WOW! THE WANT TO BE LIKE THE NATIONAL cATHOLIC REPORTER BLOG, WHERE PETER IS, AKA, WHERE FRANCIS WAS, HAS A LINK TO AN ITALIAN BLOG THAT SAYS THE AMORIS LAETITIA MEETING IS UNDERMINING SYNODALITY—LET’S PRAY THAT AT LEAST IT IS UNDERMINING A HETERODOX VERSION OF IT!

 Mike Lewis of the Blog Where Peter Is, aka, Where Francis Was, was gloating on another thread about how Pope Leo XIV is Pope Francis II. He mentions that Pope Leo is continuing all of Pope Francis’ initiatives when it comes to Fiducia Supplicans, Traditionis Custodis and of course, Amoris Laetitia. But in fact, unlike Pope Francis, Pope Leo does not want to denigrate or cancel any of his previoius professors, like Pope Francis canceled a significant part of Pope Benedict’s liturgical magisterium and many aspects of St. John Paul II’s teachings. What Pope Leo is doing, which Mike Lewis does not understand, is that he is clarifying and purifying those teachings of Pope Francis which were seen as denigrating his immediate predecessors. And Pope Leo has certainly reversed many policies of Pope Francis as it concerns the Diocese of Rome. 

At any rate, this Italian blog says it straightforwardly, Pope Leo has undermined Pope Francis’ version of synodality. Do you agree? 

This is a google translation of an Italian Blog called Settimana which you can read in Italian Here:

Sinodalità mortificata

When Pope Leo convened the world’s bishops last March for a "summit on the family," I said to myself: "This will be the litmus test to see whether or not there is a genuine intention to take seriously the efforts of those millions of the faithful who—across the globe and throughout the 2023–2024 Synodal Journey—have repeatedly gathered at local, national, and continental levels to develop the concept of synodality and promote its consistent practice within the Church."

Now that the moment of truth has arrived, it must be said that the synodality so deeply desired, sought after, and proclaimed essential has, in this initial test, been undermined.

It is disheartening that this so often happens in the Church: proposals are made, discussions held, and declarations issued, yet nothing actually comes of them.

Making the family the focus of a major ecclesial gathering offered an ideal opportunity to put synodal practice to the test—perhaps the best opportunity imaginable. After all, if there is one aspect of Christian life that is—by virtue of their vow of celibacy—systematically absent from the bishops' own lived experience, it is family life: the dynamics of the marital relationship and the commitment involved in raising children.

The fact remains that bishops, priests, friars, and nuns do not, in the ordinary course of events, experience the process of seeking a partner with the aim of marriage, or grappling with the difficult discernment of that decision. They do not face the complex undertaking of merging every aspect of their existence—even the most intimate—with another person, nor do they experience the joys, the struggles, and often the crises that accompany raising children, and so forth. Only by living through these experiences does one become enriched with the charisms of married and family life that the Spirit bestows upon the faithful whom He calls to live them out. It is only through lived experience that the charisms the Spirit grants the faithful—enabling them to face life’s concrete challenges in His light—become manifest.

The meeting scheduled for October 7, 2026, involves the participation of approximately 248 people; among them, the number of married lay faithful is projected to be a very modest 11 couples—that is, 22 individuals.

I consider the appeal addressed to the Pope by *Catholic Church Reform International*—an international network of Catholic organizations and individuals committed to Church reform—to be reasonable and entirely consistent with the arduous synodal journey undertaken thus far: "In a synod on the family, families must have the right to a deliberative vote. There is no synodality if bishops gather without the people. Families must be present and have a say in discussions regarding family pastoral care."

One had therefore expected to see the reappearance—in the Paul VI Hall—of those round tables to which we have become accustomed, in sufficient numbers to accommodate, alongside the bishops, at least an equal number of married lay faithful, a certain number of engaged couples, and a significant presence of divorced persons; after all, the Synod is gathering to discern the "steps to be taken today to proclaim the Gospel to families." Between now and October 14, it is still possible to rectify the situation, should there be the will to do so. One need only look to the model of the most recent Synod of Bishops, in which 96 of the 368 voting members were not bishops. The aim is not to replace the episcopal magisterium—founded on the sacrament—with undifferentiated assemblies, but rather to define the spheres in which its authority is exercised. If the Spirit of the Lord willed the existence of a ministry endowed with authority, it was to ensure the Church’s faithful preservation of the Apostles’ authentic preaching and to safeguard the unity of the Church that directly flows from it.

This makes it both possible and appropriate to adopt a synodal practice in which the faithful—endowed with charisms relevant to the specific matter at hand—play a decisive role, while ordained ministers serve as guarantors of the faith’s authenticity, safeguarding community communion amidst the plurality of emerging views.

IT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID AND DISTRACTING FOR DOMINICAN-SISTER HELEN ALFRED, OP, TO QUOTE A DOMINICAN PRIEST FATHER MICHAEL PALUCH, OP, WHO SAID JESUS WAS INITIALLY “FLIRTING” WITH THE SAMARITAN WOMAN—DID I SAY IT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID?

What a stupid, silly, unnecessary and even blasphemous thing for Dominican Sister Helen Alfred to repeat at a Vatican meeting, what a Dominican Priest, Fr. Michal Paluch said about Jesus, that he initially was flirting with the Samaritan women. What nonsense and why repeat something so false and filled with calumny and far more than just breaking the 8th Commandment? What was the point in using that term or repeating it and its sloppy and lazy academic point? A complete distraction from an otherwise good talk!

 I asked my good friend, AI, if Jesus was flirting with the Samaritan woman when our sinless Lord asked her for water. And this is what Artificial Intelligence knows which evidently two human Dominicans, with non-artificial intelligence don’t know:

No, Jesus did not flirt with the Samaritan woman in John 4; the biblical narrative describes a theological encounter offering spiritual salvation, not a romantic or sexual interaction. [1]

What the Bible Says

The Setting: Jesus met an unnamed Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well in Sychar at noon. [1, 2]
The Social Barrier: In first-century culture, it was socially shocking for a Jewish man to speak publicly with a Samaritan—and with a woman outside his family. [1, 2]
The Dialogue: Jesus asked her for a drink of water and then shifted the conversation to "living water,"using it as a metaphor for eternal life and the Holy Spirit rather than any physical or double-entendre meaning. [1, 2]
The Result: The woman recognized Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah, then left her water jar to run back to her town and tell others about him. [1]

Where the Flirtation Claim Comes From

Unconventional Sermons: The idea that they were flirting or that "living water" was a sexual euphemism comes from a small number of modern sermons and commentators (such as a Florida Episcopal pastor's sermon that drew widespread public critique). [1]
Wits and Teasing: Some interpreters describe their back-and-forth dialogue as snappy, sharp, or playful verbal sparring—breaking deep cultural and religious taboos—which a few people loosely describe as a "verbal flirtation" or "matching of wits". [1]
Mainstream Theological Consensus: Christian scholars, historians, and mainstream traditions reject the idea of romance or flirtation, viewing the passage strictly as a moment of radical grace, cross-cultural breaking of barriers, and theological revelation. [1]

THIS DOCTOR OF THE FIELD HOSPITAL CHURCH HAS MADE THE RIGHT PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS, THAT OF GASLIGHTING AND MANIPULATION OF ORTHODOX CATHOLICS MOST OF WHOM ARE FAR FROM RIGID PHARISEES!

 In today’s Church, we need not just doctors of the body, but psychiatrists who can make the proper diagnosis and Bishop Robert Mutsarets is a great psychiatrist. Read His Excellency’s full commentary post at Rorate Caeli by pushing their title. My money bytes below the photo:

The Deceptive Tactics of the Silent Revolution Engulfing the Church - by Bishop Robert Mutsaerts

This does not mean that nothing may ever change. The liturgy has developed, canon law has changed, ecclesiastical disciplines have been modified, and theological formulations have been refined. An oak tree looks different after five hundred years than when it was an acorn. But when that acorn suddenly produces a tulip, "development" is no longer the right word.

There is reason to be concerned about this. Why? Read Church history. Ecclesial upheavals rarely begin with the announcement: "As of Monday, we are abolishing two thousand years of Catholic tradition." It happens differently. First it is said that a doctrine is being misunderstood. Then that the terminology is "hurtful." Next that no one wishes to change the doctrine, but that "pastoral space" is needed. Local experiments then arise. The experiments become practice. The practice creates expectations. The expectations become "lived reality." And finally, those who defend the original doctrine are asked why they cling so rigidly to a formulation that has by now been superseded. That is the silent revolution.

Sometimes the Church must find new words to proclaim the same truth in a comprehensible way. But that is precisely why the decisive question is not: Is something changing? The question is: Is what is changing recognizable as an organic development of what preceded it, or is there a rupture with what came before? That is why continuity is not the hobby of nostalgics. It is a Catholic criterion. The Catholic question is never only: "Is this kind?" "Is this inclusive?" "Does this work pastorally?" The decisive question remains: Is this the same faith that we have received? The faith of Paul, of Augustine, of Thomas, of Trent, of Newman, of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

THE FLY IN THE MEDICINE OF AMORIS LAETITIA

 As I have written before, Amoris Laetitia is basically a very good and orthodox pastoral teaching. That being the case, why then was there such pushback by so many in all parts of the world, while, others, in all parts of the world, thought it was the best thing since microwave ovens? 

Let’s focus on the most controversial and confusing aspects of Pope Francis’ written words:

Copied from the Pillar with my commentary embedded in red: 

The apostolic exhortation says in paragraph 305 that “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.” (I don’t know of any bishops, priests and deacons who throw moral laws around as though these are stones to injure people and their feelings. I think that pointing out irregularities and sinfulness in order to accompany people in sinful situations to live grace-filled lives is an act of charity, a strong medicine. Keep in mind that field hospitals not only render comfort to those who are injured, but give them powerful medicines that are painful and often have to do amputations. Sometimes sin has to be amputated and the bishop or priest in Confession is the surgeon.)

The paragraph adds that “because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” (Yes, there are a lot of good and great people who commit sins but for them it isn’t a mortal sin since they are ignorant that what they are doing is sinful. But most people are teachable and can be easily made aware that what they are doing is sinful. They aren’t invincibly ignorant! This section of AL seems to be very condescending toward lay people learning to recognize their sin and then to repent. The Church’s ministry is to educate and lead people to repentance and reconciliation, no?)

A footnote to the paragraph says that such help “can include the help of the sacraments” and adds that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (A footnote is no way to explain how the internal forum works. That needs an apostolic letter in and of itself and needs to set the parameters of such. I know that many priests have accompanied people towards and internal forum solution to returning to Confession and Holy Communion, but there are parameters for this and it would have been better for a clear and concise document on this!)

DOES A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF THE CHURCH SUFFER FROM POPE FRANCIS PTSD SYNDROME?

PRESS TITLE OF INFOVATICANO ARTICLE FOR FULL COMMENTARY: 

From Familiaris consortio to Amoris laetitia and the pending response to the dubia?

Rome begins this Wednesday to take stock of the ten years of Amoris laetitia. From October 7 to 14, nearly 250 bishops, including presidents of Episcopal Conferences and leaders of the Church…

MY COMMENTARY:

 I can remember the first synods Pope Francis had soon after His Holiness became pope and the drama and reactions that these produced, not just from rigid rank and file lay Catholics but from academic theologians, bishops and cardinals, some in the Curia.

It seem that whenever there was a synod or a meeting or a letter or whatever, there were hysterical reactions often well-founded.

It appeared to many that Pope Francis thrived off of chaos and confusion and loved creating it.

Fast-forward to Pope Leo XIV, a no drama-pope—clear in what His Holiness says and writes and fair and balanced reaching out to all ideological aspects the Church exacerbated by the previous pontiff. 

Those prone to PTSD syndrome, react hysterically to every move of the current pontiff, scruntizing every bishops’ choice, who His Holiness meets and looking for footnotes in every letter written. 

Meeting with Fr. James Martin SJ signals those with PTSD that Pope Leo is Pope Francis II, never mind that Pope Leo also met with leaders of Courage and made it well known that he had.

And now Pope Leo has invited 111 Presidents of Bishops’ Conferences throughout the world to discuss Amoris Letitia and to see how it has been implemented or received. It appears to be only a listening session for Pope Leo and it will be behind closed doors, so not live-drama as with Pope Francis. 

Of Course, those suffering from Pope Francis’ style PTSD, went nuts when we learned that Pope Leo had invited the three most polarizing Cardinals in the USCCB to attend, Cardinals Cupich, McElroy and Tobin. 

Since I don’t suffer from Francis PTSD, I thought nothing about it, but others went off the deep end and started name-calling Pope Leo, Pope Francis II! Sheesh! 

Thus, I love Infovaticano’s take on this meeting.

Here is the money byte:

From Familiaris consortio to Amoris laetitia

One of the keys to understanding what lies behind this anniversary is the relationship between Amoris laetitia and the earlier teaching of Saint John Paul II.

In 1981, Familiaris consortio explicitly addressed the situation of divorced persons who had entered a new union while a valid matrimonial bond still existed.

John Paul II then reaffirmed “the practice of not admitting to Eucharistic communion those who are divorced and remarried,” because their state and way of life “objectively contradict the union of love between Christ and the Church, which is signified and made present in the Eucharist.”

When serious reasons—for example, the education of children—advised maintaining cohabitation, Familiaris consortio linked the return to the sacraments to the commitment to live “in complete continence,” abstaining from the acts proper to spouses.

Amoris laetitia maintained the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, but placed greater emphasis on the discernment of each situation and on factors capable of diminishing subjective responsibility.

Its paragraph 305 states that, due to “conditioning or mitigating factors,” a person may find themselves “in an objective situation of sin” without being fully culpable. And the well-known footnote 351 added that the help offered by the Church “in certain cases” could also include the sacraments, with explicit references to Confession and the Eucharist.

The exhortation did not specify at that point what those cases were, nor did it reiterate the condition of continence established by Familiaris consortio.

From that difference arose one of the main controversies that accompanied the reception of the document.

The five dubia that Francis did not answer

On September 19, 2016, barely five months after the publication of Amoris laetitia, Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner sent Francis five dubia, doctrinal questions formulated to obtain an affirmative or negative response.

The first went directly to the point that had generated the greatest discussion.

The cardinals asked whether, after Amoris laetitia 300-305, it was possible to grant sacramental absolution and admit to the Eucharist a person who, being bound by a valid marriage, was living more uxorio—maintaining a relationship proper to spouses—with another person without fulfilling the conditions set forth in Familiaris consortio 84.

The other four questions broadened the problem. Taking Veritatis splendor as a reference, they asked whether the teaching on the existence of absolute moral norms, intrinsically evil acts, the objective situation of grave sin, the role of circumstances, and the limits of conscience in relation to moral norms remained valid.

Francis did not formally respond to the questions. The four cardinals decided to make them public in November 2016. Caffarra and Meisner died the following year without having received a response.

AM I THE ONLY PRIEST WHO HEARS CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE LIKE THIS?

 

LET’S TAKE THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY SCANDAL OFF THE TABLE AND SPEAK IN GENERALITIES ABOUT CHASTITY, MODESTY AND SAVING ONESELF FOR MARRIAGE

Let’s not speak about Cornell University but every other institution of higher education in the world. When it comes to sexuality, not only are civil laws being broken that ends up in rape, sometimes gang rape, due to heavy drinking, use of drugs and reckless abandon when it comes to some people’s favorite pastime and recreational sport—having sex and sex of any kind and any place, but God’s laws, first and foremost are being disobeyed, ignored and mocked. 

And let’s not forget those who are unknowingly drugged for this purpose both of which are against their will—never mind the drug culture which is being glorified today also. 

Let us not forget the glorification of the soft-core and hardcore porn culture promoted by the entertainment industry and most social or online media that includes rape whether real or simulated.

Can you imagine any bishop, priest, deacon, religious or lay catechist going into any sort of university setting and declaring the truths of Humanae Vitae, chastity before marriage and within marriage, modesty in dress, make-up and demeanor and saving oneself for marriage, marriage that is between one man and one woman and for a lifetime? They would become laughing stocks and seen as out of touch and out of date. 

And let’s not forget to teach that to those who claim the ideologies of the radical LGBTQ+++ activists who seldom if ever speak about same sex or same claimed gender debauchery that often leads to rape including gang rape. 

Chastity, modesty and Humanae Vitae apply to them too. 

Let’s begin with God’s laws and make sure civil laws support and enhance God’s laws and the protection of everyone from rape and gang rapes. 

Let’s start with respect for human beings, no matter the gender they claim, respect for God’s laws and civil laws and respect for the human beings from the moment of conception through natural or accidental death. 

If a person does not respect the life of a child in her mother’s womb, why should anyone respect the life of a person even if intoxicated, even if that intoxication is self-induced let alone foisted onto them?

BISHOP GUIDO MARINI DOES NOT SEEM TO BE OUT OF THE RUNNING TO TAKE OVER SAINT PETER’S BASILICA…

 Infovaticano seems to think that Cardinal Parolin may take over Saint Peter’s Basilica and Archbishop Gallagher as Secretary of State. 

But they don’t think Bishop Marini is out of the running.

It would be fantastic if Marini is the new head of St. Peter’s! 

Somehow I think for Parolin to take that position would be seen as a demotion, especially as he was in the running to be the next pope. Just my two outdated and suppressed US cents worth. 

Google translation of Infovaticano’s Spanish musings:

The Empty Seat and Parolin’s Name

The day’s most significant aspect lies in what is missing. The Archpriestship of St. Peter’s—linked since 2005 to the Vicariate General for Vatican City and the presidency of the Fabric of St. Peter—is one of the few top-tier posts allowing a Pope to honorably reposition a cardinal of the highest rank without creating a custom-made dicastery. And that is precisely the profile Leo XIV needs to accommodate if he decides, as has been rumored in Rome since the summer, to reshuffle the Secretariat of State.

*Il Giornale d’Italia* has put forward the most concrete hypothesis: Cardinal Pietro Parolin—aged 71, with thirteen years at the helm of Vatican diplomacy and a major rival to Prevost in the May 2025 conclave—would move from the Secretariat of State to the Vatican Basilica, with Monsignor Paul Richard Gallagher, the current Secretary for Relations with States, taking his place. The newspaper presents this as a rumor, but today’s move lends it plausibility: the seat Gambetti is vacating is exactly the one required for this maneuver, and it would offer Parolin an honorable exit, much like those granted to other cardinals at the end of their Curial careers in the past.

There are variations to this scenario. In August, *Korazym* suggested that Parolin might replace Cardinal Filoni—now an octogenarian—as Grand Master of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, an international role fitting his diplomatic background, while placing Monsignor Guido Marini—Bishop of Tortona and former Master of Ceremonies for Benedict XVI—at the head of St. Peter’s. Either combination would represent the most significant change in the Curia since the election of Leo XIV, and in both scenarios, Gallagher appears as the man tapped to lead the Secretariat of State.

HAS AMORIS LAETITIA CHANGED ANYTHING ANYWHERE?

 

Press title for Associated Press take on the closed door meeting Pope Leo will have concerning Amoris Laetitia:

Pope Leo seeks status update of Francis’s divisive look at divorced and remarried Catholics

By Nicole Winfield

Oct 2, 2026

|Associated Press

My Comments:

To be honest with you, apart from that viral footnote, I thought Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia was very good. 

However, apart from the footnote controversy, I don’t think Amoris Laetitia has been implemented in any noticeable way anywhere in the world or at least in the Province of Atlanta. Am I wrong?

The viral footnote, though, eclipsed all the good in the document. This was typical of Pope Francis’ reign. His Holiness would go on beautiful pilgrimages and do great things and say great things and then on the way home gave his famous “high altitude” off-the-cuff press conferences, often disjointed and incoherent and always controversial which then eclipsed all the good that happened on the pilgrimage. 

I think the bottom line of the “footnote” was that Catholics in what is considered to be an adulterous sexual relationship could be accompanied by the pastoral ministry of the Church and in the process of that they could be admitted to the Sacraments of the Church, in particular Holy Communion, if that adulterous relationship is “good” apart from the adultery. 

But!

That has been going on for decades. It’s called the “Internal Forum.” Often the “internal forum” was used illicitly by priests. It could only be used if the external forum was non-conclusive (meaning there wasn’t sufficient evidence to declare a previous bond as annulled, not because there wasn’t sufficient evidence for an annulment but there were no witnesses apart from the spouses to corroborate what was being said. Maybe witnesses had died or refused to cooperate). 

In those cases, within the context of Confession, and the spouse in an illicit marital union initiating it, not the priest, the priest could give them a pastoral solution—if in good conscience they believed that their first marriage was illicit and the illicit marriage they are now in isn’t, they could go to Holy Communion apart from an annulment. But no formal blessing of that union was to take place.

That’s an art and not a science and the onus is on the penitent. They have to accept the punishment due their sin if in fact they are in an adulterous relationship in the eyes of God and are unrepentant about it and also making sacrilegious Communions.

But, the abuse of the internal forum went further at times. Priests and deacons would preside at a ceremony to “validate” an illicit marriage without an external, formal annulment decree. That is forbidden but it was/is done nonetheless. 

Pope Francis was not advocating in Amoris Laetitia, convalidating illicit marriages without a formal external annulment decree.

Of course, today, with civil same sex “marriages” and the LGTBQ+++ ideologies demanding that the Church bless same sex marriages too, Amoris Laetitia’s viral footnote creates new challenges and certainly there are priests giving permission to those in illicit homosexual sexual unions, civil marriages, to receive Holy Communion or not refusing Holy Communion to those in these unions. There are also formal blessings given in Church that resemble weddings, also forbidden. 

The other way around opening Holy Communion to anyone in an illicit “marriage, is if the couple is living together in a sibling relationship, i.e. not having any kind of sex, they may receive Holy Communion. And yes, this is common that so-called spouses are no longer having sex but support each other and care for each other by living and sleeping together. 

Finally, those in a state of mortal sin, non repentant and never going to confession, are coming up to receive Holy Communion any time, even if infrequently, they attend Mass. That’s a whole “nother” can of worms that no one is addressing and it happens at almost every Mass everywhere in the world. 

Why are we so worried about one segment of those receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously and not the majority? 

 

IS IT OKAY TO BREAK A PONTIFICAL SECRET? I’VE BEEN PLACED UNDER IT A COUPLE OF TIMES AND NEVER BROKE IT. SHOULD I HAVE?

Given the fact that Pope Francis refused to elevated bishops of historically cardinalate sees, am I the only one who finds it scandalous that Pope Francis elevated Cardinal Gambetti to the rank of bishop/archbishop on November 22, 2020 and then on November 28th of the same year, less than a week later, named him a cardinal? 

Fortunately the good Cardinal’s meteoric rise is match by a similar demise. 

This is the headline from Sileri non possum:

Leo XIV ousts Gambetti from the Vatican. The friar breaches pontifical secrecy

The cardinal leaves St Peter’s and the Fabric for Chieti-Vasto. After months of gradually diminishing influence, the Pope brings one of the most controversial chapters of the Francis era to a close.

 And this is Pope Leo’s headline the next day despite the pontifical secret being broken:

Resignations and Appointments, 03.10.2026

Resignation and appointment of the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto (Italy)

The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral governance of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Chieti-Vasto (Italy) presented by H.E. Msgr. Bruno Forte.

The Holy Father has appointed His Most Reverend Eminence Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, O.F.M. Conv., as Metropolitan Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto (Italy), transferring him from the offices of Vicar General of His Holiness for Vatican City, Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, and President of the Fabbrica di San Pietro.

Curriculum vitae

H.E. Card. Mauro Gambetti, O.F.M. Conv., was born on October 27, 1965, in Castel San Pietro Terme (Bologna). After obtaining a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Bologna, he began his journey in the Order of Friars Minor Conventual in 1992. He made his temporary vows in 1995 and his perpetual vows in 1998. After completing a Baccalaureate in Theology at the Theological Institute of Assisi (Perugia), he obtained a Licentiate in Theological Anthropology from the Theological Faculty of Central Italy in Florence.

He was ordained a priest on January 8, 2000, in Longiano (Forlì-Cesena). He held the following positions: coordinator of youth and vocation ministry for Emilia-Romagna (2000–2009) and head and animator of the religious community (Guardian) (2005–2009) at the Friary of the Most Holy Crucifix; Provincial Minister of the Bolognese Province of Saint Anthony of Padua (2009–2013); and Custos General of the General Custody of the Sacred Convent of Saint Francis in Assisi (2013–2017). Concurrently, the Bishop of Assisi-Nocera Umbra-Gualdo Tadino appointed him Episcopal Vicar for the pastoral care of the Papal Basilica of Saint Francis and other places of worship administered by the Conventual Franciscan Friars within the same diocese.

In 2017, he was elected President of the Inter-Mediterranean Federation of Provincial Ministers of the Conventual Franciscan Friars. He was subsequently reconfirmed as Custos General of the General Custody of the Sacred Convent of Saint Francis in Assisi for the 2017–2021 term, a role he held until October 31, 2020.

On October 30, 2020, he was assigned the titular see of Tisiduo with the personal title of Archbishop, and he received episcopal ordination on November 22, 2020, at the Basilica of Saint Francis in Assisi. Pope Francis created him a Cardinal—assigning him the deaconry of the Most Holy Name of Mary at the Trajan Forum—during the Consistory of November 28, 2020, and on February 20, 2021, appointed him Vicar General of His Holiness for Vatican City, Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, and President of the Fabric of St. Peter. Furthermore, on June 2, 2023—effective January 1, 2024—Pope Francis appointed him a Judge of the Court of Cassation of Vatican City State.

He is a member of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

MICHAEL SEAN WINTERS OF THE NcR HAS FOUND SOMETHING IN POPE LEO THAT HE DIDN’T FIND IN POPE FRANCIS: CLARITY AND PRECISION AND AUGUSTINIAN THEOLOGY!

French President Emmanuel Macron, right, listens to Pope Leo XIV delivering his speech at the meeting At the Roots of Europe for Peace and Unity, Monday, Sept. 28, 2026, in Metz, France. (AP/Gregorio Borgia)

Below are excerpts from an article in the National catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters. You can read the full article here!

I am glad the grace of God is breaking through to Michael Sean and he’s exhibiting growth in his Catholic Faith as he moves away from the NcR’s more schismatic-fomenting ways. 

Here are the excerpts: 

Catholics are still processing Pope Leo XIV's amazing trip to France. The images of the crowds lining the Champs-Élysées, of the excited young people at the Stade de France and the thousands singing the "Salve Regina" outside Notre Dame cathedral, of the Holy Father at the grotto in Lourdes, all these form a profound impression of the continued significance of Catholicism to French culture and of this pope's ability to harness that 

Leo's religious sermons emphasized spiritual themes. At the huge Mass at the Place de la Concorde, the Holy Father's theme was a very Augustinian one: God as the answer to human restlessness and desire. 

"What is my deepest thirst? What am I really seeking in life? We all long for happiness, love and fulfillment. But from what source do we seek to quench our thirst?" the pope asked. "Are we content with material goods, immediate satisfactions, the countless little idols that promise us everything but leave our hearts empty? We have been baptized and received the living water of which the Gospel speaks, but have we truly encountered Christ personally? In essence, the human person is a being of desire, and only God can fill the emptiness within us."

In his sermon at Lourdes, Leo highlighted another side of his Augustinian roots. In speaking of the promise of eternal life of which the Blessed Mother spoke to St. Bernadette, Leo said, "For the obstacle to grace and eternal life — the only obstacle to this love — is sin, whereby we turn in upon ourselves, refusing God and shutting ourselves up in our own darkness. … We must therefore use our freedom to say yes to Christ, relying on his grace, like Mary. This is a yes that we renew until our final breath — 'now and at the hour of our death' — as we say in the Hail Mary." He devoted several paragraphs to the theme of repentance, but always linked it to the ongoing call to conversion and the hope of eternal life. 

When Leo spoke about assisted suicide, which was recently legalized in France, his words were strong and condemnatory, rightly labeling the practice an example of "false compassion." One wishes he had been in Paris before the vote to legalize assisted suicide. He might have tipped the balance against it.

The crowds were massive and the excitement palpable. Leo was never an actor, like his predecessor St. John Paul II, and he lacks the Polish pontiff's dramatic sense of timing and connecting with a crowd. Yet connect he did. Why? As one Parisian said to my colleague Justin McLellan at the Mass in Paris: "He is a pope who is young, 71, and he moves the young people forward; he is calm, a good listener and he has very precise ideas and is able to express them clearly and in an engaging way — all the young people and the crowds here show that." 

In a noisy and confusing culture, Leo's clarity and precision, as well as his obvious authenticity, break through. The response he received in France gives hope at a time when the world so desperately needs hope.

BISHOP OLSON OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS LIMITS THE USE OF THE COMMON CHALICE AT MASS—THANK YOU VERY MUCH

 The only thing I wish that the good bishop would have highlighted is that the common chalice shared with multiple communicants, many of whom allow backwash from their mouth to pour forth into the chalice, as well as deadly germs and viruses, like the herpes virus, can be left on the rim of the chalice and thus can be an epidemic and, of course, a pandemic creating event, should no longer be allowed.

Rather, the use of intinction, described in the GIRM of the 2012 Reform of the Reformed 1970 Roman Missal, indicates that intinction is perfectly acceptable. And it lessens all the concerns about epidemics and pandemics of the common chalice, as well as abuse of the Precious Blood as described in Bishop Olson letter.

Pastoral Letter on the Distribution of Communion Under Both Species

To the Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, Religious, and Lay Faithful of the Diocese of Fort Worth
October 1, 2026

Dear Friends in Christ,

In recent years, the Church in the United States has given renewed attention to the mystery of the
Most Holy Eucharist. As your Bishop, I write to you to reflect briefly on this great sacrament and
to provide clear direction regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under both species
within the Diocese of Fort Worth. The Eucharist is the heart of the Church’s life, and it is my
responsibility to ensure that it is celebrated with reverence, doctrinal clarity, and fidelity to the
Church’s discipline.

The Mystery of the Eucharist

The Most Holy Eucharist is the Church’s greatest treasure. In it, Christ Himself is truly present—
Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. In every celebration
of the Mass, the one sacrifice of Christ in his passion, death, and resurrection is made present
sacramentally so that his saving grace may be given to us here and now.
The Eucharist is also the sacred banquet in which the faithful are nourished with the Body and
Blood of the Lord. In receiving Holy Communion, we are united more closely to Christ and with
each other in the bonds of charity. It must be clearly understood that, by the doctrine of
concomitance, Christ is received whole and entire under either species alone. For this reason,
nothing is lacking when Holy Communion is received under the species of bread alone or the
species of wine alone.

The Eucharist and the Unity of the Church

The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity. It both signifies and brings about communion with
Christ and with one another as members of His Body, the Church. Each celebration of the Mass
is not a private act but an act of the whole Church, Head and members, offered in communion
with the diocesan bishop and the Roman Pontiff.

Since the Eucharist expresses the unity of the Church, its celebration must also reflect that unity
in both faith and discipline. The Church’s liturgical norms serve this purpose. They are not
arbitrary but exist to safeguard the dignity of the sacrament and to ensure that what we celebrate
truly reflects what we believe.

The Responsibility of the Bishop

As the Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth, I have been entrusted with the responsibility to
regulate the celebration of the sacred liturgy. This responsibility includes determining when Holy
Communion may be distributed under both species (See GIRM #283).
The Church permits the faithful to receive under both species in certain circumstances as a fuller
sign of the Eucharistic banquet. At the same time, she teaches clearly that this is not the ordinary
manner of reception. The faithful must always remember that reception under one species alone
is complete participation in the Eucharist.
In exercising this responsibility, I must ensure that the Eucharist is treated with the reverence it
deserves and that its distribution does not give rise to confusion or diminish its dignity.

The Times When Communion Under Both Species Is Permitted

After consultation and careful consideration of the Church’s norms, I have determined that
within the Diocese of Fort Worth the distribution of Holy Communion under both species will be
limited to specific occasions.
Accordingly, Communion under both species may be offered only on the following occasions:

• Priestly or Diaconal Ordinations
• The Chrism Mass
• The Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday
• The Easter Vigil.

At Mass where adults are confirmed and receive first Eucharist (for the newly confirmed)

• The Mass of Holy Matrimony (only for the Catholic bride and Catholic groom)
• Masses of Religious Profession
• The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ (Corpus Christi)
• Masses at convents and retreat centers within the Diocese
• At newly ordained priests’ first Mass

• Other celebrations of similar solemnity only with my explicit approval

Even on these occasions, the distribution of the Precious Blood is to take place only when it can
be done reverently, when there are sufficient ministers, and when there is no danger of
profanation or disorder. If these conditions cannot be met, Communion is to be distributed under
the species of bread alone. Outside of these occasions, Holy Communion is to be distributed
under one species. Deacons assisting at Mass should receive the Precious Blood from the Chalice
(See GIRM 160-164).

The Church’s discipline regarding the manner of distribution is to be observed in all cases. The
Precious Blood is to be administered by an ordinary minister, if sufficient number are not
available, then by extraordinary ministers. Practices such as self-service, passing the chalice, or
self-intinction are not permitted. In keeping with the rubrics and norms for the Liturgy, only
priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes are to purify the vessels. Deacons and instituted acolytes
are to purify vessels away from the altar and at the credence table only. Vessels are not to be
purified in the sacristy even if purification takes place after Mass (See GIRM 160-164, Norms
for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion #28).

Catechesis and Formation

Proper catechesis is essential. Clear teaching and instruction on the doctrine of the Real
Presence, on the meaning sacramental character conferred at priestly ordination, the meaning of
the Eucharist as sacrifice and banquet, and the truth that Christ is fully received under either
species is to take place at all parishes.
Please remember that reception from the chalice is not required and that no one should feel
obliged to receive under both species. Additionally, catechesis is to lead to reverence due to the
Blessed Sacrament, both during the liturgy and outside of it.
Those who assist in the distribution of Holy Communion, especially extraordinary ministers,
must be properly formed so that their service is carried out with care, dignity, and fidelity to the
Church’s norms.

Conclusion
The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Christian life. In it, Christ gives Himself to us
completely. Our response must be one of faith, reverence, and gratitude.
As we continue to deepen our devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, let us remain faithful to the
Church’s teaching and discipline so that the dignity of this Sacred Mystery is preserved and the
Communion of the Church is strengthened.

Entrusting you to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I am,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Michael F. Olson, STD, MA
Bishop of Fort Worth