausting controversies and return to the real work of the Church: the sanctification of souls and the worship of Almighty God.
