FIGHTING AGAINST THE CORRUPTION OF MARRIAGE BY VARIOUS IDEOLOGIES, AND NOT JUST THE LGBTQ+++ KIND, POPE LEO GIVES A GREAT CATECHESIS ON MARRIAGE AND UPHOLDS HUMANAE VITAE!

 Catechesis. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council. IV. Constitution Gaudium et Spes.  6. Commitment to the family in today’s society (GS, 47–52)

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning and welcome!

The first think I would like to say is thank you!. Thank you for the support of your prayers. Thanks be to God for His generosity. Let us all renew our trust in God’s goodness and mercy.

The pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS) of the Second Vatican Council, having illustrated in the first part the dignity of the person and his or her vocation in the world, goes on to consider, in the second part, “in the light of the Gospel and of human experience”, some of the most pressing contemporary issues (cf. GS, 46). It focuses primarily on marriage and the family, in the conviction that “the well-being of the individual and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family” (GS, 47).

To this end, it does not merely reaffirm their values and aims, but proposes a renewed conception of marriage as an “intimate partnership of married life and love” (GS, 48). By incorporating the legal dimension of marriage as a contract, the foundation of this union is recognized in the “conjugal covenant”, understood as the “human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each another” (ibid.). The mutual self-giving of man and woman, such that ‘they are no longer two but one flesh’ (Mt 19:6), underlies the requirement for “total fidelity” and the “unbreakable oneness” of the spouses, finding vivid expression in the procreation and upbringing of children (cf. GS, 48). As a reflection of the Divine Trinity, conjugal and parental love, through the Sacrament of Marriage, is “governed and enriched by Christ’s redeeming power”, so that spouses may love one another “just as He loved the Church and handed Himself over on her behalf” (ibid.).

Having shed light on the reality of marriage in the light of Christ’s love, which is the truth of both human and divine love, Gaudium et Spes turns its attention to conjugal love and marital fruitfulness. Not limited to erotic attraction, which it nonetheless encompasses, conjugal love involves the entire will of the spouses, enlivening the affections of their hearts and expressing itself through sentiments and gestures of tenderness (cf. GS, 49). Embracing the good of the whole person of both man and woman, who are equal in dignity, this love pervades the entire life of the spouses, finding expression in acts proper exclusively to marriage (cf. ibid.). Whilst signifying integral love from person to person, the unique intimacy between the spouses fosters their mutual self-giving and enriches their shared joy (cf. ibid.).

Furthermore, the fruitfulness of conjugal love is expressed in the procreation of children, “the supreme gift of marriage” (GS, 50). By transmitting and educating human life, which must never be rejected, spouses become “cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love” (ibid.). Called to this human and Christian responsibility, they are bound to allow themselves to be guided by a sound judgement regarding their own good and that of their children, whether already born or yet to be born. Such a judgement, which, in the final analysis, the spouses themselves must form before God, requires that their conscience conform to divine law, as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church in the light of the Gospel (cf. ibid.).

The emphasis on loving communion and procreative fruitfulness within marriage leads the Council to rule out the possibility of there being “a true contradiction … between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life, and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love” (GS, 51) and to affirm, instead, that “when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life”, one must “preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love” (ibid.). From this it follows both that “from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care”, renouncing “abortion and infanticide”; and that “the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honoured with great reverence” (ibid.).

The teaching of Gaudium et Spes on the conjugal and family community thus goes on to highlight the social function of the family, defined as “a school of deeper humanity” and “the foundation of society” (GS, 52), calling upon all those with social responsibilities, especially in the political and cultural spheres, to fulfil their duty to “work efficiently for the welfare of marriage and the family” (ibid.).

Dear friends, this task is more urgent than ever before. The Church is well aware of this, as shown by the pastoral concern of the Popes who have succeeded one another since the last Council, right up to the two Synodal Assemblies convened by Pope Francis, which were addressed again in recent days by the Heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences. May the Holy Family of Nazareth enlighten us on our journey and protect families throughout the world.

CELEBRITY BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SHOULD BE RARE BUT SAFE

Because social media especially of the video kind, can make just about anyone a celebrity influencer, when it comes to bishops and priests, these celebrities should be rare and always safe.

Blessed Fulton Sheen was a celebrity bishop in the 1950’s and until he died having had a prime time television show on ABC TV in the 1950’s. But he was about it, rare and safe His Beatified was. 

A famous celebrity exorcist, yes, you read that correctly, a celebrity exorcist, has been asked and he has consented to “fast” from publicly speaking for a year, especially on social media. Thank God he was obedient to his bishop’s request as all priests make promises of obedience to their bishop and also that of celibacy. Religious priests make a vow of poverty too. 

PRIESTS ARE NOT IN PRIVATE PRACTICE!

I think exorcists should be very circumspect about becoming celebrities. Am I wrong? 

Traditional, orthodox Catholics should be applauding the celebrity exorcist for obeying his bishop’s order to “shut-up” for a year. Heterodox Catholics will not do that and scream bloody murder that the celebrity exorcist is obeying his bishop. I guess they would applaud the exorcist priest if he were breaking his promises/vows of celibacy and poverty. 

There’s a Jesuitical celebrity priest who promotes ideologies that irk a lot of people, especially the orthodox Catholics among them. I guess it will take more courage for his bishop to silence him, given that particular ideology and I think that bishop would be the bishop where the Jesuitical celebrity priest lives—that bishop is responsible or am I wrong? 

I do believe, though, that if that Jesuitical priest were silenced, he would be obedient and I would applaud that and the bishop who silenced him. 

POPE LEO APPOINTS A THEOLOGIAN WHO CRITICIZED POPE FRANCIS AND TRADITIONIS CUSTODIS

 Pope Leo is appointing a variety of theologians of various theological factions for the listening Church that eventually filters. This appointee needs a listen about TC!

Press the title for the complete article, money byte below it;

"Pedro, the rock, begins to roll": a layman highly critical of Traditionis Custodes joins the Theological Commission

Tück wrote in 2021 that Traditionis custodes put papal authority at risk. In May he said that a schism by the FSSPX would be “also good” for clarification.

The 2021 article appeared on July 22 in the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung(NZZ), six days after the publication of the motu proprio, under the title “No to the Old Mass: Pope Francis repeals a decision of his predecessor and thereby endangers the authority of the office.” Tück recalled that Francis had once remarked that he might go down in history as the pope of division, and wrote that “last Friday he almost made that word come true,” because with the decree he had withdrawn “without blinking” the license granted by his predecessor. In his view, by openly correcting Benedict XVI instead of striving for coherence and consistency in the magisterium, the Pope gave many the impression that a pontiff can correct and revise the teaching of his predecessors at will, and that irruption of contingency into magisterial statements, visible to all, threatened to undermine papal authority.

The text acknowledged that there are partial tensions between the ecclesiology of the Council and the Tridentine Mass, and occasional overlaps with the milieu of the political right, but maintained that the argument of instrumentalization applied globally only to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. To the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the other groups that expressly recognize the Council and the primacy, he wrote, precisely they were being deprived of “the papal protective roof,” so that they were being punished for their fidelity to the Pope “by the Pope himself.” He also criticized the requirement of Roman authorization for new priests as contradicting the “healthy decentralization” that Francis himself preached, and that leaving the matter to each bishop would produce a mosaic of permissions and prohibitions. “A ban on the old Mass is ultimately an expression of weakness,” he concluded, because it does not trust that the renewed liturgy will impose itself as the best option. At the same time, Tück defended the liturgical reform of the Council, calling it its most visible fruit and, in his judgment, something that “cannot and must not be called into question,” and ended by warning that excluding that tradition ignores its cultural strength and is “tendentially prone to division.”

HALLOWEEN ALTAR?

 

THOSE DREADED POST-MASS PRAYERS—GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW IT MESSES UP OTHERWISE GOOD CATHOLICS

 Prior to Vatican II, the Leonine Prayers were officially imposed upon the Mass’s ending for Low Masses only. You heard the “Go in Peace” and then received the blessing and then had to wait for the quiet reading of the Prologue of John’s Gospel and then you had to wait for the Leonine Prayers.

God only knows how all of this negatively affected Catholics. I am sure it was horrible.

The Bugnini Mass cleaned all that up and not even is a recessional hymn prescribed. But, and wait for this and all the havoc of sins it creates in Catholic’s lives, most parishes sing a recessional hymn and expect people to remain until the priest decides to leave! The mortal sins that follow this illicit singing of a recessional hym that is not prescribed in the Roman Missal must be multitudinous! No?

Thank God we have bishops from on high cracking down on those mortal sin-causing post Mass prayers, be it the recovery of the Leonine Prayers, the Saint Michael Prayer and that dreaded non-prescribed recessional sin, I mean, hym!

I can rest assured that bishops who on high micro manage these traumatic post Mass prayers are saving souls. God bless their little hearts! 

NOW, THIS IS THE WAY YOU DO IT, IF I DO SAY SO MYSLEF!

 It is well known that I don’t like intentionally putting two altars, back to back, in churches, especially newly built churches. But that is happening, unfortunately, and decorations are far from art, even bad art. 

These are screen shots of a wedding streamed live today October 17 which I happened to come upon by accident, creating this  “thanks for the memories” moment! My story below all the screenshots:

I was pastor of  the church of these screenshots from 1991 - 2004.

Back in 1996 or so, when I was pastor at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta, we did a major renovation and restoration of the building. The major undertaking, among major undertakings, was to dismantle completely the altar you see above in order to separate the altar from the reredos and create enough room for the historic altar of 1863 to become free-standing and to allow for Mass to be celebrated ad orientem or ad populum.

That altar originally was four steps up from where the couple is kneeling. We reduced it to three steps and moved the reredos closer to the back wall. Thus the first step in front of the couple is the historic first step of the altar and the placement of the altar, is basically where it was in 1863, although attached to the reredos. 

Moving the reredos closer to the back wall (there is a door behind it to the sacristy) made all the difference in the world.

However, looking at the entire altar piece from the congregation, it appears that nothing was done!

As you can tell, at the old altar made free-standing, the Mass can be celebrated ad-orientem. I did this based upon my clairvoyance that ad orientem would become more widespread once again in the future. 

However, way ahead of my time, our great choir prepared Latin Masses from the great composers and in the late 90’s and early 2000’s I celebrated those specially scheduled Masses ad orientem! Yes, you read that correctly!

Just as an aside, when the altar and reredos were dismantled, the marble pieces laid on the floor on either side of the altar. And then, our architect/supervisor of renovations had to fire the company he hired to do the work due to some in-house shenanigans. I thought it would never be put together again, but the new company did so marvelously! You’d never know that it was completely taken apart!

TREATING CHRISTIANS LIKE DIRT—REDUX

 

Many years ago in a far, far off place, I was invited to lunch by two Episcopal priests. During the course of the meeting, I discovered they were living together and with benefits. This was prior to the Supreme Court green-lighting same sex marriages in the USA.

I asked how their bishop in the Episcopal Church felt about their intimate union. They said she was good with it, no problem.

Then I asked if the bishop would feel the same way about a male priest and a female priestess living together without marriage. They said that wouldn’t be allowed. It would be frowned upon. 

Both of them were hired by two different parishes in our town. I asked if there were any problems with their parishioners concerning their living together with benefits. They said no, no problems except for one of the church’s vestry member asked if they would avoid romantic kisses on the mouth, if ever together at a parish Eucharist’s  Kiss of Peace. 

Double standard? In the eyes of the world, the heterosexual couple seems to be the one being treated like dirt rather than the homosexual couple who is affirmed in their intimate relationship outside of marriage. 

It seems that many in the Catholic Church who are pushing for Catholics in a variety of illicit sexual relationships to be able to receive Holy Communion, especially of the LGBTQ+++ type, never see that as a slap in the face to Catholics of the heterosexual type, who are divorced but still in a presumably valid sacramental marriage, and remarried outside the Church. They attend Mass faithfully every Sunday, participate in activities of the Church, such as women’s groups, men’s groups, ushers, choir members, etc but never receive Holy Communion due to their illicit “marriage”. 

It seems to me that allowing those of the same sex in illicit union to receive Holy Communion while heterosexuals in illicit unions faithfully do not receive Holy Communion out of fidelity to Christ and His Church, not to mention Scripture and Tradition, is treating heterosexuals like dirt, no?

And this brings me to Bishop Varden who I hope the convalescing Pope Leo XIV elevates to Cardinal and a Vatican Curial position and what he said about the just recently concluded Amoris Laetitia jam sessions of incessant talking and listening:

This is from a post I saw on Facebook, but can’t remember the organization posting it. It is a copy and paste:

How can the Church welcome people whose family situation does not match its teaching, without changing that teaching? One bishop who took part in the Vatican’s recent family meeting has offered a thoughtful answer.

Bishop Erik Varden of Trondheim, Norway, wrote on his website on October 15 about his time at the week-long Vatican meeting marking ten years since Amoris Laetitia. AdVaticanum reported on his reflections. He focused on divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, a topic connected to Chapter 8 of the document, which has been debated since 2016.

Welcome without relativizing

Bishop Varden wrote that it can be “liberating” for people in such situations to be in a community where their irregular situation is “acknowledged, not relativised,” and where they are still “embraced with Christian friendship, enabled to contribute to the community.”

He also suggested that those who suffer in their family life can look at their trials in a bigger picture. Pastoral care, he wrote, should help them discover the “potentially productive sense of their troubles, which may serve to lessen selfishness and purify love.”

More than affirmation

The bishop said the goal of pastoral care must always be transformation in Christ, “not merely human affirmation — though we all need a bit of that as well.” He wrote that Christ gave His commandments “to educate us and to liberate us from ourselves,” quoting the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer: that we might “live no longer for ourselves but for him who died and rose again for us.”

A quiet witness

Varden also spoke of faithful Catholics he knows who come forward for a blessing at Communion, Sunday after Sunday, knowing they cannot receive the sacrament, yet trusting in God’s mercy. He said their example “testifies to the vital realism of the sacrament and to the virtue of hope,” and added that “sacramental exile sustained over time can prepare a joyful homecoming.”

About the meeting

Pope Leo XIV called the meeting and it ended on October 14. AdVaticanum reports that Monsignor Philippe Bordeyne, a member of the Final Synthesis Committee, confirmed that the unpublished synthesis report addresses the question of Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, though he said it was “not the centre” of the discussions. Pope Leo will review the report before deciding what is released.

These are the personal reflections of one bishop, and Catholics hold a range of views on how best to accompany people in these situations.

How do you think the Church can balance welcome and truth?

HAVE CARDINALS BURKE AND MULLER, AS WELL AS BISHOP SCHNIEDER SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT AS EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATORS OF TRADITION?

 I have tried to stop reading those ultra-right wing heterodox Catholic blogs and news sites. They are unhinged and fomenting schism or at least leading Catholics away from the living successor of St. Peter. 

These sites also present Cardinals Muller and Burke as well as Bishop Schneider as contradicting the pope as though they are to be followed rather than the legitimate visible head of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff. 

And Bishop Schneider seems particularly unhinged and more than likely should not have been chosen to be the Celebrant of the TLM that was planned for St. Peter’s Basilica. I have wondered if that Mass was moved to St. Mary Major because of that. If they had chosen Cardinal Zuppi to be the celebrant, I wonder if it would have remained at St. Peter’s?

I don’t think that this trio of spokesmen for common sense in Catholicism, sound orthodoxy are doing anyone any favors if in fact they are in opposition to the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff. Maybe the right wing heterodox is simply portraying them as such against reality? 

I am old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II Church and the respect the laity had for the clergy and the pope and bishops in union with him. And I grew up as a part of a small minority religion in the Bible Belt of the South where there was prior to Vatican II palpable anti-Catholic sentiments and actions from Protestants, especially from the more fundamentalistic variety. 

Catholics were united around their priests, bishop and pope. There was never any public criticism of them. 

Maybe that was immature and led to accepting abuse of a variety of kinds. But there is something to said about not airing one’s dirty laundry publicly or am I wrong? 

THESE ARE THE SEMINARIANS FOR THE ARCHDIOCESE OF ATLANTA FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2026-27…

 I haven’t seen the seminarian poster for the Archdiocese of Chicago. I wonder if they have as many seminarians as the Archdiocese of Atlanta. I would think that Chicago has a much larger Catholic population, so wouldn’t their seminarian poster have twice the seminarians? Wondering on Hilton Head Island.

Disclaimer: Of course, not all these men will be ordained as many are in discernment. Time will tell how many will be ordained and how many are in it for the long-haul…

MAYBE I LIVE IN A BUBBLE, BUT MOST PRIESTS, DEACONS AND EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF HOLY COMMUNION SELDOM IF EVER DENY ANY GAY, STRAIGHT OR WHATEVER CATHOLIC FROM RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION—-AM I WRONG?

 This is what Jesuitical Fr. James Martin, SJ recently said:

James Martin: Gays ‘treated like dirt’ by being asked not to receive Communion

My comment on that silly comment:

If a person presents himself for Holy Communion, and they do so acting as if they have been taught how to receive reverently, I have never refused that person Holy Communion. And I know that about 95% of those who present themselves for Holy Communion more than likely seldom if ever go the Confession and infrequently attend Mass. 

If they are making a “sacrilegious” Communion, that’s between them and God.

Those who know that they should not receive Holy Communion, respectfully come forward for a blessing of some kind—I and the Church have no problem with that—God bless them—and for the most part, those who don’t receive but come forward for a blessing are those in irregular marital situations. While they may feel marginalized at Communioin time, they accept Church teachings on marriage and the need to be in “good standing” with the Church—they attend Mass faithfully every Sunday. Did I say, God bless them?!

I think Fr. Martin is being just plain silly and committing calumny by accusing priests and the Church of treating gays like dirt. He’s treating priests and the Church like dirt, no?

 Reminding people in a state of unforgiven mortal sin not to receive Holy Communion is an act of charity toward those persons regardless of their sexual preferences and sins in that context. That is treating them with respect not as dirt!

Father Martin, really?

THE LORD GIVES AND THE LORD TAKES AWAY—BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD!

Adult Catholics who have respect for the Supreme Pontiff, understand that the Lord gives and the Lord takes away—blessed be the Name of the Lord. 

Popes give and popes take away—blessed be the popes. But are we obliged, under the pain of mortal sin, to like it? It depends. 

St. Pope John Paul II opened the door to more celebrations of the Vetus Ordo. Pope Benedict XVI went much further allowing it to be celebrated freely but also as the exception rather than the rule—the rule is the Novus Ordo. It is the ordinary form of the Mass, while the Vetus Ordo is out of the ordinary, which better defines in English, Benedict’s use of extraordinary not as“being better” but as out of the ordinary or regular usage.

For the first 10 years of Pope Francis papacy, there was no indication from His Holiness that he would suppress in any way or aspect Summorum Pontificum, let alone abrogate it altogether. 

Even Praytell was a bit shocked with the complete suppression of Summorum Pontificum because by Pope Francis doing this, he was striking Pope Benedict XVI in the face even while the Emeritus Pope was still living next door to His Holiness—and there was no communication to the Emeritus Pope that Pope Francis would completely suppress SP and institute the backward looking TC (when the NO was the only form of the Mass allowed after Vatican II). 

Thus, we can say that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a victim of this abusive document and everyone else who embraced SP because Pope Benedict XVI allowed it—they were obedient to His Holiness and moved forward (forward looking) with SP. And they (and me) accepted Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II in continuity with what preceded it. The majority of Catholics who accepted SP also accept Vatican II properly interpreted and in line with how Pope Benedict XVI interpreted Vatican II and SP.

Thus, we can say that all those who were obedient to Pope Benedict’s liturgical vision, not just in allowing the Vetus Ordo, but also inspiring a logical “reform of the reform” of the Novus Ordo were victimized by Pope Francis and His Holiness’ Traditionis Custodis. 

But we aren’t children and we cannot remain stuck in the victims’ state of mind.

We know that in life, in our faith life and worship too, that God and the popes give and God and the popes take away. We might feel victimized, but that’s our problem not theirs. 

Arthur Cardinal Roche gave an interview to a less than friendly interviewer, which the good Cardinal should be commended for doing so.

I have no reason to believe that Cardinal Roche is making up or is in a state of wishful thinking when he says Pope Leo XIV is not going to change Traditionis Custodis or bring back SP. I take it at face value that he is communicating what Pope Leo has indicated to him. 

Children might pout about this for the rest of their lives, but adults should not be doing so. They should put on their big boy pants and move forward and accept reality and remain in full communion and love with the pope and the bishops in union with him. 

But I think that Cardinal Roche, who once supported Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum and then supported his new boss, Pope Francis and TC and he’s supporting is newest boss Pope Leo XIV, should have been less verbally victimizing of those who had and have a hard time when Pope Francis in the most authoritarian and mean way, suppressed the liturgical magisterium of Pope Benedict. 

Here’s what Cardinal Roche said in the interview which Rorate Caeli carried:

Interviewer: This year will mark five years since the implementation of Traditionis Custodes, the motu proprio from Pope Francis’s pontificate, which adjusted a previous motu proprio from Pope Benedict’s pontificate. Do you think, in view of these changes from pontificate to pontificate, we are likely to see Pope Leo give his own guidance – particularly as much of the Catholic revival amongst young people seems at least to have a focus on the 1962 Mass? Or do you see something coming from Pope Leo?

Cardinal Roche:  No, I do not. He is not going to change Traditionis Custodes. He is not going to go back to Summorum Pontificum.

 

His words to the priests and people of consecrated life in Notre-Dame on Saturday evening are very, very clear: stop preferring your own particular view about this matter, and return to what the Church is asking you to do. He said that very clearly, not only there, but also two or three weeks back in his concluding talk for his Wednesday catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. He made it very clear that the direction of the Church is in this particular direction, and that personal choices should not come into this matter.

 Why? Because the Church assembles as a family, as a group, not simply as individuals. Of course we are individuals, but we assemble as a Church who believe in what the Church has given to us, what it handed down to us from the Lord, and we remain faithful to that deposit of faith.

Interviewer: Would you say to those people who attend the Vetus Ordo that it would be better for them to go to a Novus Ordo, or would you say they really should not be going to a Vetus Ordo Mass?

Cardinal Roche: You should not be going to that Mass exclusively, I think. That is what I would say. But the thing that impresses itself upon me constantly, dealing with groups of traditionally minded people, is that when they come to see me and talk about this, and they say the Pope has not been kind to us, I say to them: the Holy Father has given you the possibility of celebrating the Mass according to the Antecedent Rite. What is your problem? What else is it that you are wanting?

Generally speaking, they cannot answer the question. But you see in the traditionalist blogs that they are wanting more than that. They are wanting to turn back to a Church that does not have the teaching of the Second Vatican Council; that does not have this new form of working together in order to evangelise the world. So I would say, for any Catholic with any tendency, you should always examine your conscience against what is the teaching of the Church, and not just what you prefer to do yourself.

My comment to the last sentence above: Cardinal Roche is spreading calumny not only about the majority of quiet Catholics who embraced SP and Vatican II as Pope Benedict XVI understood it, but he is also spreading the same calumny about Pope Benedict XVI of happy memory. In other words, Pope Benedict should have examined his conscience against what is the teaching of the Church and not just what he preferred to do himself! Sheesh! 

MY FEARS WERE REALIZED: POPE LEO HAS LUNG CANCER—PLEASE CONTINUE TO STORM HEAVEN FOR POPE LEO AND FOR THE CHURCH!

 This is an AI summary:

AI Overview

Pope Leo XIV has been diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma, a form of lung cancer, following a successful surgery on October 13, 2026. Doctors removed the lower lobe of his right lung at Rome's Gemelli hospital. 

• Procedure: A 90-minute operation to remove the lower lobe of his right lung using a video-assisted technique.
• Outcome: The Vatican announced that the surgery was successful with no complications.
• Recovery: The 71-year-old pontiff woke up normally and is resting. He is expected to spend about a week recovering at 
  Rome's Gemelli hospital.
   

Medical Prognosis

As reported by The New York Times, medical experts state that early-stage lung adenocarcinoma treated with surgery typically carries a very high survival rate. Pope Leo has no history of tobacco use and maintains an active lifestyle, frequently playing tennis and swimming, which doctors note supports a positive recovery outlook. 

It remains unclear if his recovery period will disrupt his upcoming international travel schedule, which includes planned November trips to South America

I have known many parishioners with this form of lung cancer who have recovered and lived normal lives for many years. God bless Pope Leo! Viva il Papa!

I DIDN’T WANT TO SPECULATE ON POPE LEO’S HEALTH, SINCE WE HAVE HIPPA LAWS IN THE USA, BUT SINCE THE PILLAR HAS, SO WILL I OUT OF PRAYERFUL CONCERN…

 As Pope Leo undergoes surgery today (October 13) we must hold him in prayer. My 8:30 AM Mass at St. Gregory the Great in Bluffton, SC will be a votive Mass for the Holy Father. 

I wanted to write this yesterday, but thought that I should not be speculating on health issues of a pope and how serious his surgery might be and what they might find. 

But since the Pillar has done so this morning (October 13) I wanted to add my nickel's worth.

My concern is about how quickly this surgery has been scheduled, meaning it is occuring in the middle of an important meeting the pope has called to discuss the “reception” of Amoris Laetitia. The Holy Father was to be the celebrant for the closing Mass this Wednesday and the summary report was to be released. 

The report is now being sidelined to another date so the pope can listen to the results and offer His Holiness’ own commentary. Cardinal Tagle, the new dean of the Cardinals, will substitute for the pope as the celebrant of the Mass on Wednesday.

It seems to me that if this were not very serious, they could have postponed the surgery until Thursday, but there seems to be an urgency for the surgery.

Prayers for the pope are important. Here’s a great prayer for those undergoing surgery:

PRAYER TO ST. LUKE FOR A SAFE SURGERY

O blessed Saint Luke, fondly invoked as the Beloved Physician and a follower of Christ, you devoted your life to the healing and care of those who were sick and suffering. We come before you now, asking for your intercession on behalf of those preparing for surgery, in particular Pope Leo XIV.

We pray for those who will be undergoing surgery that they may be filled with courage, strength, and peace of mind. We humbly pray that you direct the hands of the medical staff who will be executing the treatment and fill them with your knowledge, expertise, and compassion.

We also offer prayers for the loved ones and families of those getting ready for surgery. In this time of doubt and anxiety, may they find consolation and support and draw courage from their faith and the love of those around them.

We ask that you watch over those recovering from surgery so that they may experience a swift and complete recovery. May they continually put their faith in God's care and providence, and may they be filled with gratitude for the gift of life and the benefits of medical treatment.

Saint Luke lead us all on the paths of love, compassion, and selfless service. May we constantly be led by Christ's light as we dedicate our lives to the healing and caring of the sick and suffering. May we follow your wonderful example. Amen.

Saint Luke, pray for us.

Here’s the Pillar’s commentary, press the title:

How worried should Catholics be about the pope’s health?

The timing of the pope’s announcement and surgery this week suggests that the timing isn’t entirely by choice.

OCTOBER 12, 2026 • ED. CONDON

RANTS AND RAVES AND ODDS AND INS AND OTHER SUNDRIES

 While we aren’t seeing 90% of all Catholics attending Mass each Sunday, at least at our Cathedral in Savannah, their 10 AM and 11:30 AM Masses are packed. I don’t think it is helpful to refer to any Mass validly celebrated, even with liturgical abuses, as bogus, although abuses are bogus. 

A well celebrated Bugnini Mass attracts the young and old—it’s the poor celebrations that weaken or destroys attendance and orthodox belief. The cathedral has a world class choir director/organist as well as choirs.

And what’s up with no indication that on October 12th, it is the Memorial of Saint Carlos Acutis? It was not in the Ordo nor the USCCB’s Liturgical Readings guide. The only way I was reminded of it was a Spanish resource, in English, that offers a reflection on the day’s Gospel Reading. They indicated St. Carlos but also a Spanish Memorial, Our Lady of the Pillar, which I have never heard of before, but is celebrated in Spain.

And to think, when I was a teenager and wore jeans to Mass (in the 1970’s) my father chastised me for it and now there are statues of St. Carlos placed in churches with him wearing jeans! There is a God!

And we now know that Pope Leo XIV will undergo surgery on Tuesday, October 13, for the removal of a tumor on his lung. It’s a great day to have surgery—as it is the feast day of several saints, including St. Edward the Confessor, St. Lubentius, and Blessed Maddalena Panattieri. Additionally, it marks the anniversary of the final apparition of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917, where a miraculous event known as the Miracle of the Sun occurred! Prayers for a successful surgery and full recovery for our Holy Father and for the Intercession of our Lady of Fatima and those other saints! The pope is expected to remain in Gemeli Hospital for a week.

Of course, there’s the “pope’s nose” and now the “pope’s lung”!

And while the heterodox right is apoplectic that the new head of Saint Peter’s seems to be somewhat behind TC, he certainly isn’t anti-grandmother’s lace or ad orientem—Bishop of Gaylord, Michigan take notice! Lace of this magnitude isn’t my cup of tea, but I do like Arsenic and Lace! 

Finally, it is good to remember that modern brutalist architecture for Catholic churches was widely used prior to Vatican II and this one in Los Angeles is a great example. It has been nicely adapted for the Bugnini Mass without being wreckovated ! I like this very much.

IF IT’S TODAY, WHICH BISHOP DO I PRAY FOR IN THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER??????

 One of the things that helps keep my aging mind sharp as a tack is trying to remember when I celebrate Mass what diocese I am and the bishop’s first name of that diocese. As you may or may not know, the priest when he prays the Eucharistic Prayer must mention the first name of the bishop of the diocese where he is celebrating Mass. When I celebrate Mass in the Diocese of Charleston it is Jacques Fabre-Jeune, when I am in the Diocese of Savannah, it is Stephen Parkes and when I am at Parris Island or any US military installation in the world, it is Timothy Broglio. It’s easy to have a “senior” moment at that point in the Eucharistic Prayer….But no matter where I am, my bishop is the Bishop of Savannah, currently Bishop Stephen Parkes, or is it……