The end of the grace period
30. June 2025
A note by Giuseppe Nardi
Last Saturday, June 28, the New York Times published two articles (here and here) that can hardly be dismissed as randomly placed routine articles. On the eve of the Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul – the outer feast day of the papacy and the visible unity of the Ecclesia militans – the leading American media outlet placed the new pope at the center of a double abuse analysis. Is the grace period over?
The symbolism of the time of publication was probably deliberately chosen: On the very day on which Pope Leo XIV personally awarded the palliums to new metropolitans for the first time again – a ritual that had receded into the background under Francis and particularly emphasizes the unity of the Church sub Petro – the New York Times placed a story that at least scratches this very authority, if not questioned.
Francis – spared, Leo – under supervision?
While Pope Francis has been treated with kid gloves by the influential globalist media for years – one thinks, for example, of the conspicuous restraint in the McCarrick scandal – the tone towards his successor is noticeably cooler, more analytical, more distant. In both articles, Robert Francis Prevost, today's Pope Leo XIV, is evaluated on the basis of two cases of abuse from his time as bishop of Chiclayo in Peru (2014-2020): In one, he is praised for his decisive action against the conservative Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana – even celebrated as a "hero" of the victims. In the other case, on the other hand, which took place within his own diocese, he is accused of a lack of consistency and weak supervision. He had acted "formally according to the rules", but this is presented as insufficient.
The contrasts are sharp: on the one hand, the courageous churchman who opposes an influential, conservative clergy – on the other hand, the administrator, under whose jurisdiction accused priests were allowed to continue to celebrate in public. Today's Pope as Diocesan Shepherd – sometimes consistent, sometimes hesitant? The New York Times does not give a clear answer, but focuses on contradictions.
Ambivalence as a message of the New York Times
The title already hints at it: It's not about a reckoning, but about a kind of test. The articles construct an ambivalent picture: once with integrity, sometimes dubious – a man who has yet to earn his trust. But whose trust? That of the abuse victims? Or that of the global, liberal elites, whose agenda Francis supported for long stretches? (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Curia Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo summed up the attitude of Leo's predecessor in 2017 as follows, when he praised the Bergoglian pontificate with regard to the globalist establishment:
"Humanity is experiencing a magical moment: for the first time, the Magisterium of the Pope and that of the UN coincide."
Whether compatibility with the Magisterium of the Church was still given was apparently of secondary importance to Sanchez Sorondo.
Instrument or partner?
Was Francis a like-minded person – or a welcome lever to involve the Church in a globalist agenda? The Catholic Church, with its unique, globally structured order, is viewed by parts of this establishment primarily as functional: useful as long as it serves the agenda – annoying as soon as it resists.
So how is Pope Leo XIV rated? The New York Times does not practice open hostility. But it checks, observes, doubts – and sends a signal with a fine needle. The new pope no longer moves in the shelter of benevolent leniency, but is subject to reservations. The tone is professional but cool. The invitation is clear: it will be measured – not only by the standards of the Church, but by the expectations of an agenda that has long since ceased to act in a hidden way.
__
A Bishop Embraces the Holy Father in the Name of All Clerics Present
%2010.51.46%E2%80%AFa.%C2%A0m..png)
