WHY ARE THE CRUCIFIX AND OTHER SACRED IMAGES COVERED DURING PASSIONTIDE, THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF LENT?

 Only those who go to the Ancient Latin Mass with its exquisite lectionary know why. Bugnini Mass goers are mystified by the covering of statues. 

Bugnini Mass goers, in fact, may not see their statues and crucifix covered at all or in some Bugnini Mass parishes, these are covered beginning Ash Wednesday, as church decorators heard about the custom but are clueless as to the reasons why and when these should be covered!

But Ancient Latin Mass goers, hearing each year on the First Sunday of Passiontide (no longer called this in the Bugnini Mass) hear the same Gospel over and over each 1st Passion Sunday.

Are you smart enough, after reading the Gospel, to figure out why the crucifix and statues are covered during Passiontide and are you even smart enough to know what Passiontide is?

The Bugnini Missal says that images “may” be covered beginning the Sunday before Palm Sunday, but doesn’t say why and the Gospel of the modern lectionary gives no reason why either!

But even in the Bugnini Mass, beginning Monday of the 5th week of Lent, the preface changes from the Lenten Preface to the First Passion Preface—an homage to the Passiontide, but no reason for it in the Bugnini Mass!

Here are the readings from the ancient lectionary for 1st Passion Sunday. Can you figure out from reading the Gospel as to why the crucifix and statues are covered?

THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES PROPOSES TO POPE LEO THAT HE PROMULGATE ONE NEW ROMAN MISSAL WITH TWO FORMS—SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDING FOREVERRRR!!!!!

This is the way to go and it is of commonsense! And it fulfills Vatican II and Pope Benedict’s expressed desire that one new Roman Missal flow from the usage of both the old and the new! 

What Dom Kemlin does not address is the elephant in the room afflicting the Bugnini Mass. Bishops are forbidding its celebration ad orientem and kneeling at a kneeler or altar railing. While those attached to the Ancient Missal would have to compromise on some things, so too, should those attached to the Bugnini Missal—for them the norm of kneeling for Holy Communion should be made the norm with standing as an option and ad orientem could be accomplished by the traditional altar set-up even when facing the congregation or truly ad orientem. The return to older altars should be made explicit.

As well, the current Roman Calendar needs some adjustments as the Ordinariate’s Calendar already has, such as ember days, the season of Septuagesima and Passiontide. In this context even the modern lectionary needs some tweaking to accommodate Passion Sunday, within the context of Passiontide, as well as Septuagesima!

With these codicils, I endorse this 100%!!!!!

This is copied by way of Google Translation from InfoCatolic; 

DOM KEMLIN CALLS FOR EVERY SENSIBILITY TO "TAKE A STEP TOWARD THE OTHER"

One Single Missal, Two Ordinaries: The Formula the Abbot of Solesmes Proposes to the Pope for Liturgical Peace

The Abbot of Solesmes has written to Pope Leo XIV to propose an unprecedented solution to the liturgical war: inserting the old Ordinary of the Mass into the current Roman Missal, so that both forms may coexist within a single book.

(RFC/InfoCatólica) The Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, has sent a letter to Pope Leo XIV in which he proposes integrating the old *Ordo Missae* into the current Roman Missal as a means to put an end to the liturgical divisions that have afflicted the Church since the Second Vatican Council.

The initiative—born following a personal meeting with the Pontiff in Rome—seeks to allow both forms of the Latin Rite to coexist within a single missal, thereby avoiding the continued existence of separate liturgical books which, in the Abbot's view, fuels the rift among the faithful.

A Meeting in Rome as the Catalyst

The letter, dated November 12, 2025, was written just days after Dom Kemlin concelebrated with Pope Leo XIV at the Abbey of Sant'Anselmo—the Benedictine headquarters in Rome—on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the dedication of its church. Upon being introduced as the Abbot of Solesmes, the Pontiff exclaimed, "Ah! Solesmes!"—indicating his familiarity with the abbey. That gesture encouraged the monk to address the Pope with a reflection that, in his own words, he had "carried in his heart for a long time." Dom Kemlin presides over the Benedictine Congregation of Solesmes, which encompasses monasteries that celebrate according to both forms of the Roman Rite: Fontgombault Abbey and its foundations maintain the old missal, while Solesmes adopted the post-conciliar reform, retaining Latin and Gregorian chant. "I have experienced this issue in a very personal, very intimate way," the abbot confessed in an interview with RCF. "When I see divisions over this subject, I suffer. The liturgy is intended to foster unity within the Church, not to divide us."

The Proposal: A Single Missal with Two Ordinaries

The solution proposed by Dom Kemlin consists of incorporating the *Vetus Ordo* (the Ordinary of the Mass predating the Second Vatican Council) into the current *Missale Romanum*, while leaving the *Novus Ordo* of Paul VI intact. In this way, both Ordinaries would form part of a single Roman Missal, featuring a unified liturgical calendar. A priest could then opt to use elements from the old rite—such as the prayers at the foot of the altar or the traditional Offertory—without stepping outside the framework of the current missal.

The abbot emphasizes that this proposal is "inclusive" and would require concessions from both sides. The old rite, too, would be enriched: it would be opened up to the use of the vernacular for those who desire it, to concelebration, to the new Eucharistic Prayers, and—above all—to the post-conciliar lectionary, which is "much richer than the old one," thereby providing "a genuine biblical enrichment for the faithful."

Dom Kemlin expressly rules out the approach of merely tweaking Paul VI’s missal to bring it closer to the old one, arguing that such a move "would displease everyone" and run the risk of ending up "not with two missals, but with three." Spiritual Roots, Not Ideological Ones

One of the central points of the letter is the recognition that the majority of the faithful attached to the ancient rite do not act out of ideological motivations, but rather because they "experience within it a strong and authentic spiritual experience that they are unable to find in the new missal." The Abbot invites us to interpret this fact "as a sign of the Spirit" and to approach it "with clear-sightedness."

Dom Kemlin goes further, asserting that the two ordinaries "present notable differences in liturgical 'unction'—in the ways of entering into prayer—and underpin different anthropologies." This observation, far from weakening his proposal, actually grounds it: precisely because the divergence is profound, merely tweaking one of the rites is insufficient; rather, it is necessary to embrace both within a common framework.

Between the Heritage of Solesmes and the Legacy of Benedict XVI

The Abbot frames his initiative within the tradition of Dom Guéranger—the restorer of Benedictine life at Solesmes in the 19th century and the architect behind the return of French dioceses to the Roman Rite. "Following in his footsteps, I have written to the Holy Father," he explains.

Regarding Benedict XVI’s *motu proprio Summorum Pontificum* (2007), Dom Kemlin points out an essential difference: that document permitted the use of the old missal alongside the new one—an approach that "did not diminish the differences." His proposal, conversely, would integrate both *ordinaries* into a single liturgical book. Furthermore, regarding *Traditionis custodes*—promulgated by Pope Francis in 2021 to restrict the use of the earlier rite—the Abbot maintains that his initiative does not contradict it, given that Francis sought precisely to put an end to divisions.

A Monastic Model Exportable to the Entire Church?

Dom Kemlin acknowledges that peaceful coexistence is already a reality within his own congregation: when the Abbots of Fontgombault or Triors visit Solesmes, they celebrate according to the conciliar missal; he, in turn, does the same—using the old rite—when visiting those monasteries. "This unity already exists in *germine* within our congregation. We must share this grace so that it may become a grace for the entire Church," he affirms.

Nevertheless, some observers point out that the letter itself admits to "anthropological" differences between the two forms. This raises the question of whether a unity founded upon the coexistence of two *ordinaries*—each resting on distinct underlying premises—can truly be stable, or whether it might instead serve to make even more visible the very fracture it seeks to heal.

The letter concludes on a note of humility: the Abbot asks for forgiveness for the "boldness" of his initiative and reaffirms Solesmes’ fidelity to the Holy Father. "The aim is not to impose a solution, but rather to propose a path for reflection in order to contribute to healing the liturgical divisions that wound our Mother, the Holy Church."

Letter

PAX ABBEY OF SAINT PETER OF SOLESMES

November 12, 2025

Most Holy Father,

In my capacity as Abbot of Solesmes and President of the Benedictine Congregation of Solesmes, I take the liberty of writing to You to respectfully share some reflections, with the aim of bringing an end to the liturgical strife that is troubling the faithful in France—but also in the United States, England, Germany, and elsewhere.

Dom Guéranger, the restorer of Solesmes in the 19th century, was one of the principal architects of the return of the dioceses of France to the Roman liturgy. Through his work of restoring monastic life—but also through his various writings—he gave rise, in a sense, to the Liturgical Movement, which led to the Constitution *Sacrosanctum Concilium* of the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical reform that followed it. This reform was, therefore, received with gratitude at Solesmes. It was put into practice there without hesitation, yet with the care to remain rooted in tradition—particularly by preserving the use of Latin and Gregorian chant.

Other monasteries within our Congregation—specifically the Abbey of Fontgombault and its subsequent foundations—chose to resume the use of the old Missal, with certain adaptations. This difference in orientation was, initially, a source of tension within our Congregation. However, little by little, we have learned to respect—and even to appreciate—the diverse choices made by one another.

With the aim of getting to know one another better and fostering mutual understanding, we have established a "Commission for Liturgical Unity" within the Congregation, which meets every two months. We have decided to expand our upcoming meeting by inviting representatives of the Augustinian tradition. […]

Most Holy Father, it is often said that those attached to the old rite instrumentalize the Mass, using it as a banner of identity. If, indeed, such behaviors exist, they are far from being the norm. As a fervent advocate of the Rite of Paul VI, I can only attest that the majority of those attached to the old rite are so because they experience within it a strong and authentic spiritual life—one they are unable to find in the new missal. I believe the time has come—if we are to work toward a true return to unity—to acknowledge this with clear-sightedness and to interpret it as a sign of the Spirit. It is, I believe, solely within the *Ordo Missae* of the Missal of Paul VI that those attached to the old rite fail to recognize themselves.

It is, in fact, indisputable that the two *Ordines* (that of Saint Paul VI and that of Saint Pius V) exhibit notable differences regarding liturgical "unction" and the modes of entering into prayer; moreover, they embody distinct anthropologies. For this reason, I do not believe we will succeed in persuading those attached to the *Vetus* to freely embrace the *Novus Ordo*. Consequently, "tweaking" the Missal of Paul VI in one way or another strikes me as inevitable if we are to regain the path toward unity.

One solution, advocated by some, would consist of tweaking the *Ordo Missae* of the Paul VI Missal to make it more similar to the old *Ordo Missae*. I do not believe that is a good solution. In fact, it would displease everyone and would do nothing but create new divisions, with the risk of ending up with not two, but three missals.

For this reason, I would respectfully like to suggest another solution which, in my opinion, could achieve the liturgical peace we so deeply desire.

It would consist simply of inserting the old *Ordo Missae* into the *Missale Romanum*—tweaked, where appropriate, only minimally to bring it into conformity with the Second Vatican Council (specifically by opening it, for those who so desire, to the use of the vernacular, to concelebration, and to the four Eucharistic Prayers)—while simultaneously leaving the new *Ordo Missae* unchanged. The two *Ordos Missae* would thus form part of the single *Missale Romanum*. Rather than dividing and rejecting, this solution would allow for the inclusion and welcoming of those faithful attached to the old Missal, without thereby offending or alienating those attached to the new *Ordo*.

This would make it possible to restore liturgical unity, as the entire Latin Church would utilize a single *Missale Romanum*, with a single calendar. I am convinced that the faithful attached to the *Vetus Ordo* would be satisfied with such a solution and would benefit from all the indisputable contributions of the liturgical reform (new prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers, revised prayers, the Sanctoral Cycle, the cycle of readings, etc.); likewise, the faithful attached to the liturgical reform would see no changes affecting them.

I beg your forgiveness for the boldness of writing to you in this manner to offer these suggestions. The Abbey of Solesmes has always been at the service of the Holy See and of the Pope. Since the time of Dom Guéranger, it has consistently been committed to the service of the liturgy and of the unity of the Church. I would simply like to reiterate our readiness to contribute to healing the liturgical divisions that wound our Mother, the Holy Church.

Entrusting this suggestion to your hands, I assure you, Most Holy Father, of my complete dedication and my daily prayer—as well as that of the entire Congregation of Solesmes—for your ministry in the service of the universal Church.

Fr. Geoffroy Kemlin

IF I WERE INCLINED TO PICK A SCHISMATIC SECT, I WOULD NOT PICK CARDINAL HOLLERICH AND THE GERMAN SCHISMATIC WAY BUT THE SSPX!

 The SSPX and sedevacantists look tame compared to this schism fomenting heretical, sentimental babel, no?

And in Belgium, a schism fomenting bishop is planning on ordaining married men as priests and laments, like Cardinal Hollerich, that women can’t be ordained. Will this bishop incur possible excommunication like the SSPX bishops will if the current bishops there ordained new ones?  Poor Pope Leo inherited a mess from the mess desiring Pope Francis, God bless His Holiness messy soul! 

Pray for Pope Leo! What a mess! Haigan lio!

Press title for full report:

Belgian bishop announces plan to ordain married men as priests

The bishop said he will “make every effort to ordain married men as priests for our diocese by 2028.”

CAN THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM CHRISTIANIZE PAGAN PRACTICES LIKE HALOS, FEAST DATES, CHRISTMAS TREES AND EASTER EGGS NOT TO MENTION PACAMAMMA?

Lifesite News seems to be spiraling into the fomenting of schism by calling into question the papacies of Francis and now Leo. I think they are run by neo-Protestants, meaning they are converts, but still import heretical Protestant content into the faith that can never be canonized. 

But what about the Church’s authority to baptize pagan practices and make them Christian? Yes, the Church has the authority to do so—it takes time, might be messy in the process of doing so, but it has happened over the centuries.

Of course, some things that Catholics wanted canonized from paganism never were and by the authority of the Magisterium. But it is the Magisterium that makes these kinds of decisions and not quickly.

Here are some pagan practices that became Catholic as AI describes it:

While Catholicism is a distinct monotheistic faith, it historically adopted and "baptized" various pre-Christian customs to ease the conversion of pagan populations. These practices are often viewed by historians as 

syncretism—the blending of different beliefs—though the Church typically maintains they have been re-imbued with Christian meaning. 

Common Catholic practices with cited pagan parallels include:

Holidays and the Calendar

• Christmas (December 25): Widely believed to have been placed on the date of the Winter Solstice and the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birthday of the Unconquered Sun) to co-opt existing midwinter celebrations.
• Easter: Often linked to spring fertility festivals. The name itself is thought by some to derive from Eostre, a Germanic goddess of spring, whose symbols (eggs and rabbits) represented new life.
• All Saints’ Day (November 1): Closely aligned with the Celtic festival of Samhain, a time when the veil between the living and the dead was believed to be thinnest.
• Saint Brigid’s Feast (February 1): Saint Brigid of Ireland is frequently considered a Christianization of the Celtic goddess Brigid. Her feast day coincides with Imbolc, a pagan festival celebrating the beginning of spring. 

Rituals and Symbols

• Veneration of Saints: Critics often compare the Catholic practice of praying to specific saints for protection (e.g., travelers, the sick) to the pagan tradition of honoring local deities or heroes.
• The Halo: Used in Christian art to denote holiness, the halo was originally used in Roman and Greek art to depict sun deities like Helios or Apollo.
• Incense and Candles: The ritual use of fire, smoke, and light was common in ancient Roman, Egyptian, and Babylonian ceremonies for purification and as an offering to the divine.
• Holy Water: The use of water for ritual purification has deep roots in nearly every ancient pagan religion, from Roman lustration to Egyptian temple rites. 

Titles and Architecture

• Pontifex Maximus: This title, now used by the Pope, was originally the title of the High Priest in Roman paganism.
• Sacred Sites: Many early churches were intentionally built on the ruins of pagan temples or sites considered sacred in local traditions to help local populations transition their worship to the new faith. 

POPE LEO XIV HAS MOVED BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, I MEAN, THE APOSTOLIC PALACE PROVIDED BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCH FOR POPES TO LIVE AS THE USA PROVIDES THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENTS TO LIVE, BUT WHEN WILL SAINT POPE PETER I MOVE BACK INTO THE APOSTOLIC PALACE?

 I was a concelebrant with Pope Francis at the Closing Mass for the Year of Faith on November 24, 2013 and I also distributed Holy Communion!

The first five photos I took before the Closing Mass of the Year of Faith on November 24, 2013:

I pray that Pope Leo will return to this contraption for the Introductory and Concluding Rites of papal Masses in St. Peter’s Square. This particular set-up was Pope Benedict’s which Pope Francis had maintained his first year but slightly modified later:

I was blessed to be on a nearly four month sabbatical at the North American College in Rome from August 2013 through November 2013. Pope Francis had been pope for only five months when I arrived and because it was the Year of Faith, His Holiness celebrated many Solemn Masses in a packed St.Peter’s Square. I was able to concelebrate and distribute Holy Communion at many of those Masses and I felt like I had died and gone to heaven. What wonderful memories!

I concelebrated Mass with Pope Francis for the Closing Mass of the Year of Faith on November 24, 2013. I also distributed Holy Communion. 

At this Mass, the relics of Saint Peter, which were kept in the Apostolic Palace where popes had lived but Pope Francis chose not to live, but rather he lived at the Vatican Motel 6, were on public display. In addition to that, Pope Francis held the reliquary containing St. Pope Peter’s bones for the chanting of the Credo. It was powerful to be there and witness such a historical spectacle and to be concelebrating that Mass with the pope and St. Peter!

I would be located to the left of the altar to concelebrate this Mass, directly behind the bishops maybe one or two rows behind them. I think I am at the end closest to the square:

Father Raymond de Souza writing for the National Catholic Register, asks when these same relics of Saint Peter will move back into the papal apartment’s chapel. I did not know that Pope Francis had given these relics, the bones of St. Peter, to the Patriarch of Constantinople of the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church.

This is what Father de Souza writes:

There is the issue of the private chapel, in which were kept small pieces of the bones of the Apostle Peter. Among the most precious relics in the possession of the Holy See, some bone fragments were kept in the Pope’s private chapel for his veneration. 

In 1968, the relics of St. Peter were archaeologically determined to be under the high altar in St. Peter’s Basilica. The majority of the bones found were left on-site. But Paul VI took nine small fragments and placed them in a special reliquary, which he kept in the chapel in the papal apartment. He desired that the Successor of Peter’s daily prayer be nourished by the corporeal presence of the Prince of the Apostles and that Peter’s relics would protect the pope and his ministry.

His successors maintained the custom, never removing the reliquary for public veneration. Pope Francis exposed the relics for public veneration at the conclusion of the Year of Faith in November 2013, after which they remained in the private chapel of the papal apartment. 

In 2019, having given the idea less than 24 hours’ consideration by his own account, he gave the relics to the delegation representing Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, at the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul in “I no longer live in the Apostolic Palace, I never use this chapel, I never serve the Holy Mass here, and we have St. Peter’s relics in the basilica itself, so it will be better if [these relics] will be kept in Constantinople,” Pope Francis said when presenting his gift to the astonished delegation. “This is my gift to the Church of Constantinople. Please take this reliquary and give it to my brother Patriarch Bartholomew. This gift is not from me; it is a gift from God.”

Now that Pope Leo XIV is back in the papal apartment, it remains for him to quietly indicate that the relics of Peter belong back in the pope’s chapel. It is likely that Bartholomew would agree, and the transfer could be arranged in June, when his delegation makes its annual Roman visit for Peter and Paul. 

That the Pope didn’t live in the papal apartment for 12 years was an anomaly that the Holy Father has now corrected. That Peter himself has been absent remains to be corrected.

Father Raymond J. de Souza Father Raymond J. de Souza is the founding editor of Convivium magazine.

WILL POPE LEO’S WORLDWIDE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENTS OF BISHOPS’ CONFERENCES ON THE TOPIC OF AMORIS LAETITIA ADDRESS IN PART ITS CONTROVERSIES AND THE CARDINALS DUBIA TO POPE FRANCIS, NEVER ANSWERED BY POPE FRANCIS? TIME WILL TELL!

Pope Leo is calling the heads of bishops conferences from around the world for a meeting in Ocotber on Amoris laetitia. Overall this Apostolic Exhortation issued by Pope Francis on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, March 19, 2016, is quite a beautiful exhortation except for Chapter 8 and an innocuous footnote that opened the path for those Catholics living in sin to receive Holy Communion on a case by case basis. 

This controversy created moral chaos and disunity in the Church as some cardinals, called the “Dubia Cardinals” asked Pope Francis for a moral clarification to which they received no clarification from the Pope. 

I believe it is a great thing that Pope Leo is calling the heads of bishops’ conferences to a meeting to discuss Amoris Laetitia in order, in the first place, to promote all the good that is in it but secondly to address, I would presume, the major controversy this document created and perhaps clarify it. 

I would think that clarifications would also have to deal with what is called the “internal forum” when couples who are living in an irregular union due to previous marriages, presumed valid, apply for an annulment and for reasons due to a lack of evidence or witnesses that are not available cannot receive an annulment. The annulment procedure is the “External Forum.” When it fails due to the reasons I mention, the internal forum helps couples to make a moral decision about their union using their conscience. In some cases these couples return to Holy Communion, but the decision is theirs and they are responsible for it. However, their receiving Holy Communion should not cause scandal in their fellow parishioners who don’t have the full story. Sometimes they are encouraged to receive in a parish they don’t belong. 

 MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE LEO XIV

ON THE OCCASION OF THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION AMORIS LAETITIA

[Multimedia]

_____________________________________

Dear brothers and sisters,

On 19 March 2016, Pope Francis offered the universal Church a luminous message of hope regarding conjugal love and family life, which was the fruit of three years of synodal discernment enriched by the Jubilee Year of Mercy: the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. On this tenth anniversary, we give thanks to the Lord for the stimulus that has encouraged reflection and pastoral conversion in the Church, and ask God for the courage to persevere on this path, always welcoming the Gospel anew in the joy of being able to proclaim it to all.

The Second Vatican Council taught that the family is “the basis of society,”[1] a gift from God and “a school for human enrichment.”[2] Through the sacrament of marriage, Christian spouses form a kind of “domestic church,”[3] whose role is essential for teaching and transmitting the faith. Since the Council, the two Apostolic Exhortations, Familiaris Consortio — issued by Saint John Paul II in 1981 — and Amoris Laetitia (AL), have both strengthened the Church’s doctrinal and pastoral commitment to the service of young people, married couples and families.

Recognizing that “anthropological and cultural changes” (AL 32) have become increasingly pronounced over the past thirty-five years, Pope Francis wanted to further engage the Church in the path of synodal discernment. His address on 17 October 2015, delivered during the XIV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the family, called for “mutual listening” within the people of God: “all listening to the Holy Spirit, ‘the Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:17), in order to know what he ‘says to the Churches’ (Rev 2:7).” He explained that it is not possible to “speak about the family without engaging families themselves, listening to their joys and their hopes, their sorrows and their anguish.”[4]

In gathering the fruits of synodal discernment, Amoris Laetitia offers valuable teachings that we must continue to examine today: the biblical hope of God’s loving and merciful presence, which allows us to live “love stories” even when navigating “family crises” (AL 8); the invitation to adopt “the gaze of Jesus” (AL 60) and tirelessly to encourage “the growth, strengthening and deepening of conjugal and family love” (AL 89); the call to appreciate that love in marriage “always gives life” (AL 165) and that it is ‘real’ precisely in its “limited and earthly” way (AL 113), as the mystery of the Incarnation teaches us. Pope Francis affirmed the need “for new pastoral methods” (AL 199) and for a better education of children (cf. AL chap. VII), while inviting the Church to accompany, discern and integrate fragility (cf. AL chap. VIII), overcoming a reductive conception of the norm, and to promote “the spirituality that unfolds in family life” (AL 313).

As I had the opportunity to say to the young people gathered at Tor Vergata during the Jubilee of Hope, fragility is “part of the marvel of creation… We are not made for a life where everything is taken for granted and static, but for an existence that is constantly renewed through gift of self in love.”[5]To serve the mission of proclaiming the Gospel of the family to younger generations, we must learn to evoke the beauty of the vocation to marriage precisely in the recognition of fragility, so as to reawaken “trust in God’s grace” (AL 36) and the Christian desire for holiness. We must also support families, especially those suffering from the many forms of poverty and violence present in contemporary society.

We thank the Lord for families who, despite difficulties and challenges, live “the spirituality of family love […] made up of thousands of small but real gestures” (AL 315). I also express my gratitude to the pastors, pastoral workers, Associations of the faithful and ecclesial Movements that are engaged in family ministry.

Our era is marked by rapid changes which make it necessary, even more than ten years ago, to give particular pastoral attention to families, to whom the Lord entrusts the task of participating in the Church’s mission of proclaiming and witnessing to the Gospel.[6] There are, in fact, places and circumstances in which the Church “can become the salt of the earth”[7] only through the lay faithful and, in particular, through families. For this reason, the Church’s commitment in this area must be renewed and deepened, so that those whom the Lord calls to marriage and family life can, in Christ, fully live out their conjugal love, and that young people may feel attracted, within the Church, to the beauty of the vocation to marriage.

In light of the changes that continue to impact families, I have decided to convene the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences from around the world in October 2026, in an effort to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris Laetitia and taking into account what is currently being done in the local Churches.

I entrust this journey to the intercession of Saint Joseph, guardian of the Holy Family of Nazareth.

From the Vatican, 19 March 2026, Solemnity of Saint Joseph

LEO PP. XIV

The following is an AI summary of the ensuing controversy over Amoris laetitia:

The controversy over 

*Amoris Laetitia* (2016) centers on Chapter 8, which addresses pastoral care for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. Critics argue that allowing those in "irregular" unions potential access to Holy Communion contradicts traditional church teaching on marriage, adultery, and the sacraments, while supporters praise it as a merciful approach. 

Key aspects of the controversy include:

• Access to Communion: Footnote 351 in Chapter 8 suggests that for some, "the help of the sacraments" could include Eucharist, which opponents view as a break from established practice.
• Role of Conscience/Discernment: The document emphasizes case-by-case discernment for couples, leading to debate over whether individual conscience can override objective moral laws against divorce and remarriage.
• "Dubia" and Accusations: Four cardinals famously issued dubia (doubts) asking for clarification, while some theologians accused Pope Francis of promoting heresy, notes catholicvote.org.
• Reaction to "Weakness": Chapter 8 argues the church must accompany those who cannot immediately meet the "objective" ideal of marriage, which critics say weakens moral absolutes.
• Impact on Unity: The debate created a significant rift within the church, with some viewing it as a necessary shift towards mercy and others seeing it as causing confusion, notes catholicvote.org. 

The controversy highlights a deep divide within the Catholic Church over how to balance traditional doctrine with pastoral practice and compassion for complex life situations.