If we find incontrovertible evidence of extraterrestrial life today, tomorrow or at some point in the future, it will lead to “a fundamental rupture in human consciousness,” after which nothing will ever be the same. That is what American professor Carlos Eire says in the latest issue of Time magazine.

Eire uses the English word “rupture.” The discovery of extraterrestrial life, he argues, would constitute a turning point, a historical rupture in the history of human civilization. “It is comparable to the rupture experienced by the indigenous peoples of North and South America when Europeans arrived there.”

According to the Yale University professor, Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular would struggle after such a discovery.

The reason, Eire argues, is that all three religions share the idea that there is one God who created everything, including human beings. “We humans like to think that our species is the crown of creation — a belief that will become harder to sustain if a cosmic species appears that is better, smarter and stronger than we are.”

Of these three religions, Christianity would have the hardest time “because of the Christian teaching that God became human” and thereby revealed the very nature of God.

According to Eire, “all three monotheistic religions do have some experience with the idea of intelligent, non-human life forms.” After all, “there have always been angels.” The Time article does not elaborate on this. Time also mentions, almost in passing, that something called “exotheology” already exists, but does not explore that either.

Reconsidered

The Greek prefix exo means “outside” or “beyond.” Exobiology is the study of possible life beyond Earth. Exotheology seeks to explore the theological implications of that possibility.

For if extraterrestrial beings exist, the whole of Christian doctrine will have to be reconsidered. There would be no shortage of questions.

Take sin and salvation, for example. If non-human life exists beyond Earth, would such life also need redemption?

If Christians believe that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, could the same be true of other, extraterrestrial creatures? The question would obviously become particularly pressing if these beings turned out to be more intelligent than humans.

Could humanity still be regarded as the crown of creation, as Christianity has traditionally taught?

And, more radically: is it conceivable that God has also revealed himself to extraterrestrial life?

These are dizzying but, at the same time, fascinating questions that theologians should be discussing.

Church Fathers

The Church Father Origen (184–253) reflected on the possibility of a succession of worlds through time. God’s creativity, he thought, might not have been limited to a particular cosmos. Great theologians such as Augustine (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1275) were much more cautious about such ideas.

But in 1277, the Bishop of Paris condemned the idea that God could not create multiple worlds, even if he wanted to. This idea, based on the Greek philosopher Aristotle, placed a limitation on God’s omnipotence.

Theologians were therefore free to explore the possibility. And some did. The furthest of all was Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464). He thought that other stars might have their own inhabitants, of a different nature from — and perhaps even superior to — humans.

Contemporary theologians, too, are writing books about exotheology, also known as astrotheology.

The Christian tradition provides points of reference for thinking about the questions raised above. For centuries, for instance, there has been a debate over the hypothetical question of whether Christ would have come even if Adam had not sinned.

Some theologians say no, because humanity would then not have needed redemption. Others say yes, because God wanted to reveal his nature to humanity, even if humanity had not needed redemption.

The question of whether God can also be found beyond the boundaries of Scripture and the Christian faith has likewise occupied theologians for a long time.

Especially in the Catholic tradition, following the Church Fathers, theologians like to speak of these as the “seeds of the Word.” Might traces of Christ, “through whom all things were made” (according to the Nicene Creed), also be found beyond our own atmosphere?

Baptized Tentacles

In 2014, Pope Francis raised the question in a homily: “Imagine that tomorrow an extraterrestrial being were to turn up at our door and say that he wanted to be baptized! What would we do?”

The then director of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Guy Consolmagno, answered that question in a book: “Of course we would baptize such a being! If it asked for it!” For, as the Jesuit sees it, “every being — no matter how many tentacles it may have — has a soul.”

In an interview with this newspaper in 2015, Consolmagno said that he considered extraterrestrial life not only possible, but even likely.

“I often ask myself what is more frightening: that there are other beings in the universe — perhaps even beings that are bigger than us, smarter, closer to God — or that we are alone. I find both thoughts equally frightening,” he said.

Exotheology is a form of “what if?” theology that can be meaningful even if evidence of extraterrestrial life never emerges. Speculative theology helps us think in new ways. Ultimately, every theological question is not only about God, but also about ourselves. And therefore about our place within creation.

Subscribe now

This article was first published in Dutch in Nederlands Dagblad.

The official term is primacy. Derived from the Latin word primus (“first”), it refers to the “first place” held by a bishop among others.

After the Great Schism of the eleventh century, which divided the Churches of East and West, the patriarch of Constantinople assumed the “first place” among the bishops of what is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Yet this is primarily a “primacy of honour”, carrying little or no authority over the other Orthodox Churches. It resembles the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium of Christianity, when he exercised no direct jurisdiction over other local churches and did not appoint their bishops.

From the eleventh century onwards, this began to change in the Western Church. The pope, previously a bishop among other bishops — one whose intervention was sought mainly when disputes or crises arose — increasingly became a bishop above other bishops.

The pope’s representatives

This process reached its culmination in the late nineteenth century with the dogmas of papal infallibility — expressing the pope’s ability to define doctrine under specific circumstances — and universal jurisdiction, affirming that the pope possesses authority throughout the entire world.

With this expanded understanding of the Petrine ministry, bishops increasingly became, in practice, representatives of the pope rather than autonomous shepherds of their local churches.

The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) brought a significant change. The local bishop is not a representative of the pope, but represents Christ within his own particular Church.

The command of Jesus to Peter, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17), applies not only to Peter’s successor — the bishop of Rome — but also to every individual bishop.

The Council therefore reintroduced the concept of episcopal collegiality. The pope does indeed have a universal responsibility, accompanied by genuine authority and power, but he is not “more of a bishop” than any other bishop.

The Synod of Bishops

All bishops together, in communion with and around the pope, constitute the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. In this way, the Council recovered elements of the theology of the first millennium in order to restrain the excesses that had developed around the papacy during the second millennium.

One concrete result was that Pope Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops shortly after the Council. Ever since, the pope has periodically brought representatives of the world’s episcopate to Rome. The synod expresses the episcopal collegiality within which the papal primacy is exercised.

Pope Francis took this development a step further. Alongside episcopal collegiality, which sought to bring greater balance to papal primacy, he introduced the concept of synodality.

By this he meant that the Holy Spirit is given to all the faithful through baptism, and that the institutional Church should also listen to the sensus fidelium — literally, the “sense of faith” of believers.

This represented another step in implementing the vision of the Second Vatican Council. That process of reform is scheduled to conclude in October 2028 and, recent statements by Pope Leo XIV suggest, will result in new ecclesial laws and norms.

Cardinals who felt excluded

Francis therefore consulted Catholics around the world and also allowed non-bishops to participate in the Synod of Bishops — with voting rights, no less. Primacy, collegiality and synodality were thus brought together within a single process.

But this also revealed that some felt left out. During the days preceding last year’s conclave, several cardinals - behind the Vatican walls - expressed the view that the College of Cardinals should be more closely involved in the governance of the Church. Under previous popes, this had happened only to a limited extent.

According to canon law, cardinals do not merely have the task of electing a new pope; they are also called to assist and advise the pope. Leo XIV has therefore decided to organize an annual extraordinary consistory, bringing all cardinals together in Rome.

Does this risk pushing episcopal collegiality and synodality back into the background? Probably not.

Listening and leading, learning and teaching

Leo sees the consistories of cardinals as one possible expression of episcopal collegiality within the synodality of the entire Church. Last Friday, during the consistory, he described the consistory as “a synthesis of the synodality in which all the baptised participate, in the unity of the People of God.”

He continued:

“Synodality and collegiality are forms of Christian fraternity, which unite us as baptised persons and as bishops.”

Episcopal collegiality will also take shape in other ways. In October, Pope Leo will bring the presidents of bishops’ conferences from around the world to Rome to discuss contemporary challenges concerning marriage and the family. Only a small number of cardinals will participate in that gathering.

“Some families will also take part in this meeting,” Leo XIV announced last week, giving the episcopal encounter a clear synodal dimension as well.

In this way, Leo is experimenting with the exercise of papal primacy, searching for what works. He is doing so within a triangle formed by bishops, cardinals and all the faithful — all of whom contribute to discerning what the Spirit is saying to the Church.

“The authority of primacy belongs to those who listen before they lead, to those who learn before they teach, always following the one Master,” Leo XIV said — a profoundly synodal vision of authority.

^{This article was originally published in Nederlands Dagblad, the Dutch daily newspaper for which I serve as Vatican correspondent in Rome.}

Pope Leo XIV began his pontificate cautiously. A little boring, even. One year on, the world is still waiting for major decisions, appointments and programmatic texts. What is the underlying reason for that? Or: why Leo XIV perhaps should really have been called Paul VII.

When I published my list of favorites to succeed Pope Francis on May 2 last year, Robert Francis Prevost stood clearly at the top.

“The least American American” among the ten U.S. cardinals, I called him. “He meets all the requirements for the job.” And above all: “Prevost is discreet, has leadership experience and is a moderate candidate who supported Pope Francis’s synodal process, while also capable of winning the support of part of the conservative camp thanks to the calmness he radiates.”

The white smoke rising from the chimney almost a week later, on May 8, indeed announced Cardinal Prevost as the new pope. And one year later it can be said that, as pope too, he has remained entirely himself — unlike Francis, whose characteristic exuberance only fully emerged after his election.

Pope Leo XIV on the day of his inauguration. - Photo: Deutsche Bischofskonferenz / Jessica Krämer

Leo XIV had always been discreet. His 26-year-old personal trainer, with whom he worked out twice a week, did not even know that “Robert” was a cardinal.

He only discovered it while sitting on the couch with his girlfriend watching the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, when his athletic client suddenly appeared dressed in white as pope. “I thought he might be a university professor or something,” he later said. “He always just came in wearing his workout clothes.”

Besides being discreet, Leo is cautious and measured. “He listens extremely well,” says almost everyone who meets him.

“He thinks very carefully before he speaks,” his brother John Prevost told the French newspaper La Croix. “I used to tease him about that. I’d say: if I ask you a question, I know I can go prepare dinner and come back — and you’ll still be formulating your answer! It’s a joke between us, but it’s true that he is extraordinarily careful in what he says, and very diplomatic.”

No hurry, because there is time

That also explains why Leo’s pontificate only slowly gathered momentum. He barely made the international headlines. For months, international Vatican correspondents in Rome have complained that their newspapers and television networks show little or no interest in what the pope says or does. Under Francis, journalists had become spoiled.

Only in recent weeks — and because Donald Trump came out swinging after Leo criticized American-Israeli aggression — has Leo begun making headlines in secular media. Amid all the populist shouting, his reserved yet deeply convinced tone and his deeply rooted convictions suddenly feel like a relief.

Yet one year later he still has not made any major Vatican appointments — apart from naming his own successor as prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Bishops.

Leo has left all heads of Vatican dicasteries in place “until further notice,” including six cardinals who passed the retirement age of 75 more than a year ago.

Leo is in no hurry.

That has to do with his character, but also with the major difference between his situation and that of Francis in 2013. The Argentine pope believed he would be pope for “at most two or three years.” In the end it became twelve: the reforms entrusted to him by the College of Cardinals took far longer than he had anticipated.

Leo knows that — health and life permitting — he likely has at least ten years ahead of him. Moreover, he was given the mission of calmly and thoughtfully developing further the lines laid down by Francis.

Three extra years attached to it

In that sense Leo resembles Pope Paul VI.

In 1962, his predecessor John XXIII had opened the Second Vatican Council. It was a reform council meant to “update” the Catholic Church and bring it “up to date” (aggiornamento in Italian), by returning to its sources (ressourcement, as the French term went) through inspiration from Scripture, the theology of the Church Fathers and the early Church.

But while fierce debates over Church reform were underway, John XXIII died. The cardinals then elected the diplomat Paul VI: a pope who broadly shared the same vision, but who was also capable of holding together a Catholic Church under enormous tension. Moderate, cautious, yet convinced of the need for reform.

When Francis died on April 21, 2025, he had just extended the “synodal process” — the Church reform process he launched in 2021 — by another three years.

Almost all of the reforms requested by the synod still need to be translated into concrete reality.

So what was needed was, in effect, another Paul VI. And that became Prevost.

Unity — but at what price?

But where does the pontificate go after this first quiet year?

Leo XIV is clearly continuing along the path of synodality: toward a Church in which all baptized Catholics share responsibility, a Church that is inclusive, for “todos, todos, todos” — everyone — as Francis used to say. But real decisions and concrete reforms are unlikely before 2028.

Around May 25 this year, Pope Leo’s first encyclical is expected: a text on Catholic Social Teaching with considerable attention to the opportunities and dangers posed by artificial intelligence.

In the coming months, trips to Spain (June), France (September), and Uruguay, Argentina and Peru (November) are also on the agenda. And on July 4 — the national holiday of the United States — a visit to the Italian refugee island of Lampedusa.

Although Church unity is very close to Leo’s heart, he is also confronted with the announcement of illicit episcopal ordinations that the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X intends to carry out on July 1. Unless Leo ultimately grants permission, this could lead to the first schism of the millennium.

The question also remains how he will position himself toward traditionalists, who would like to see the unrestricted celebration of the Tridentine Mass restored. Vatican sources report that Leo XIV — although he dresses more classically than Francis — has no intention of lifting the restrictions imposed by Francis.

The fact that he has invited all cardinals to Rome at the end of June to discuss Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis’s foundational text on the Church’s mission, is yet another sign that under Leo XIV the pontificate of Francis is being continued — cautiously and deliberately.

This article was first published in Nederlands Dagblad (in Dutch).

“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” says Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 26, verse 41). He directed these words at his disciples on the eve of his death — just before his arrest — when they kept falling asleep instead of keeping watch.

Over the course of church history, however, the phrase was wrenched from its context and used as a warning against sexual sin. From the fourth century onward — partly due to the influence of Greek philosophy and the Church Father Augustine — sexual transgressions came to be seen increasingly as the gravest of all sins.

(Image created by A.I.)

Pope Francis broke with that tradition and turned the interpretation on its head. “Sexual sins are the least serious,” he said. “The flesh is weak, after all.” He also believed that too many priests were fixated on morality “below the belt.” And he added: “The worst sins lie elsewhere.”

During the traditional airborne press conference on his return from a visit to four African countries, Pope Leo XIV continued along the path laid out by Francis.

“We tend to think that the only moral issue is the sexual one when the Church speaks about morality,” he said. “But I believe there are much greater and more important issues — such as justice, equality, the freedom of men and women, and religious freedom — all of which take priority over that particular question.”

Adam, Eve, and Free Will

These are striking words not only for what they reveal about Leo XIV’s deep appreciation for the Social Teaching of the Church initiated by Leo XIII — they are also remarkable coming from an Augustinian friar.

The Church Father Augustine (354–430) was the one who introduced into Christian theology the idea that sexual desire (concupiscentia in Latin) is a consequence of the Fall and, by extension, of original sin. His argument runs as follows: before the Fall, Adam and Eve had sex by free will, but without lust. After the Fall, that free will became disordered and ungovernable, and lust took over.

Augustine’s autobiography in particular has given rise to the image of him as the founding father of the Church’s anti-sex theology. The Dutch Catholic comedian Fons Jansen once quipped that he read the Confessions “back to front — so I can watch him slowly become human again.”

Sex as a Litmus Test

But a closer reading of Augustine reveals that both Pope Francis and the Augustinian Leo XIV can legitimately appeal to the Church Father. Augustin himself ranked pride, lovelessness, arrogance, and the lust for domination (libido dominandi) as more serious than sexual sins. More than these “carnal sins,” he argued, it is the “spiritual sins” that distort one’s relationship with God and with others.

In The City of God, Augustine writes that “respectable” people can be deeply sinful through pride, while someone with sexual weaknesses may be far more humble — and therefore closer to God.

In the centuries that followed, however, sexuality came to occupy an outsized place in moral theology. One could even argue that today’s hypersexualization of society is in part a consequence of, and reaction to, the hypersexualization of Christian morality.

For decades, acceptance of strict sexual morality served as a litmus test for authentic Catholicism in Catholic circles. Francis and Leo are now ranking it lower in what theologians call the “hierarchy of truths.”

This is also evident in what Pope Leo XIV went on to say during that same press conference: “I think it is very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual issues.”

Sex and the Unity of the Church

He was asked for his view on the German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who — like several other German bishops before him — had made the liturgical blessing of same-sex couples possible. Leo said that “the Holy See does not agree with the formalized blessing of homosexual couples beyond what Pope Francis specifically permitted” — meaning a spontaneous blessing, without a formal liturgy.

“Going further today could cause more division than unity,” he added.

Notably, the only argument he offered here was not moral-theological but ecclesiological — not sexual ethics, but the theology of the Church itself.

For many Western Catholics, the blessing of same-sex couples — clearly distinguished in Catholic theology from sacramental marriage — has become the most natural thing in the Catholic world. Or should be.

In other parts of the world — such as the African continent — that is emphatically not the case.

The Sin of Fixating on Sex

Sexual morality has now been downgraded by two successive popes — and they are doing so, remarkably, by appealing to the very Church Father who is widely regarded as the inventor of Catholic sexual morality. This shift could open the door to greater variety in church practice across the globe.

In ecumenical dialogue, a key question is always: which differences are “church-dividing,” and which are not? Some differences, after all, can coexist within church unity.

The same principle could be applied within the Catholic Church itself. Pope Francis already addressed this in his programmatic document Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), when he called for “a healthy decentralization.”

“I do not believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question affecting the Church and the world,” Francis wrote at the time. “Nor is it appropriate for the Pope to take the place of local bishops in discerning all the problems that arise in their territories.”

Leo drew from the same well last October, telling synodal teams from around the world that not all answers to difficult questions need to come from Rome.

The downgrading of sexual morality by both popes may, in time, make a more pluriform global Church possible — unless Catholics once again fall back into the age-old sin of fixating on sexuality, because they would rather avoid the deeper questions of salvation, redemption, and liberation.

The original version of this article has been published on April 29 in Nederlands Dagblad (in Dutch).

(A cardinal loses his right to vote in a conclave on the day after his eightieth birthday.)

If we look at the origin of the cardinal electors, we see that the share of Italians is historically low (compared to the 1963 conclave, it has been reduced by a factor of three in percentage terms), while the share of Asians (from the Middle East to Japan and the Philippines) is historically high, thanks to the cardinal appointments made by Pope Francis.

This limit of 120, established by Pope Paul VI, was exceeded by his successors Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis.

It remains unclear whether Pope Leo XIV intends to adhere again to this limit, but there is speculation that he may appoint new cardinals on or around June 29—the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. That would mark the first consistory of his pontificate.

Later this year, two other cardinals will also turn 80: the Italian cardinal Francesco Montenegro (on May 22) and the Canadian cardinal Michael Czerny (on July 18). After that, the next 80th birthday among the cardinals will not occur until January 16, 2027, when Canadian cardinal Thomas Collins reaches that age.

When we think about possible candidates, the first name that comes to mind when thinking about new cardinals is, of course, that of the Italian archbishop Filippo Iannone. This Carmelite and canon law expert—who, strikingly, speaks only Italian—was appointed by Pope Leo XIV as his own successor at the Dicastery for Bishops.

But also other names that could be considered.

During his twelve-year pontificate, Pope Francis did not appoint any German cardinal, apart from Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller in 2014, who had already been made prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith by Benedict XVI.

One might therefore think of Heiner Wilmer, recently elected president of the German Bishops’ Conference and, shortly after the election, appointed bishop of Münster, the largest German diocese, by Pope Leo XIV.

Like Leo XIV—who spent twelve years at the head of the Augustinian order—Wilmer also worked for years in Rome as superior of the Dehonians (the Priests of the Sacred Heart). He knows both the German Church, where he is seen as a supporter of synodal reforms, and Roman customs and procedures.

There are also several sees that traditionally had a cardinal as archbishop—a practice that Pope Francis moved away from as an automatism, but which Leo XIV might possibly revive.

In that context, one might think of Richard Moth (67), the Archbishop of Westminster in the United Kingdom and successor to Cardinal Vincent Nichols, or of the 63-year-old Josef Grünwidl, successor of Christoph Schönborn as Archbishop of Vienna.

The 58-year-old Ronald Aldon Hicks, recently appointed Archbishop of New York by Pope Leo XIV, could also be a candidate, although his predecessor Timothy Michael Dolan (76) is still under 80, and there is an unwritten rule that a successor is only created cardinal once the previous cardinal-archbishop has passed the age of 80.

Then there is the new patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church, the 58 year old Mar Paul III Nona, though his predecessor, Cardinal Louis Raphaël Sako, who recently resigned unexpectedly amid a scandal involving a bishop in the United States to which he had linked his fate, is only 76.

A strong possibility is Raphael Thattil, the 70-year-old Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church, the largest Eastern Catholic Church. His predecessor, Cardinal George Alencherry, is 81.

Personally, it would not surprise me if the Latin bishop in Istanbul, Massimiliano Palinuro, were also a serious candidate. An Italian, moreover, though at 51 he is still quite young. Leo XIV knows him from his visit to Istanbul, where he stayed in the bishop’s residence.

But above all, I would look to Africa.

Share

That is where the number of Catholics is growing the fastest, and Leo XIV is well aware of this. On his way to Africa, he said he wanted it to be his first foreign trip.

The 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, and preparations already made under Pope Francis, meant he would first travel to Turkey and Lebanon, but Africa is undoubtedly on Leo XIV’s radar—more so than under Francis, who tended to focus on Asia, the continent where he had once, as a young Jesuit, hoped to become a missionary but was prevented from doing so due to his fragile health.

Leo may therefore wish to increase the number of African cardinals. According to the most recent Vatican figures, 20.3% of all Catholics live in Africa, while the College of Cardinals is only 11.8% African. And who knows: perhaps in the past ten days he has already met several serious candidates.

(Image created by A.I.)

The brief Vatican statement on the conversation with the Israeli president notes that it took place “on the occasion of the Easter festivities.” Yesterday also marked the beginning of the Jewish Passover, which lasts a week.

“During the conversation, the need to reopen all possible channels of diplomatic dialogue was reiterated,” the Vatican said, with the aim “to put an end to the serious ongoing conflict, with a view to achieving a just and lasting peace throughout the Middle East.”

The language of Vatican diplomacy

“As the conversation continued, attention was given to the importance of protecting the civilian population and promoting respect for international and humanitarian law,” the Vatican added.

It made no mention of whether the situation of Christians in Israel was discussed, nor of the restrictions imposed on Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa during the Palm Sunday celebrations.

Earlier this week, the Vatican disclosed that this issue had been raised by Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Archbishop Paul R. Gallagher in a meeting with the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See.

“During the conversation, regret was expressed over what had happened, regarding which clarifications were provided, and note was taken of the understanding reached between the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the local authorities concerning participation in the liturgies of the Easter Triduum at the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem,” the statement said.

The Israeli perspective

The statement released by the Israeli president offers a more detailed account of his remarks to the pope during the conversation of today.

According to the readout, Herzog “extended his warmest wishes for the Easter holiday to Christian communities across the Middle East and around the world.”

It further notes that the two leaders “discussed the war with Iran, including the ongoing threat of missile attacks by the Iranian regime and its terror proxies against people of all faiths in the region.”

“President Herzog recalled the recent Iranian missile attacks on Jerusalem that fell in the area of sites holy to Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” the statement said.

According to the Israeli account, they also spoke “about the situation in Lebanon, including the importance of the safety and security of Christian communities on both sides of the border. President Herzog emphasized that the Hezbollah terror organization cannot be allowed to continue threatening both the people of Israel and Lebanon, who both deserve a future of peace and stability.”

The Israeli president “expressed to Pope Leo XIV the great importance of the State of Israel’s relationship with the Holy See, the Catholic Church, and Christians around the world.” He also underscored “the importance of the cooperation of all world and religious leaders in the crucial fight against antisemitism.”

The statement concludes with a note of shared sentiment: “They expressed their shared hope for a more peaceful future for people of all faiths across the world, free from the threat of violence and bloodshed.”

Ukraine

Regarding the “cordial conversation” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Vatican stated that “the Holy Father extended his best wishes on the occasion of the Easter festivities, reaffirming his closeness to the Ukrainian people.”

According to the Holy See, the two leaders discussed “the humanitarian situation, with a renewed emphasis on the urgency of ensuring the necessary aid to a population severely affected by the conflict.” Reference was also made to efforts aimed at promoting humanitarian initiatives, “especially with regard to the release of prisoners.”

Finally, hope was expressed that “through the commitment and cooperation of the international community, it may soon be possible to achieve a cessation of hostilities and a just and lasting peace.”

The expression “just and lasting peace” has been used since the first year of the war in Ukraine to indicate that the Vatican does not expect Ukraine to accept unjust territorial claims imposed by Russian aggression

.

With this plan, which he announced last Thursday, he attracted international attention and also criticism. But Pope Leo XIV has for quite some time known what the Belgian bishops think about priestly celibacy. Bonny knows exactly what he is doing - and there is a precedent.

.

“I will do everything in my power to ordain several married men as priests for our diocese by 2028.”

It was a striking sentence in an eleven-page pastoral letter to the Catholics of Antwerp and its surroundings. Surprising as it may be, it does not come entirely out of the blue.

In 2019, the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon already noted that “many ecclesial communities in the Amazon region face great difficulties in celebrating the Eucharist.” In some cases, communities even have to wait years before a priest visits them.

For that reason, the synod proposed to ordain “suitable and respected men from local communities who have a legitimately constituted and stable family” as priests.

Pope Francis, however, did nothing with this proposal. He felt the discussion was not yet mature. But he did not reject it either: he left it open on the table.

From one synod to another

During the Synod on synodality, the Church reform synod launched by Francis in 2021, the question of priestly celibacy came up frequently, but the final document published in October 2024 remained completely silent on the matter.

Meanwhile, work on the proposal continues in the Amazon. An important reason is that celibacy is incomprehensible in Amazonian culture, and there are therefore hardly any indigenous priests.

A draft document by the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon has for several months been developing a plan for the selection and ordination of married men to the priesthood.

(I previously wrote about this in Nederlands Dagblad, including the question of how Pope Leo XIV views this.)

This conference of representatives from the nine Amazon countries elected a new president last week: the Brazilian cardinal Leonardo Ulrich Steiner. This Franciscan is an outspoken supporter of married priests.

Is Belgium the new Amazon?

The dual problem in the Amazon—the lack of indigenous priests and the difficulty of celebrating the Eucharist and other sacraments in faith communities—is also mentioned by the Antwerp bishop Johan Bonny.

“The number of unmarried men who want to become priests has fallen to just above zero,” he writes. Foreign priests who are brought in are certainly an enrichment, but they are there “to help us, not to replace us.” According to Bonny, there are already areas in his diocese where Catholic faithful no longer have access to the sacraments.

Bonny also knows that two years ago, with Rome’s permission, a married man and father or children has been ordained as a priest. This man, originally from Iraq, was ordained for the Chaldean Catholic community in Mechelen (Belgium), but CardinL De Kesel received permission from the Vatican to incardinate him as a “bi-ritual priest” in his own diocese.

This priest thus serves both the Chaldean Catholic faithful—this Eastern Catholic Church has had married priests since its origins—in their own liturgical rite, as well as Belgian Catholics in the Latin Rite. A historic opening.

But there is more.

Blessing for gay couples revisited?

Bonny—who has good contacts in the Vatican because he worked there for eleven years and still goes there regularly—will not want to act against the will of the pope.

“The coming two years will be used to ensure the necessary communication and to make agreements, both with the Belgian bishops’ conference and with the Vatican,” he writes.

With this stone thrown into the pond, he clearly wants to set things in motion.

As he did earlier with the blessing of same-sex couples.

This was made possible in September 2022 by the Belgian bishops—the first bishops’ conference in the world to do so.

The bishops of Belgium had discussed this beforehand, in full discretion, with high-ranking Vatican officials, including Pope Francis himself - as Bonny told in Frankfurt to the German Synodal Way.

The Belgian bishops were told in the Vatican and by the Pope that in their own particular context they should take their own pastoral responsibility. And that is what they did.

This was confirmed during the ad limina visit of the Belgian bishops two months after the publication of the blessing-proposal for same-sex couples by several Vatican departments. There was no cloud in the Vatican sky, and Bonny played a key role in this.

Pope Francis had only set one condition: that there be agreement among the Belgian bishops—and there was.

A year later, Pope Francis made the blessing of same-sex couples possible for the entire universal Church.

Will it be the same with married priests?

Pope Leo XIV knows that among the Belgian bishops there has for years been a desire to be able to ordain married men. This has already been discussed with him by the Belgian episcopate, an insider says. ‘The pope is very concerned when catholic communities are unable to celebrate the Eucharist’, he told me.

Bonny therefore knows that there is a certain openness on this point on the part of the American pope.

The main difference with the Amazon is that in the rainforest such married men would first have to undergo theological formation. That requires a solid organization and preparation that will take years.

In Belgium, the situation is different. There is already a considerable number of married men who have studied theology and who are currently working in the Church as theologians, deacons, or pastoral workers. They would only need limited additional pastoral training.

During the 2013 conclave, the Dutch Cardinal Adrianus Simonis—who was known as a conservative cardinal—argued in favor of married priests because, in his view, “the sacramentality of the Church is at risk.” This is, of course, far more important than an ecclesiastical rule of celibacy, which is not a dogma.

But everyone also knows that if one diocese or one country takes the lead on this issue, many others will want to follow in no time. The question is how the Vatican will be able to keep such a development under control and channel it.

(The image above has been created by A.I.)

The “new Americanism” of the MAGA movement is its exact opposite—but that does not make it compatible with the Catholic faith today.

Almost everything Leo XIII condemned has, over time, become part of official Catholic teaching.

Yet more importantly, the MAGA ideology closely resembles a movement condemned in the 1920s by Pope Pius XI as a French heresy.

(Image created by A.I.)

1899: The condemnation of “Americanism”

It is a nearly forgotten page of Church history: in 1899, Pope Leo XIII condemned “Americanism.” The term was coined by conservative French Catholics to describe a cluster of supposed heresies that the Pope feared were being believed and taught throughout the Catholic Church in the United States.

The official document is a letter, called Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, dated 22 January 1899 and addressed to the American Cardinal James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore.

In short, Leo XIII condemned the acceptance of typically American values of liberalism and pluralism, which he feared would undermine Church doctrine. Doctrine and Church practice could not be adapted to modernity or to local culture. An American Church could not be different from the Church elsewhere in the world. He rejected the idea that American Catholics were “a special case” because they lived in a majority-Protestant nation and therefore needed more freedom.

Moreover, a separation of Church and state — and with it, religious freedom — as was the case in the United States, could not be permitted. The state might tolerate other religions, but it was obliged to actively promote the Catholic Church and her teaching. Leo XIII also found the emphasis on individual freedom of conscience problematic: the faithful should learn to follow Church teaching and accept ecclesiastical authority. Encouraging the laity to listen to the Holy Spirit dwelling within them was, of course, equally problematic.

He also feared that if Catholic children attended public schools and mixed with non-Catholics, they could not become good Catholics. He opposed freedom of the press and freedom of expression, warning that these would lead to moral decay. And he worried that “active” apostolic virtues were being preferred over the classic monastic virtues of humility, obedience, and contemplation.

All in all, Leo XIII — urged on by conservative Catholics in Europe and within the Vatican — feared that Catholicism was being infected by typically Protestant values. There was particular concern that these ideas would take root in Europe, especially in France, where some liberal clergy were drawing inspiration from American Catholicism. These French Catholics believed the Church was doing too little to form individual consciences, and that it closed itself up in the past rather than seizing the opportunities of the modern age.

Leo XIII called on the American clergy to combat the views he had criticized. Cardinal Gibbons translated the Latin letter into English and circulated it — but also wrote back to Leo XIII that “not a single Catholic in the United States” held these ideas.

That’s why the letter about what came to be called “the phantom heresy” was quickly forgotten. Three years later, Leo XIII would lavishly praise the American Church in his encyclical In Amplissimo.

More importantly, almost everything Leo XIII had condemned as heresy has since become official Church teaching. The Vatican’s website still publishes the letter only in Latin — not translated into any other language, not even into English, the language of those to whom it was addressed. A condemnation destined to be forgotten.

1899-1926: Action Française, the French heresy Pius XI condemned

In that same year of 1899, something else happened in France. I mention it here because both episodes may help us understand what is currently happening in the United States, and what the response of the Catholic Church can or should be.

In 1899, the Action Française was founded: a right-wing nationalist and monarchist movement that became enormously influential among conservative French Catholics in the early decades of the twentieth century. Pope Pius XI condemned and banned the movement in 1926.

One of its most prominent supporters, the Jesuit Cardinal Louis Billot, was so outraged that he requested a private audience with Pius XI and, sitting across from the Pope, placed his red cardinal’s hat on the papal desk, thus abandoning the cardinalate.

This was an act without precedent. Billot was a towering figure in the Roman Curia, a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome celebrated for his rigorous neo-Thomist theology. He could not understand how the Pope could condemn Action Française. Was this not precisely what Leo XIII had stood for? He arrived at the Vatican as a cardinal and left as a simple Jesuit. He died four years later, living in quiet retirement in a Jesuit house.

The movement was led by the writer and political theorist Charles Maurras (1868–1952), who was by his own admission an agnostic, yet believed that Catholicism was useful for social order and national unity. Action Française fought for the restoration of the French monarchy, embraced fierce nationalism, opposed liberal democracy and the French Republic with its laïcité, and believed in an authoritarian, hierarchically ordered society rooted in tradition — hostile to the ideas of the French Revolution and to the concept of universal human rights.

Maurras called his doctrine nationalisme intégral. The movement was also virulently antisemitic, and saw Protestants, Freemasons, and foreigners as threats to French identity. During the Second World War, Maurras supported the Vichy regime in its collaboration with the Nazis. Catholics who joined it were expected to place nationalist goals above loyalty to the Church.

Pius XI condemned Action Française because it instrumentalized religion — treating it as a political tool rather than as revealed truth. Its foundations lay in positivist philosophy and rationalism.

The condemnation came as a profound shock. Catholics were forbidden to support the movement or even to read its newspaper. Supporters were excluded from the sacraments, and several of Maurras’s books were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.

The condemnation was partially relaxed in 1939, after the movement’s leaders issued statements of submission to Catholic doctrine — but Maurras’s writings remained on the Index.

How ‘Americanism’ became official doctrine — and why MAGA is a copy of the French heresy

Almost all what Leo XIII condemned in 1899 (the original “Americanism’’) has become Catholic doctrine since then. Religious freedom and the separation of Church and state, ecumenical cooperation with Protestants, lay participation in Church life and even in decision-making processes, freedom of the press, the necessity of inculturating the Christian faith in different cultures, and the primacy of personal conscience: all of this has been affirmed by the Second Vatican Council and by successive popes as fundamentally Catholic.

Yet the characteristics of Action Française bear a striking resemblance, in many respects, to the “new Americanism” of today: the MAGA ideology of Donald Trump and the Catholic JD Vance.

MAGA does not explicitly advocate for a monarchy — but the way Trump places himself above rules and institutions, and seeks to dismantle democratic checks and balances, carries strong echoes of traditional absolute monarchy.

The nationalism, the disregard for human rights, and the tendency to see foreigners as a threat to identity are all fully present in MAGA. And as with Action Française, religion in the MAGA world is instrumentalized — deployed as a political weapon.

MAGA ideology lacks a serious intellectual architect of the kind Action Française had in Maurras. Our era produces few worked-out ideologies: almost everything is pragmatic, driven by self-interest, without deep roots. A movement no longer needs intellectuals. Populism and slick social media influencers are enough.

But it is still kind of a copy of the French nationalism between the two World Wars.

Pope Leo XIV is the first American pope. There is reason to believe he is very critical on the MAGA ideology even if he has not spoken out very clearly on the matter. Why so? Is he afraid of losing Catholic faithful in the United States? Afraid that Cardinal Raymond Burke might repeat, after a sufficiently sharp condemnation of the MAGA-ideology, what Cardinal Billot did in 1926 - exactly one century ago?

Or is he quietly considering perhaps not a formal condemnation, but at the very least strong words by which the Catholic Church would distance itself from a new Americanism that resembles a French heresy from the last century?

Should he do so, he would look far more like Pius XI than like his namesake Leo XIII.

Yet for many Christians, this is not always easy to grasp. The same faith can be expressed in different theologies. Because theologies—even when theologians are not always explicitly aware of it—always operate with philosophical, cultural, and linguistic concepts. Because faith is a mystery and can never be fully captured in theology.

That should make theologians humble. But not afraid! Every age needs theology anew, because the eternal mystery called God, revealed in a unique and definitive way in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, always needs new words, explored and explained.

In that sense, “timid theology” that confines itself to repeating formulas from the past is almost always poor theology.

Pope Leo XIV seems to understand this extremely well. But I think—and fear—that this will surprise many Catholics, some of whom are accustomed to a rather static understanding of “tradition” and of “theology.”

‘proclaimed and inculturated’

Two speeches can shed light on how Pope Leo XIV thinks about theology, doctrine, and dogmas. The first he gave just nine days after being elected pope, but stayed largely unnoticed. The second he delivered today to students and professors from the Theological Faculty of Puglia and the Theological Institute of Calabria.

(Image created with artificial intelligence)

This morning, the Pope addressed students and theologians from Southern Italy.

Rather than citing the theologian-pope Benedict XVI, Leo XIV anchored his reflections in a statement Pope Francis made in 2017 to the writers and publishers of La Civiltà Cattolica: “Remain in the open sea. A Catholic must not be afraid of the open sea; must not seek the shelter of safe harbors.”

In his speech, Leo opposed the idea that theologians can be content with “acquiring notions in order to fulfill academic requirements.” On the contrary: because “today the faith must be proclaimed and inculturated,” it is necessary to “embark on a courageous navigation, a crossing into the deep.”

Leo told his audience that this must happen in two directions: “On the one hand, it is a path of going deeper, sounding the depths of the mystery of God and the various dimensions of the Christian faith; on the other, it is a putting out into the deep, going beyond in order to explore new horizons and thus to find new forms and new languages in which to proclaim the Gospel in the different situations of history.”

Clergy and laity should be formed together

He also made a passionate plea for “theological formation that helps to generate critical and prophetic thinking, representing a cultural investment for the future capable of dismantling the logic of resignation and indifference.”

“It helps us to dwell in the world with fidelity and creativity, tradition and newness, unity and diversity, always listening to what, even today, the Spirit of the Lord wishes to say to the Church”, he said.

Furthermore, priestly candidates, male and female religious, and laity should be formed together. When that happens, according to the Pope, “a laboratory is created preparing future priests and pastoral workers to live ecclesial relationships in a synodal style, in which the different subjects, ministries, and ecclesial charisms complement one another, overcoming every form of closure.”

‘Seek new alternatives’

The second speech offering insight into his thinking on theology was delivered on May 17, 2025, on the tenth day he wore papal white. This remarkable address went almost unnoticed—but undeservedly so.

It was, in fact, a warmed-up dish: Leo XIV took an introduction he had written as a cardinal for a book by a fellow Augustinian on the Social Doctrine of the Church, retrieved it from a drawer, and reworked it into a speech.

This Spanish-language book, titled The Social Doctrine of the Church: Its History and Teachings, was published in June 2024. It was written by Canadian Augustinian priest and theologian John J. Lydon McHugh, who has worked in Peru since 1983 and served as rector of the Catholic University of Trujillo from 2016 to 2022.

No one will fault the Pope for this self-plagiarism: he was still recovering from the surprise the Holy Spirit had in store for him and the Church.

“Perhaps when we hear the word ‘doctrine,’ we tend to think of a set of ideas belonging to a religion. The word itself makes us feel less disposed to reflect, call things into question or seek new alternatives,” Leo XIV said.

‘another promising meaning of the word ‘doctrine’’

But, the Pope continued: “It therefore becomes urgent to show, through the Church’s social doctrine, that there is another, promising meaning of the word ‘doctrine,’ without which dialogue itself is emptied of substance. Its synonyms may be ‘science,’ ‘discipline,’ or ‘knowledge.’ Understood in this way, every doctrine is recognized as the fruit of research and, therefore, of hypotheses, of many voices, of advances and setbacks, through which it seeks to convey reliable, ordered, and systematic knowledge about a given question. In this sense, a doctrine is not equivalent to an opinion, but rather a common, polyphonic, and even multidisciplinary path toward the truth.”

(Note: an overzealous Vatican translator may have been so startled by the text that he adjusted it in the English version now on the Vatican website, limiting this meaning to the Church’s social doctrine alone. But in the Spanish original, Pope Leo XIV speaks clearly about doctrine as a whole.)

Furthermore the Pope emphasized that indoctrination is immoral.

“It stifles critical judgement and undermines the sacred freedom of conscience, even if erroneous. It resists new notions and rejects movement, change, or the evolution of ideas in the face of new problems. ‘Doctrine,’ on the other hand, as a serious, serene, and rigorous discourse, aims to teach us primarily how to approach problems and, even more importantly, how to approach people. It also helps us to make prudential judgments when confronted with challenges. Seriousness, rigor, and serenity are what we must learn from every doctrine, including the Church’s social doctrine.”

critical thinking

And therefore, the Church—especially in the age of the ongoing digital revolution—must “rediscover, emphasize, and cultivate our duty to train others in critical thinking, countering temptations to the contrary, which can also be found in ecclesial circles,” the Pope insisted.

This is a Pope who believes in theology: creative and open, forward-looking and dialogical, careful but courageous.

The greatest German theologian of the 20th century, the Jesuit Karl Rahner, once answered a journalist’s question about what a dogma really is: “Dogmas are like street lamps: they illuminate those who are lost in the night. But only drunks cling to them.”

Pope Leo XIV invites theologians—and all believers—to courageously follow that path.

We struck up a conversation, and I told him that we journalists struggle with the word synodality. It is a difficult term to explain, and at the same time, for much of the media it is too technical and too theological to use without explanation.

He laughed.
“Don’t be mistaken,” he said with a grin. “Even for us, the word synodality is complicated. Many people don’t understand it. But those who understand it best are the most afraid of it.”

I thought I understood what he meant by dangerous. Because there was—and still is—considerable resistance to synodality as Pope Francis began to use the term from 2015 onwards to describe the reform of the Church he had set in motion. Especially in more conservative and traditional circles, synodality has met with deep suspicion.

Undoubtedly rooted in fear and ignorance.

Asking for a definition

At the beginning of January of this year, Pope Leo XIV gathered his cardinals for an extraordinary consistory in the Vatican. Behind closed doors, he told them: “Synodality is the path God expects of the Church in the third millennium.”

Pope Leo XIV was quoting his predecessor verbatim. Francis first pronounced this sentence on 17 October 2015, during the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Synod of Bishops. From that moment on he had made the search for a synodal Church the heart of his pontificate.

During the consistory with Pope Leo, some cardinals, I was told by several of them, asked for a clear definition of synodality. That request—heard also from other Catholics—is often not neutral. It is frequently an implicit criticism (“they themselves don’t really know what it means!”). And thus it becomes a way of containing and neutralising the reform Francis wanted.

A simple definition could even be a negative one: synodality is the opposite of, and the antidote to, clericalism. I am convinced that clericalism was, for Francis, one of the gravest sins in the Catholic Church—and that synodality was his chosen instrument to combat it.

Yet Francis’s genius was precisely to make the Church speak about synodality in a synodal way. That is why, in 2021, he launched a worldwide synodal process that worked from the bottom up: everyone in the Church was invited to speak about why and how everyone should be able to speak in the Church.

(One of the round tables during the Synod of Bishops in October 2024 in the Vatican. Photo: Hendro Munsterman)

It marked the beginning of a revolution in the Church’s self-understanding whose end is still nowhere in sight. It was learning by doing. A large laboratory. And we are far from finished learning. That may be why it is still too early to offer a too precise and definitive definition.

And yet such a definition already exists. It was given avant la lettre by Pope Benedict XVI.

Six years earlier

The Bavarian pope never used the word synodality in the meaning Francis later gave it.

The few times that Benedict spoke of synodality, he referred primarily to concrete experiences of synods, for example in the Eastern Churches. But he did describe—with remarkable clarity—the challenge facing the Church, a challenge that Francis would later take up in a unique, creative, and even revolutionary way through his “Synod on Synodality”.

This definition avant la lettre was articulated by Benedict XVI on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, in the Basilica of St John Lateran, his own Cathedral, when he opened the pastoral convention of the Diocese of Rome.

In that speech—it unfortunately stayed almost entirely unnoticed—Benedict stated that “the laity must no longer be viewed as collaborators of the clergy, but truly recognised as co-responsible for the Church’s being and action.”

Here are some key passages of that address:

“The luminous pages which the Council dedicated to the laity are not yet sufficiently adapted to or impressed on the minds of Catholics or in pastoral practice.

On the one hand, there is still a tendency to identify the Church unilaterally with the hierarchy, forgetting the common responsibility and common mission of the People of God, which we all share in Christ.

On the other hand, there persists a tendency to identify the People of God in a merely sociological or political sense, forgetting the newness and specificity of that people, which becomes a people only through communion with Christ.

(...)

There is still a long way to go.

(...)

It is necessary to improve pastoral structures in such a way that the co-responsibility of all the members of the People of God is gradually promoted, with respect for vocations and for the respective roles of consecrated persons and lay people.

(...)

This demands a change of mentality, particularly with regard to lay people. They must no longer be viewed as ‘collaborators’ of the clergy, but truly recognised as ‘co-responsible’ for the Church’s being and action, thereby fostering the growth of a mature and committed laity.

This shared awareness of being Church among all the baptised in no way diminishes the responsibility of parish priests. On the contrary, it is precisely their task to nurture the spiritual and apostolic growth of those already committed, who form the core of the community and act as leaven for others.”

What we see here is Benedict XVI’s conviction that the Second Vatican Council still had gifts to give. It had (and has) not yet been fully received. It still needs to be unpacked.

That is precisely what Francis did: he unpacked the Council. And synodality is the unpacking of what the Council—especially in Lumen Gentium, its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church—taught about the participation of all the baptised in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal office.

What is striking is that Francis’s synodal way of unpacking the Council turns out to align almost perfectly with what Benedict XVI had already outlined in his address to the Diocese of Rome.

Francis not only allowed everyone to speak; he also did so in a way that avoided endless discussion and prevented the Church from becoming parliamentary. For Benedict, that would have meant reducing the Church—the People of God—to sociological and political categories.

Francis went much deeper. He made synodality a spiritual process, because he identified the Holy Spirit as its primary actor.

Four pairs and one shift

If, with Benedict XVI, we say that synodality is neither more nor less than the co-responsibility of all the baptised for the Church’s being and action, then that must take concrete form.

Synodality therefore means:

• Listening and discernment
  Francis believed in what I have sometimes called a “Church with big ears”. He believed that the Spirit of God could potentially be heard everywhere. That requires a Church willing to listen. And that listening leads to discernment, with the help and trusting in the Holy Spirit.

• Inclusivity and trust in the Spirit
  A synodal Church takes baptism seriously. Francis’s todos, todos, todos—his plea for an inclusive Church where everyone is welcome—expressed profound trust in the grace of baptism and in the Holy Spirit given to every believer in baptism and confirmation.

• Transparency and accountability
  If all the baptised are co-responsible for the Church, then those entrusted with authority must be transparent and accountable for their decisions and actions.

• Unity and diversity

  The unity of the Church can exist only in diversity—and vice versa—because the gifts of the one Spirit are manifold. For this reason, a “healthy decentralisation” is also required, as Pope Francis called it in his programmatic text Evangelii Gaudium.

Perhaps the cardinal that I mentioned at the beginning of this story was even more right than I realised at the time: in a sense, everyone should be a little afraid of synodality.

It implies a Church of communio—or better, koinonia, the Greek version of the Latin word communio, which places stronger emphasis on active participation. It is a Church of shared responsibility, where one can no longer easily hide behind complaints about one’s pastor, bishop, or pope. It is a demanding Church.

How all this will take concrete shape remains for a lot still an open question.

To what extent should lay people be involved in the appointment of bishops? To what extent can preaching during the Eucharistic liturgy be entrusted to lay persons? When may an ordained minister legitimately set aside a pastoral policy recommended by a pastoral council?

These and many other questions still await answers—and those answers will always remain provisional.

But synodality clearly marks a shift—from believers understood as consumers and receivers of salvation to believers called to become bearers of God’s salvific love.

It’s the kind of remark you can overhear at one of Rome’s many receptions, muttered by a cardinal who’s perhaps had one glass too many (or perhaps not).

The appointment of lay people—including women religious—to head Vatican dicasteries was one of Pope Francis’s most revolutionary decisions, earning him fierce criticism from the Church’s conservative wing.

Some in the Vatican and beyond secretly (or not so secretly) hoped that Pope Leo XIV would reverse this decision. Or at least phase it out gradually. After all, doesn’t Catholic theology teach that the exercise of authority in the Church is inseparably bound to ordained ministry?

(Image created by A.I.)

But yesterday, an article by Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet suddenly appeared on the Vatican News website—published in multiple languages, thus emphasizing that someone high up in the Vatican hierarchy wants this message broadcast widely.

“Cardinal Ouellet On Lay People in Positions of Authority in the Roman Curia,” reads the title. The cardinal calls the controversial decision of Pope Francis “bold”, “prophetic”, and “promising for the future.”

My guess is that the publication of this article signals that we’re on the eve of new appointments of lay people to head one or more Vatican dicasteries. If that’s the case, having a conservative cardinal publicly endorse what’s widely seen as a progressive move by Pope Francis is a strategy designed to take the wind out of the theological sails of the conservative camp.

Leo’s Vacancies

Five cardinals have already passed the retirement age of 75 and are waiting to be replaced: Arthur Roche (75, Dicastery for Divine Worship), Kurt Koch (75, Dicastery for Christian Unity), Marcello Semeraro (77, Dicastery for the Causes of Saints), Kevin Joseph Farrell (78, Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life), and Michael Czerny (79, Dicastery for Integral Human Development).

Additionally, the Dicastery for Legislative Texts is vacant, as is the position of Prefect of the Papal Household.

That’s seven positions to fill. For months now, Vatican correspondents and analysts have been nervously waiting for Leo XIV to lay his cards on the table.

Of the other Vatican heads, three are already lay people. First, there’s Sister Raffaella Petrini, who carries the function titles “President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State” and “President of the Governorate of Vatican City State” (you could call her “Governor of Vatican City”).

Then there’s Paolo Ruffini, a lay man serving as Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication, and Sister Simona Brambilla heading the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life.

The fact that Sister Brambilla was appointed by the Pope on Saturday as a member of the Dicastery for Bishops demonstrates that she’s firmly in the saddle as prefect, and Leo has no intention of replacing her with an ordained man.

On February 3rd, Sister Petrini was appointed as a member of the Commission for Reserved Matters—she’s the first and only woman, another sign that Leo XIV won’t be taking steps backward.

The Theological Minefield

But there’s another and more important reason why Vatican News (maybe even at the initiative of Pope Leo XIV himself) is enlisting Ouellet’s help to defend Francis’s decision: that decision stood on shaky theological ground, and Ouellet brilliantly defuses the tension in this conflict that seemed unsolvable.

When it comes to whether lay people can exercise authority, two schools stand opposed among canon law experts. And what appears at first glance to be a progressive position might actually be more conservative and vice versa.

Let me explain.

What we can call the “German school” holds that authority in the Church is exercised through ordination. That is why the Second Vatican Council restored the episcopate as a full office in its own right. According to this school, it’s impossible to grant women authority because they cannot receive ordination in the Catholic Church.

Opposing this is the “Italian school,” which holds that authority in the Church can also be delegated to lay people—including women.

Pope Francis relied on this Italian school—specifically on the famous Italian Jesuit and canonist Gianfranco Ghirlanda—to appoint lay people and women within the Roman Curia.

This seems very progressive, but it actually isn’t. This Italian thinking, based on the delegation of authority, is actually far more hierarchical and top-down than German thinking.

Also among adherents of the German school, you’ll find theologians and canonists who support women exercising authority—but they’ll advocate for admitting women to ordained ministry.

Who’s conservative now? Who’s progressive? The question is unanswerable.

The Francis Method

What seemed like Francis’s only theological and canonical option for appointing women and lay men to top positions in the Roman Curia was, however, very problematic.

Cardinal Ouellet addresses this problem when he writes that “it seemed to resolve a centuries-old controversy in a voluntaristic or arbitrary manner, by adopting a school position that the Pope had taken to the detriment of prior dialogue with theologians and canonists.”

This problem was all the greater because this Italian school sits uneasily with the Second Vatican Council, while Francis viewed that council as directional for the future.

The renowned church historian Alberto Melloni points this out in a 2022 article when he describes Ghirlanda’s (and thus Francis’s) argumentation as “a thesis that strikes at the heart of the Second Vatican Council and constitutes a decisive point for the future of the Church.”

Thus Francis wanted the Roman Curia to move forward but did so by moving theologically backward.

According to Melloni, Francis might have done this unconsciously. I suspect rather that the Argentine pope thought strategically: we’ll just do it with whatever arguments we can find in the canonical toolbox, and theology will catch up or repair it later.

Ouellet’s Solution

And that’s why Cardinal Ouellet comes now to the rescue.

Of Francis. En of Leo XIV.

Because Leo XIV has also repeatedly indicated very clearly he doesn’t want to go behind the Second Vatican Council.

Ouellet is known as a declared opponent of women’s ordination. So he can’t defend the appointment of women to top Vatican positions using the “German school” theory.

But instead of following the Italian school and speaking about the Pope “delegating authority” downward, he speaks of “discerning the authority of the Holy Spirit at work.” We see the move from delegation to discernment.

According to Ouellet—entirely in line with many contemporary theologians—Catholic ecclesiology and theology of ministry are still too exclusively christologically colored and founded. There’s too little room for recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit, also outside established paths.

Ecclesial offices are thought of too exclusively from Christ, while the Church finds it difficult to recognize and acknowledge the charisms given by the Spirit to non-ordained ministers in and for the Church.

If I understand Ouellet correctly, he stands—and this will be a great surprise to many who know the Catholic Church from within—on virtually the same position as Alberto Melloni when the latter writes that authority entrusted to lay people “arises from ‘ascending’ from baptism, signifying the participation of all charisms in the dynamism of communion entrusted to bishops who, by virtue of the sacrament of consecration, become the voice of the universal Church in the particular Church and vice versa.”

Parallels with Vatican II

In the 19th century, German theologian George Phillips—a convert from Protestantism, not to be confused with the great Second Vatican Council theologian Gerard Philips—attempted to incorporate the idea that all believers participate in the tria munera Christi (the threefold office of Christ)—as was rediscovered in the 16th century by Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer—into Catholic theology.

He did so, however, in too Catholic a manner: thinking from top to bottom. His theological theory was that the participation in Christ’s priesthood, prophecy, and kingship were distributed to the rest of the Church through Peter as if it descended like a kind of waterfall from top to bottom.

A century later, the Second Vatican Council chose a different route. All the baptized are priest, prophet, and king—not because they receive this from the ecclesial hierarchy, but because they receive it from Christ himself in baptism. They share in His life and He lives in them. The council thinks sacramentally first, not institutionally or hierarchically.

Lay people are not denied participation in the tria munera Christi. Nor is it “distributed” to them “from above.” They carry it within themselves because Christ lives in them.

The parallel with Cardinal Ouellet’s proposal is striking. Lay people are not denied the exercise of authority. Nor is it delegated to them “from above.” They carry it within themselves as charism, because of the Holy Spirit received in baptism and confirmation. The role of the ordained minister (in our case the Bishop of Rome) is to recognize these charisms through discernment and see to what extent they can contribute to building up the Church of Christ.

A Personal Reflection

In 2012, I gave a Lenten lecture in the cathedral of Grenoble, France. I concluded with these words:

“In the future, we must therefore undoubtedly learn to listen better to the breath of the Spirit, to recognize the various charisms in each person, to dare a certain creativity in calling lay people and in calling to ordained ministries, to dare toward a greater plurality of ministries in the Church. Also in our contemporary world, modern or postmodern, globalized and pluralist, the Spirit blows where he/she wills (John 3:8): the Second Vatican Council remains a compass for the future but has undoubtedly—in this domain as in others—not said the last word.”

Pope Francis created space for this. He sometimes shook things up thoroughly—so much so that some became worried or confused. But also so thoroughly that creativity emerged to seek paths on the solid ground of the Gospel that stand within tradition yet continually move that tradition forward into uncharted territories.

And what Cardinal Ouellet is now doing—and this too is surprising—is typically “Franciscan”.

The Argentine pope always resisted the idea that in societal, theological, or ecclesial debates between two camps, a compromise must be struck. He found that too “Hegelian”. Because, he said, when a compromise is made, both sides lose something.

Francis followed the thinking of German priest and philosopher Romano Guardini, who said that when two different opinions stand opposed, the solution must always be found “at a higher level” rather than in a compromise where both must give something up.

Cardinal Ouellet has now done just that. That higher level is also the deeper level. It’s the higher level of the Holy Spirit. It’s also the deeper sacramental level of baptism and confirmation.

Although he has long passed the age of 75, both Francis and Leo XIV allowed him to remain in his post.

Apparently, they are satisfied with his work in the United States, where the Vatican faces not only the challenges of a Trump administration but also a predominantly conservative episcopate that largely struggled to align with Pope Francis’s vision of the Church—a vision that Pope Leo XIV, the first pope born in the U.S., seems to share.

(Image created with AI)

Starting tomorrow, the College of Cardinals will have one fewer voting cardinal. (Contrary to popular belief, a cardinal does not lose voting rights on, but rather the day after his 80th birthday.)

Less Italians than ever before

Since his accession on 8 May 2025, Pope Leo XIV has not yet appointed any new cardinals.

The conclave that elected him was an exceptionally large one, with more cardinals and more nationalities represented than ever before, but also fewer Italians than ever. There were 135 eligible voters, and 133 actually participated in the conclave.

With Cardinal Pierre’s birthday, the number of voting cardinals drops to 121—just above the maximum of 120 established by Pope Paul VI.

His successors John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have repeatedly exceeded that limit in their creations of cardinals. Francis, with his desire to internationalize and broaden the College of Cardinals, went the furthest.

Respecting tradition is breaking with tradition

The question now is whether Pope Leo XIV, a canonist who likes rules but learned in Peru to apply them flexibly, will strictly adhere to the 120-rule. Or whether exceeding it has become such a strong tradition that respecting the rule would now break with tradition (how Catholic can you get?).

On 27 and 28 June 2026, Pope Leo XIV will convene his cardinals again for a consistory. It is expected that he will create a first series of new cardinals at that time.

Carmelite Filippo Iannone is, of course, at the top of the list of candidates to receive the red hat. This Italian archbishop was chosen by Leo XIV to succeed him as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.

There are also other candidates Leo XIV may have in mind. I will write more about them in due course.

Between now and the end of June, three cardinals will reach the age of 80: Cardinals Fernando Filoni (Italy), Juan José Omella (Spain), and Francesco Montenegro (Italy). Shortly after, on 18 July, also Cardinal Michael Czerny from Canada will reach the age limit. After that, we must wait until January 2027 for more cardinals to reach it.

At the end of June, there will thus be 118 cardinals—assuming no one under 80 passes away in the meantime. A few weeks later, that number drops to 117. So there will be three or four places to fill—or more if Leo allows himself the now-traditional freedom.

Three reasons

While Church history has shown that anything is possible, it is of course not reasonable to expect a conclave in the near future. The Pope is only 70 years old.

But a look at the College of Cardinals is useful for several reasons.

First, to see whether Pope Leo XIV will continue the internationalization started under Francis, giving a greater role to Asia and Africa in particular.

Second, it is interesting to see his approach to Europe, especially Italy. While John Paul II reduced the share of Italian cardinals during his 26-year pontificate, Benedict XVI restored an Italian presence. The Bavarian pope was more attuned to the Italian ecclesiastical mindset than his Polish predecessor.

Francis reversed that again, so there are currently only 16 Italian cardinals. With two Italian cardinals turning 80 in the coming months, that number will reach a historic low of 14.

(In my statistics, I include Italians in the Vatican diplomatic service, even if they work abroad, but not Italians who serve as bishops of foreign dioceses. If we would also count Cardinals Pizzaballa in Jerusalem and Marengo in Mongolia, the current total would be 18.)

Finally, Leo XIV has shown that he wants the College of Cardinals to be more involved in thinking about the Church’s direction. For that reason he intends to hold a consistory every year.

Moreover, the vote of a Cardinal elector in Leo XIV’s Vatican carries more weight than that of the “older” cardinals, as we saw during the recent consistory on 7–8 January.

Over the next five years, at least 48 Cardinal electors will loose their voting right. The new cardinal voices Pope Leo XIV will bring to the table will thus be influential. Not only important for the next conclave - whenever that may be - but already now.

Yet I am convinced that we cannot understand the pontificate of Leo XIV without returning to the differences between Benedict XVI and Francis. It is within the tensions between these two pontificates that Leo XIV must find and create his own path.

One of these tensions concerns how these two Popes understood what the French theologian Henri de Lubac called mondanité spirituelle (“spiritual worldliness”) in his famous Méditation sur l’Église (1953). For the Jesuit De Lubac, this was “the worst thing that could happen to the Church”.

Both Benedict and Francis regarded De Lubac as a great theologian. Benedict, together with de Lubac, was one of the founders of the theological journal Communio.

Francis, for his part, quoted his fellow-Jesuit De Lubac in his famous address during the pre-conclave meetings, just days before the closed-up cardinals elected him as the first Pope from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

(Henri de Lubac. Credits: Jesuits Ireland)

Yet when it came to what this “worldliness” actually meant, the Bavarian theologian Pope and the Argentinian Jesuit Pope disagreed.

This is what I recently wrote in an analysis for Nederlands Dagblad about two challenges facing Pope Leo XIV (it is the first part of an article that can be read in full here (in Dutch):

“Pope Francis believed that so-called “clericalism” was one of the main problems confronting the Catholic Church.

The term refers to an ecclesial culture in which (exclusively male and almost exclusively celibate) clergy stand apart from and above the rest of the Church. They form a kind of caste within the Church, within which decisions are made in a non-transparent manner. Moreover, no public accountability is provided for those decisions.

In the days leading up to the 2013 conclave, the then archbishop of Buenos Aires argued for a Church that was not institutionally navel-gazing and primarily preoccupied with itself, but one that turns outward. A majority of the cardinals agreed with him and elected him as the successor of Benedict XVI.

Both popes—Benedict XVI and Francis—fought against the “worldliness” of the Church. They borrowed the term from the French theologian Henri de Lubac. However, they did not understand this worldliness in the same way.

Benedict saw the danger mainly outside the Church and therefore argued for a clearly delimited, “pure” ecclesial community that distinguishes itself sharply from the world through its rituals and ideas—or, where necessary, even separates itself from it.

Francis saw things differently. He perceived dangerous forms of worldliness precisely within the ecclesiastical institution itself, with all its rituals.

He referred to the Vatican as “the last remaining European monarchical court.” For he saw in the careerism of part of the clergy a “worldly mentality,” whereas in the Church of Christ the focus should be on service—especially with great attention to the poor and to those whom the world tends to shun.

For Francis, clericalism was, for example, the primary cause of systemic abuse in the Church. Sexual abuse, like psychological or spiritual abuse, always has its roots in the abuse of power. And clericalism fosters such abuse.

The remedy the Argentine pope devised for the disease of clericalism he called “synodality.” By this he meant that all baptized believers share responsibility for the Church, including in decision-making processes.

To bring about this cultural change, an extensive process was set in motion to reform the Church. Between 2021 and 2024, reflection took place worldwide, at all levels and even in the most remote parishes, on how this new way of being Church could take shape.

When Francis died last year, however, no decisions had yet been taken on how the Church should actually be reorganized. As a result, Leo XIV is now left to deal with the space for new models of Church created by Francis—because that space has not yet been ordered or structured.”

Pope Benedict XVI used the term “worldliness” to criticize the German Church during his visit to Germany in 2011. Pope Francis used the same word to criticize the Roman Curia and the widespread clericalism within the Church.

Does the way Pope Leo XIV dresses indicate a tendency toward a renewed papal “clericalism in attire”, emphasizing the distinction between “the world” and the Church?

At the same time: in his Christmas address to the Roman Curia, Pope Leo XIV also criticized a “worldly” curial mentality (without using the term itself), in a way that clearly echoed Pope Francis’s critique.

It remains to be seen whether—and how—Pope Leo XIV will find a balance between these two interpretations of what “spiritual worldliness” means.

Why?

Looking back over two millennia of reflection on Mary’s place in salvation history and Christian spirituality, two main causes can be identified—both expressions of what I call a “compensatory mariology.”

America magazine, the Jesuit weekly in the United States, invited me to write on this topic and to offer insight into the reasons why the Church is so clearly rejecting these Marian titles.

I have published on Mariology in the past, including a book on the title of Co-Redemptrix (published in French and later translated into Portuguese in Brazil).

Shortly after the Vatican released its theological note on these Marian titles, I also gave an interview to the Italian daily La Repubblica.

My article can be read on the website of America Magazine.

A Portuguese translation can be found on the website of the Institute of Humanities of the Jesuit University Unisinos in Brazil.

These developments call on Catholics—and all readers with an interest in the Church—to gain a deeper understanding of the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV.

This requires more than straightforward reporting. It calls for careful analysis, grounded in historical and theological context.

On this Substack, I will regularly offer original, unpublished commentary, analysis, and news to help readers better understand the direction in which Pope Leo XIV is leading the Church and the broader transformation of global Christianity.

I will also share my reporting and analysis originally published in Nederlands Dagblad and other media outlets.

(Pictures: Vatican Media)

For those who are not yet familiar with my work, allow me to introduce myself.

Since February 2015, I have covered the Vatican and the global Catholic Church for the Dutch national daily Nederlands Dagblad. I reported extensively on the pontificate of Pope Francis and on the conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV. I was the only Vatican correspondent to place Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost at the top of the list of papabili.

Before becoming a full-time journalist, I worked for several years as a theologian in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and France. I taught dogmatic theology and religious studies at both Catholic and public universities, as well as at ecclesial institutions in Lyon and Grenoble.

In recent years, my work has been regularly cited by and featured in international media, including Radio France, The Guardian, La Repubblica, France24 (English and French), NPO Radio 1, ABC Australia, La Croix, HRT (Croatia), ARD (Germany), Le Monde, America Magazine, La Croix International, Le Parisien, and others.

Finally, I also write a monthly column for Otheo, the magazine and website of the Catholic Church in Belgium.

Subscribe now