To elaborate on the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is our mission on Plinthos (Gk. "brick"); and to do so anonymously, so that, like any brick in the wall, we might do our little part in the strength of the structure of humanity almost unnoticed.
The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that “Pope Honorius was much respected and died with an untarnished reputation.” It also reminds us that, forty years later, “he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council”—and by his successor Pope Leo II, who pronounced: “We anathematize . . . Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
The error of this hapless seventh-century pope was to give aid and comfort to Monothelitism, a heresy which claimed that Christ had only one will (a thesis that is problematic because it blurs the distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures). In a letter to a bishop who sought clarification on the matter, Honorius appeared to affirm this thesis himself.
This was not an ex-cathedra definition, so Honorius’s lapse is consistent with the conditions of papal infallibility. The issues were technical and difficult, and despite his regrettable wording, it can be argued that Honorius did not intend to affirm the heresy. He was condemned all the same, very harshly and repeatedly. The seventh and eighth general councils of the Church repeated the sixth council’s condemnation, as did the oath taken by every new pope for several centuries.
A pope’s first duty is to safeguard the deposit of faith and to pass it on undiluted. What matters, then, is whether his words and actions actually do that. It is irrelevant whether he also did some good things or had good intentions. A sentry whose carelessness lets in the enemy is liable to be court-martialed, even if he also kissed a baby or two or occasionally uttered a pleasing bromide.
During the twelve years of his own pontificate, Pope Francis made statements no less doctrinally problematic than those of Honorius, and he did so on many more occasions and on a much wider variety of topics. For example, on several occasions, he suggested that the plurality of religions is willed by God. In several documents, he or officials of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith under him condemned the death penalty in a manner that gives the impression that it is always and intrinsically wrong—a thesis that is contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of scripture, tradition, and all previous popes. Fiducia supplicans authorized blessings for same-sex and adulterous couples, directly contradicting both past doctrine and the common sense of anyone who takes seriously the Church’s teaching on sexual morality.
Then there is the exhortation Amoris laetitia, notoriously ambiguous insofar as it can be interpreted to allow, in some cases, absolution and Holy Communion for those in invalid and adulterous marriages who are sexually active and lack a firm purpose of amendment. Such an allowance would contradict Christ’s teaching on divorce, Saint Paul’s teaching on worthiness to receive Communion, and the Church’s interpretation of those teachings for two millennia.
One could argue that of all his controversial acts, this was the most scandalous. When Christ issued his austere teaching on divorce, he acknowledged that “Moses permitted” divorce, but then declared, “And I say to you” that divorce is forbidden. Now, the law of Moses was given to Moses by God Himself. So who has the authority to override it? Who would have the audacity to declare that “Moses permitted” such-and-such but “I say” differently? Only God Himself. Christ’s teaching against divorce is therefore nothing less than a mark of His very divinity. To put oneself in opposition to that teaching would thus implicitly either deny Christ’s divinity or, blasphemously, put one’s authority above even His. It would be to declare, “Christ said such-and-such, but I say differently.” Absolutely no one other than God Himself, not even a pope (whose mandate is precisely only ever to preserve Christ’s teaching), has the right to do that.
This list could be expanded, but the point is made. Unlike the matter Honorius was addressing, Pope Francis’s problematic utterances did not involve abstruse metaphysical issues that the Church had not yet fully worked out. They concerned matters of basic doctrinal principle that have long been settled. If a pope had said such things in any previous generation in the Church’s history, the outcry would have been loud and universal. If any other priest or prelate had said them even today, all but the most liberal of Catholics would denounce him for heterodoxy.
Yet, though Pope Francis has certainly been criticized for these words and actions, the world at large, including even most of the Catholic world, has met them with a shrug. Saint Jerome famously said of his times that “the whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.” Today the world finds itself liberal and modernist, but with a self-satisfied nod rather than a groan. It judges the pope to have been, if anything, still too conservative.
But while the Church has often been made sick from heresy, it always recovers. It vomited out Arianism. It vomited out Monothelitism, which is why Honorius’s reputation sank. And it will vomit out today’s liberalism and modernism too. When it does, the adulation Pope Francis received upon death may prove as ephemeral as that which Honorius enjoyed.
Almighty God, Who delivered Your people from the bondage of the adversary, and through Your Son cast down Satan like lightning, deliver me your son/daughter and my entire family also from every influence of unclean spirits especially that of spirits of death, sickness, despair, confusion, division, anxiety, avarice and injustice, fear, anger, hatred, lust, sloth, and pride. Command Satan to depart far from me, my family, and all my loved ones by the power of Your only begotten Son. Rescue us from demonic imaginings and darkness. Fill us with the light of the Holy Spirit that I and my kindred may be guarded against all snares of crafty demons. Grant that an angel will always go before us and lead us to the path of righteousness all the days of our life, to the honor of Your glorious Name, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen.
With the assessments of the Traditional Latin Mass, it has now become cliche that the Latin Mass attracts young people.
The fact today, eighteen years after Summorum Pontificum, is that there are a million young people worldwide who were conceived and born from the Traditional Latin Mass ambiance. They come from the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)! being the fruit of the marriages of the TLM adherents. They are fruits of the Traditional Mass. The Catholic Tradition gave them their very existence, from their devout parents. This is a very palpable sociological fruit of the Catholic Tradition. Tradition is fruitful, it begets children, prolific children...good fruit. And it is therefore not completely accurate to the present 2025 circumstance to generalize and say that the young people today come to the Church through the Latin Mass. That is true, but it must not ignore the great fact that there is a substantial body of young people today that were born and raised in the TLM. They did not come to it. They were always in it, from their mothers' wombs. Every Traditional baptism since 1970 tells the lie to the claim that the young people today have had no experience of the Traditional Latin Mass. There's a million of them in the world. And they are being baptized as infants daily, adding to their number.
What increases this fact of the young fruit of the TLM is that the vast majority of Traditional Catholics believe the Catholic religion and strive to follow it, and therefore, those who are married tend to have children, as God has ordained it, without sinning to prevent the conceptus. A dozen kids in a Traditional family is not unnormal but quite common, admired, encouraged and applauded, and generally very successful in passing on the faith to all of the progeny, including the fruitfulness of the faith! Good tree, good fruit; bad tree, bad fruit, says the Lord! And one of the chief characteristics of good fruit is that it bears its seed within it, it itself bears much fruit, much good fruit! Children of good families tend to produce good families themselves. We are witnesses of this, this basic truth of the Gospel. It is a very palpable manifestation of the truth of the Gospel, that it actually works! The good produces more good!
Good fruit is fruitful, bad fruit is sterile! Holy Marriage gives life! Faggotry kills!
"Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them."
CONSULTATION OF BISHOPS ON THE APPLICATION
OF THE MOTU PROPRIO
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
(April 2020)
1. What is the situation in your diocese with respect to the extraordinary form of the Roman
Rite?
2. If the extraordinary form is practiced there, does it respond to a true pastoral need or is it
promoted by a single priest?
3. In your opinion, are there positive or negative aspects of the use of the extraordinary
form?
4. Are the norms and conditions established by Summorum Pontificum respected?
5. Does it occur to you that, in your diocese, the ordinary form as adopted elements of the
extraordinary form?
6. For the celebration of the Mass, do you use the Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII
in 1962?
7. Besides the celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form, are there other celebrations
(for example Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Penance, Unction of the sick, Ordination,
Divine Office, Easter Triduum, funeral rites) according to the liturgical books prior to
Vatican Council II?
8. Has the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum had an influence on the life of seminaries
(the seminary of diocese) and other formation houses?
9. Thirteen years after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, what is your advice about
the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?
Overall Assessment
The considerable body of documents submitted and examined shows that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum currently plays a significant, albeit relatively modest, role in the life of the Church. Conceived by Pope Benedict XVI after years of sometimes bitter clashes between the supporters of the reformed liturgy of 1970 and those of the Missale Romanum in its 1962 edition, the MP Summorum Pontificum succeeded in affirming the equal dignity of the two forms of the same Roman Rite, thereby fostering the conditions for genuine liturgical peace, with a view also to a possible future unity of the two forms.
The mutual enrichment and updating of the Missale Romanum of 1962, desired by the same Pope (cf. Letter of 7 July 2007), have also been achieved through the publication of the implementing instruction of the aforementioned Motu Proprio: Universae Ecclesiae of 30 April 2011, as well as the two decrees confirmed by Pope Francis on 5 December 2019, following the unanimous favorable opinion of the Members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Decree Quo Magis, concerning the addition of seven new prefaces, and Decree Cum Sanctissima, concerning the inclusion of new saints).
The spread of the older form of the Roman Rite following the MP Summorum Pontificum stands at around 20% of the Latin dioceses worldwide, and its implementation today is certainly more serene and peaceful, though not everywhere; some residual cases remain unresolved. Unfortunately, in certain dioceses, the Forma extraordinaria has not been considered a richness for the life of the Church, but rather as an inappropriate, disturbing, and useless element for ordinary pastoral life, and even as “dangerous” and therefore something not to be granted, or to be suppressed, or at least strictly controlled so that it does not spread, in the hope of its eventual disappearance or abrogation.
The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented the MP Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it—especially those who have also had the possibility to establish a personal parish where all the sacraments are celebrated in the Forma extraordinaria and where a stable, celebrating, and pastorally active community is formed. In places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.
A constant observation made by the bishops is that it is young people who are discovering and choosing this older form of the liturgy. The majority of the stable groups present in the Catholic world are composed of young people, often converts to the Catholic faith or those returning after a time away from the Church and the sacraments. They are drawn by the sacredness, seriousness, and solemnity of the liturgy. What strikes them most, also amid a society that is excessively noisy and verbose, is the rediscovery of silence within sacred actions, the restrained and essential words, preaching that is faithful to the Church’s doctrine, the beauty of liturgical chant, and the dignity of the celebration: a seamless whole that is deeply attractive. It is Benedict XVI himself who wrote in his letter to the bishops accompanying the MP Summorum Pontificum that this group of people are the privileged recipients of his legislative measure—alongside, of course, all those who for decades had been requesting the liberalization and legitimization, in liturgical and pastoral practice, of the venerable Latin-Gregorian liturgy.
The establishment of stable groups, as envisaged by the MP Summorum Pontificum and the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, has enabled the Holy See to accompany the path of reconciliation and ecclesial integration of these faithful—initially through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and now through the Fourth Section of the CDF. For this, the bishops express satisfaction and gratitude. It is necessary to have an institutional body and a competent interlocutor who oversees the path of these groups and of the clerical institutes dependent on it, and who can assist the ministry of the bishops, to prevent arbitrary forms of self-management and anarchy within the groups, as well as abuses of power by some local bishops. The Holy See and its bond with the Pope are a guarantee for all, both the faithful and their pastors. Promoting ecclesial communion between the diocesan bishop and the members of the stable groups or institutes, and between them and the Pope, is fundamental for a serene and apostolically fruitful journey. These faithful desire to be regarded on an equal footing with the other faithful who attend the liturgy in the FO [Forma ordinaria], and they ask that pastors care for them pastorally without prejudice.
After a complex initial phase, and with some situations still pending, thanks to the MP Summorum Pontificum these groups of faithful—and indeed the bishops and priests themselves—have found stability and serenity, having in the former PCED and now the Fourth Section a calm, stable, and authoritative point of reference that guarantees their rights as well as their duties. Indeed, some bishops note that it is necessary to protect the stable groups to prevent departures from the Church toward schismatic communities or the SSPX [Society of St Pius X]. In all places where the stable groups are accompanied and supported by the diocesan bishop or by a delegated priest, there are virtually no more problems, and the faithful are content to be guided, respected, and treated as children by their father bishop.
The MP Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter speak of the Pope’s desire to work for an internal liturgical reconciliation within the Church. In light of his 22 December 2005 address to the Roman Curia, Benedict XVI, recognizing the need—also with regard to the sacred liturgy—to proceed not according to a hermeneutic of rupture but rather by renewal in continuity with tradition, writes: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place” (Benedict XVI, Letter of Accompaniment to the MP Summorum Pontificum). This ecclesiological dimension of the hermeneutic of continuity with tradition and with a coherent renewal and development has not yet been fully embraced by some bishops; however, where it has been received and implemented, it is already bearing fruit, the most visible of which is in the liturgy. Indeed, other bishops have noted the benefits brought by the MP Summorum Pontificum also for the Forma ordinaria of the liturgy, fostering a renewed sense of sacredness in liturgical action and contributing to a process of intra-ecclesial reconciliation.
Some bishops state that the MP Summorum Pontificum has failed in its aim of fostering reconciliation and therefore request its suppression—either because internal reconciliation within the Church has not yet been fully achieved, or because the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has not returned to full communion with the Church. A general and detailed analysis of these responses reveals that the opportunity provided by this inquiry has allowed certain bishops to read and begin to understand more deeply the document under discussion [i.e., Summorum Pontificum]. In response to the first objection, it should be noted that such processes of reconciliation within the Church are necessarily slow and gradual; the MP Summorum Pontificum has laid the groundwork for this reconciliation. Regarding the second objection, it should be recalled that the MP Summorum Pontificum was not intended for the SSPX; they already had access to what was granted by the MP Summorum Pontificum and therefore did not need it.1
Rather, the MP Summorum Pontificum stands in unity and completion, as an organic and coherent development, to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of John Paul II, by which the Polish Pontiff sought to save many Catholics who were lost and confused and at risk of schism following the episcopal ordinations carried out by Archbishop Lefebvre. Benedict XVI also affirmed that the MP Summorum Pontificum was issued as an instrument to address the Church’s need for reconciliation with itself (Op. cit.); for this reason, he also promulgated the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, incorporating the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This process reached a felicitous conclusion with Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio of January 2019, by which, in suppressing the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and establishing a special Section within the CDF, and affirming that the institutes and communities in question have today found proper stability of number and of life, the Pope directs these groups and ecclesial entities toward an ordinary and regular dimension of ecclesial life. In his Motu Proprio, Pope Francis entrusted the new section of the CDF with the task of “continu[ing] the work of supervision, promotion and protection conducted thus far by the decommissioned PCED.”
The bishops most attuned to this matter observe that the older form of the liturgy is a treasure of the Church to be safeguarded and preserved: it constitutes a good to find unity with the past, to know how to advance along a path of coherent development and progress, and to meet, as far as possible, the needs of these faithful. When a state of peace is established at the diocesan level, the risk of a division into two churches, which some prelates fear, is obviated; these prelates, in turn, note that what distinguishes some groups of faithful who follow the Forma extraordinaria is their rejection of the Second Vatican Council. This is partly true, but it cannot be generalized. In these cases, too, it is noted that the bishop’s pastoral care has been decisive in calming agitated spirits and clarifying the thinking of certain members of the stable groups.
The bishops also note the growth of vocations within the former Ecclesia Dei institutes, especially in the English and French-speaking areas, but also in the Spanish and Portuguesespeaking regions. Many young men are choosing to enter the Ecclesia Dei institutes for their priestly or religious formation rather than diocesan seminaries, to the manifest regret of some bishops. Indeed, in recent years the Fourth Section has recorded a significant increase in vocations within the institutes under its purview, along with a greater commitment by these institutes to the spiritual and intellectual formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life—obviously in due proportion as these communities are smaller, though not insignificant, compared to the rest of the Church.
The Bishops in Spanish-speaking regions, in general, seem to show little interest in the MP Summorum Pontificum—though there are, nonetheless, faithful in these areas who request the older form of the liturgy. Similarly, the responses from Italian bishops suggest that, overall, they do not hold the Forma extraordinaria and its related provisions in high regard, with a few exceptions. The faithful, however, express deep gratitude to Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, because thanks to the MP Summorum Pontificum, they have emerged from an ecclesial life marked by clandestinity, rejection, ridicule, and abuses of power by certain bishops—abuses that were sometimes directed even at their priests. As for the requests of the faithful, in recent years several stable groups have been established, many of which have organized themselves into associations seeking the celebration of Holy Mass in the Latin-Gregorian liturgical form.
Some bishops would prefer a return to the previous indult situation in order to have greater control and management of the situation. However, the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire state that making legislative changes to the MP Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good. Any change—whether by suppressing or weakening the MP Summorum Pontificum—would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve. As the Archbishop of Milan puts it: “I have the impression that any explicit intervention could cause more harm than good: if the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is further confirmed, it will provoke new waves of perplexity among the clergy (and not only them). If the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is denied, it will provoke new waves of dissent and resentment among the supporters of the old rite.” Therefore, it is better to continue along the path already undertaken, without causing further upheaval.
Others think that with a potential change, the Holy See would, among other things, foster the departure of disappointed faithful from the Church toward the Society of St. Pius X or to other schismatic groups. This would strengthen the arguments of those who claim that “Rome gives with one hand and takes with the other,” and therefore should never be trusted. A change in the regulations would thus give rise to a resurgence of the liturgical wars. It could even foster the emergence of a new schism. Moreover, it would delegitimize two Pontiffs—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who had committed themselves to not abandoning these faithful (cf. Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of 1988; MP Summorum Pontificum of 2007).
An idea that emerges from some of the responses, and that could serve as the conclusion of this synthesis, is the following: while reaffirming the indisputable character of the reform that arose after the Second Vatican Council, it would be appropriate to introduce in seminaries and in the various ecclesiastical faculties sessions dedicated to the study of both forms of the one Roman Rite, in order to make known its immense richness at the service of the celebration of the entire and unique Christian mystery throughout the Church, and to foster peaceful conditions for the celebration of this liturgy in local churches, with priests suitably formed for its celebration. In conclusion, a bishop from the Philippines stated in his final response to the questionnaire: “Let the people be free to choose.” And Benedict XVI, in his meeting with the French Episcopal Conference during his apostolic journey to France in 2008, stated regarding the MP Summorum Pontificum: “I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honor and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity.” Pope Francis has taken up this expression of Benedict XVI, making it his own and reaffirming it against every form of division and exclusion in the Church. Ultimately, these words could serve as a criterion of evaluation, judgment, and guidance for us today.
1 It suffices to say that the documents in question make no reference to the SSPX. Moreover, one must consider the authentic interpretation given by the Legislator himself in the book-length interview on his life. Responding to Peter Seewald in Last Testament on page 202 [Ultime Conversazioni, pag. 189], he states: “It is absolutely false to claim” that he intended the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum for the SSPX.
__
Collection of quotations drawn from the responses received from the dioceses
Negative assessments about the attitude of certain faithful
“In a negative sense, [the EF] can foster a sense of superiority among the faithful, but since this rite
has become more widely available, that feeling has diminished” (Archdiocese of Westminster,
England, response to question 3).
“For some, this Mass is a form of protest against the general direction taken by the Church, and for
others it also comes with political agendas. That said, I prefer to keep such people close to the
Church, asking the priests involved to correct these mistaken views” (Archdiocese of Baltimore,
USA, response to question 3).
“I see no negative aspects in the use of the EF as such. When there are negative aspects, they are
due to the negative attitudes of those who hold strong opinions one way or the other regarding this
form of celebration. When ideology, rather than the pastoral good of the Church, guides the
discernment about the use of the EF, then conflict and division arise. I repeat: this is something
extrinsic to the use of the Mass itself” (Archdiocese of San Francisco, USA, response to question
3).
“There can be a tendency among some faithful to see [the EF] as the only ‘true’ Mass, but I believe
this comes from the fact that these people have been regarded as ‘strange’ or pushed to the
margins. If efforts are made to ‘regularize’ the situation as much as possible, then these individuals
feel cared for and pastorally guided, and they can become very faithful and loyal” (Diocese of
Plymouth, England, response to question 3).
“I believe that the priests who minister [to these faithful] do not have the freedom of a parish
pastor, and are often under the authority of the faithful they serve. There is a close monitoring of
their doctrine, their fidelity to the rubrics, and their pastoral initiatives” (Diocese of Tarbes et
Lourdes France, response to question 3)
“Some people who support the EF do so with ideological assumptions. This is true of certain
members of any group; however, they are not representative of the broader communities of faithful
who attend the EF” (Diocese of Steubenville, response to question 3)
“The aspects [of the EF] in themselves are only positive: it is a great gift for everyone to be able to
know and attend the celebration in the extraordinary form. The negative aspects are present only
insofar as these celebrations are conducted and/or attended by unbalanced or ideologically driven
individuals” (Diocese of Livorno, Italy, response to question 3).
“Division and discord do not arise from the use of the EF, but rather from the perception people
have of those who attend it. Motivations and tendencies are attributed to people that are not true at
all” (Diocese of Savannah, USA, response to question 3).
On the isolation of communities
“In practice, the intended effect [maintaining the bond with the parish] has not occurred, because
each person limits themselves to the circle of faithful who share the same liturgical sensibility. But
perhaps this limitation is due to a still cautious too implementation of the Motu Proprio”
(Archdiocese of Sens-Auxerre, France, response to question 3)
“The use of the Extraordinary Form highlights even more the liturgical abuses that still exist in many
parishes, and this leads to people abandoning them in favor of places where the Extraordinary
Form is celebrated—particularly by young families who wish to give their children a solid religious
formation. In the end, this risks weakening the parish ‘fabric’ through the use of ‘chosen’ parishes,
where parishioners attend the liturgy but without true communal and social involvement in the
places where they practice their faith, and without a visible social presence in the places where
they live” (Diocese of Vannes, France, response to question 3).
“There is little interaction between the group of faithful and the nearby parish and the Diocese”
(Archdiocese of Digione, response to question 3)
“These communities do not integrate into parish and diocesan life. This may be their own fault,
when they are distrustful of the pastoral direction of the Diocese or the Parish and prefer to live in
isolation. But it may also be due to those who are attached to the Ordinary Form, who struggle to
understand the specific characteristics and expectations of these faithful, as well as the way they
live their faith” (Diocese of Vannes, France, response to question 3)
On the irrelevance of the EF for the people
“The question of the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form is irrelevant to our people. The people simply
wish to receive the Body of the Lord and are not interested in the rites in which they participate”
(Diocese of Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines, response to question 3)
“At times, the form has been applied not for the good of souls, but to cater to the personal
preferences of the priest” (Archdiocese of Messina-Lipari-S. Lucia della Mela, Italy, response to
question 4).
On the pastoral necessity and/or appropriateness of the EF
“The current offering of Masses and celebrations in the Extraordinary Form meets the pastoral
needs of the faithful. The initial conflicts regarding the establishment of Masses in the Extraordinary Form have been peacefully resolved in recent years” (Joint Report of the German
Bishops’ Conference, response to question 1).
“The Extraordinary Form offers those faithful a context in which to grow in holiness through a
Eucharistic celebration that deepens their communion with Christ and with others, in a manner
that corresponds to their sensibilities. A similar statement can be made about other people who
grow spiritually and ecclesially through more contemporary forms of celebration” (Diocese of Des
Moines, USA, response to question 3).
“[In the Diocese] there is no experience of the so-called Extraordinary Form of the Rite of Mass, which
could never respond to a true pastoral need of the Church today” (Archdiocese of Brindisi-Ostuni,
Italy).
“The attraction exercised by the Extraordinary Form is as much a reaction to a less-than-satisfactory celebration of the Ordinary Form as it is a specific desire for a liturgy in Latin.” (Diocese
of Lake Charles, USA, response to question 9).
On those whom the EF attracts
“This movement attracts many young families who feel at home with this liturgy and with the
activities offered around it. I believe such diversity is good in the Church, and that the decline in the
number of practicing faithful should not necessarily lead to a uniformity of offerings. This liturgical
form is nourishing for many. There is a sense of the sacred that appeals and orients people toward
God” (Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes, France, response to question 3).
“The Church should be able to acknowledge [to the institutes attached to the Extraordinary Form]
what they bring to her: vocations, the preservation of a liturgical tradition rich in meaning, and a
form of stability in the face of changes within the Church and in the culture” (Diocese of Tarbes et
Lourdes, France, response to question 9)
“We have observed that these families participate in many of the diocesan youth and vocational
events in a proportion far greater than any other group” (Diocese of Rockville Center, USA,
response to question 9).
“The Masses in the Extraordinary Form in our diocese attract quite a few devoted families. While
some of the parents homeschool their children, others enroll their children in local Catholic
schools. These families embrace many of the principles promoted by Vatican II, including the need
to cultivate the domestic Church and the universal call to holiness” (Diocese of Brooklyn, USA,
response to question 3).
“There is a significant number of Catholics who have always remained in communion but strongly
aspire to more traditional liturgical forms, and who have been greatly comforted and helped in their faith through participation in Masses in the Extraordinary Form. Many young families and younger
Catholics have found in the Extraordinary Form a treasure that has helped them grow in faith…
even if they did not grow up with the Extraordinary Form, they find it enriching for the practice of
their faith” (Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, USA, response to question 2)
“A significant number of fervent young people feel nourished—not exclusively—by the
Extraordinary Form. The peaceful presence of the Extraordinary Form allows some young people
(typical of their generation, moreover) who feel a call to the priesthood to have confidence in the
Diocese” (Diocese of Nanterre, France, response to question 8).
On the value of the EF for the peace and unity of the Church
“Many of the people who attend are troubled and quite suffering pilgrims, and I believe that the
‘normalization’ of their liturgical experience within the life of the Church strengthens its unity”
(Diocese of Plymouth, England, response to question 9)
“The Extraordinary Form, under the prudent guidance of the local Ordinary, has allowed more
Catholics to pray according to their desires and has resolved the earlier conflicts. Its peaceful
presence should not be disturbed” (Archdiocese of Westminster, England, response to question 9).
“The Motu Proprio has allowed for a genuine pacification of the liturgical issue” (Diocesi di SaintDié, France, response to question 3)
“The most positive aspect of the use of the Extraordinary Form is that there is no longer any ‘clan’
claiming the ‘true Mass.’ The Eucharistic mystery has been freed from a very harmful ideological
division. This has greatly benefited the perception of the unity of the Church realized around the
Eucharist” (Archdiocese of Aix & Arles, France, response to question 3).
“Some faithful of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, who were previously uninterested in diocesan
life, have changed their behavior: they contribute to the ‘denier de l’Église’ [the annual offering for
dioceses in France] and express their joy in other ways at being able to pray in their own Diocese”
(Diocese of La Rochelle, France, response to question 9)
“It has not been my experience, for example, that the Extraordinary Form creates division; rather,
the opposite. It can promote and foster a sense of communion and inclusion when it is rightly
handled in a pastoral way” (Diocese of Albany, USA, response to question 9)
“I would see it as a benefit for the whole Church if the Holy See continued to support the Catholic
faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Even more generally, fostering
authentic differences of thought and expression is an advantage for the universal Church. Having a
dedicated section for this within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is helpful when
liturgical developments or clarifications are needed. In accordance with universal norms, our Archdiocese has also undertaken to establish a dialogue with the local and national leaders of the
FSSPX. I believe this positive step has been facilitated by the existence of Summorum Pontificum
and the communities it has encouraged” (Archdiocese of New Orleans, USA, response to question
9).
“In an area of great ethnic diversity like Miami, a diversity of liturgical forms is generally helpful”
(Archdiocese of Miami, USA, response to question 3).
“I believe that many of those who had felt separated from the Church and had gone toward extra-ecclesial communities have felt welcomed again within the structure of the Church thanks to
Summorum Pontificum” (Diocese of Dallas, USA, response to question 3).
On the liturgical, theological, and catechetical value of the Extraordinary Form
“Undoubtedly, the Extraordinary Form has challenged members of the clergy regarding the place of
ritual in Christian life and the dignity of the celebrations” (Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, response to
question 5).
“Maintaining the Extraordinary Form is the right choice, not because it is better or more suitable
than the Ordinary Form, but because the Extraordinary Form possesses its own richness both
liturgically and theologically. Likewise, the Extraordinary Form provides a stimulating counterpoint
to the Ordinary Form” (Diocese of Cambrai, France, response to question 9).
“I myself have celebrated priestly ordinations in the Extraordinary Form, even though it is not my
usual form, and I was able to appreciate its richness, beauty, and liturgical depth” (Bishop of
Perpignan-Elne, France, response to question 3).
“Many families do not participate exclusively in the Extraordinary Form but enjoy attending both the
Extraordinary and the Ordinary Forms. I encourage this as a richer experience of liturgical history
and development” (Diocese of Tyler, USA, response to question 3)
“It would not be difficult to assert that if surveyed, nearly 100% of those who attend the
Extraordinary Form believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whereas drastically lower
figures have been shown among Catholics who predominantly attend the Ordinary Form” (Diocese
of Knoxville, USA, response to question 3).
“A good number of Catholics have come to a more fervent life of faith; many men have become
more active in spiritually leading their families, and many have gained a deep knowledge of the
Church’s traditions, which has helped them to appreciate more deeply the reforms of Vatican II
and the Ordinary Form of the Mass” (Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, USA response to question 3).
“The Extraordinary Form has become a treasure for the Diocese, from which to draw inspiration
and concrete perspectives on how to renew the liturgical life of the Church” (Diocese of Maasin,
Philippines, response to question 5).
On the historical value of the Extraordinary Form
“To cease practicing the Extraordinary Form would be like cutting oneself off from the sources of
the faith” (Diocese of Liège, Belgium, response to question 9).
“As Pope Benedict said, we cannot abandon the rite of the Mass that has been used for centuries
and say that it is no longer relevant” (Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, England, response to
question 9).
On the influence of the EF on the OF
“Even though the Extraordinary Form is not widely followed, it influences the Ordinary Form in a
very healthy direction, which I would summarize as ‘towards greater reverence’” (Diocese of Fort
Wayne-South Bend, USA, response to question 9).
“The Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form represent two different understandings of the
Eucharist, Ecclesiology, the baptismal priesthood, and the sacrament of Orders (to mention only
the most evident theological differences). Attempting to adopt elements of the Extraordinary Form
would only send inconsistent signals to the faithful” (Archdiocese of Tokyo, Japan, response to
question 5).
“Some elements usually identified with the Extraordinary Form are used by some priests in the
Ordinary Form (for example, the ad orientem celebration or Gregorian chant), but these are not so
much a mixture of rites as the choice of legitimate options permitted within the Ordinary Form.
There is mutual enrichment, but the rubrics of each form are respected” (Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, response to question 5)
“It has sometimes been suggested that elements of the Extraordinary Form were incorporated into
the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I have been able to verify that this is not the case, but rather that it
was simply a lack of knowledge about what is already permitted by the GIRM (General Instruction
on the Roman Missal)” (Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, response to question 5)
“Two pastors who have learned the Extraordinary Form subsequently introduced the ad orientem
celebration for some or all of their Masses, which was well received by their faithful, who had been
well catechized beforehand. Furthermore, for some of our priests, there has been greater care of
the consecrated host, both through the reintroduction and habitual use of the communion paten
and through increased reverence by the priest himself at the altar” (Diocese of St. Thomas–Virgin
Islands, Caribbean, response to question 5).
On the influence of the Extraordinary Form on seminaries and/or houses of formation
“When a seminarian expresses to the diocesan Bishop or the seminary Rector the desire to be
trained in the Extraordinary Form, they are assisted in attending a workshop organized by one of the
institutes offering such formation, with the agreement of the diocesan Bishop. This practice is in
accordance with what is established in Universae Ecclesiae no. 21” (Diocese of Brooklyn, USA,
response to question 8)
Proposals and/or perspectives for the future
“The practice [of the MP Summorum Pontificum] followed so far has proven effective, and for
pastoral reasons, it should not be changed” (Joint Report of the German Bishops’ Conference,
response to question 9).
“I fear that without the Extraordinary Form, many souls would leave the Church” (Diocese of
Pittsburgh, USA, response to question 3).
“I suggest that the Extraordinary Form be allowed as it is, and that the principle of Gamaliel be
applied” (Diocese of Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines, response to question 9).
“I think it is possible for the two uses, Ordinary and Extraordinary, to coexist. This could be a
strength within the Catholic Church. Although we hear much from the LMS [Latin Mass Society] and
its crusade to change the face of the Church and turn back the clock, my impression in the Diocese
is that the strident appeals for the Extraordinary Form have now diminished, and that it will find, so
to speak, its own level (probably quite small) (…) I would say that formation in the fullness of the
tradition of liturgical forms, practices, and symbols is necessary, and that these should be open to
all in full freedom, and even encouraged, so as to show that the Extraordinary Form is not
something to be feared, and that the Ordinary Form is not to be despised, because it is rooted in
tradition” (Diocese of East Anglia, England, response to question 9)
“If we continue to tolerate sad examples of liturgical abnormalities, experiments, abuses, and
simply poor-quality liturgies, why should we single out those attached to the ancient rites of the
Church for special scrutiny? It doesn’t seem right” (Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, USA,
response to question 9).
“Ecclesial movements [such as those attached to the Extraordinary Form] have great potential to
renew the Church (…). At the same time, ecclesial movements can also stray and go off on their
own, creating almost a parallel Church and falling into an elitist attitude that sees only themselves
as the ‘true Catholics.’ This happens when they are left alone. In other words, they can renew the
Church only if the hierarchy engages with them, allowing them to develop according to the Spirit
while also maintaining communion with the Church. When members of these movements feel
opposed or ignored by their pastors, they withdraw and become resentful; but when they feel that their pastors are among them and guiding them, they become valuable instruments of
evangelization” (Archdiocese of San Francisco, USA, response to question 9).
“I think this is the best approach to take regarding the use of the Extraordinary Form: the Gamaliel
principle: ‘If this activity is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to
overcome it; you might even be found opposing God!’” (Acts 5:38-39) (idem, San Francisco).
“The possibility of celebrating the Extraordinary Form must be maintained. It corresponds to a real
demand from rather young people. Parishes must develop connections with the priest who
celebrates the Extraordinary Form. Some thought this form would disappear, but that has not
happened. Therefore, it must be practiced and offered to the faithful in full truth. A parish
connection is indispensable” (Diocese of Montauban, France, response to question 9).
“If the use of the Extraordinary Form were to be suspended, I believe that such a measure should
rightfully be accompanied by a careful review of the liturgical reform to correct certain
weaknesses, as well as by a strong intervention to censor the abuses that demean and distort the
Liturgy of the Catholic Church” (Diocese of Aosta, Italy, response to question 9).
“Ask the priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form to learn how to celebrate the Ordinary Form
and to do so at major gatherings around the Bishop, as well as to be able to serve in the parishes”
(Diocese of Tarbes-Lourdes, France, response to question 9).
“The Holy See should provide resources for formation, catechesis, and celebration, so that there is
an authoritative and unifying source both for information and ministry. First, while the Diocese tries
to offer formation and catechetical resources, clergy and laity often turn to communities not in full
communion with the Holy See to obtain information. Second, having access to the necessary
liturgical books is not always easy, and here too, people frequently turn to communities not in full
communion to obtain these books. Third, it is difficult at the diocesan level to find true expertise in
the Extraordinary Form in all its theological, historical, juridical, and pastoral dimensions (both in
identifying experts and sources), and the offices of the Holy See would be of great help to the
universal Church as well as to individual Dioceses” (Diocese of Arlington, USA, response to
question 9).
“Nor will the Bishop report to the Pontifical Commission as he is required to do, because of more
urgent matters that he must attend to in the diocese” (Diocese of Novaliches, Philippines,
response to question 3).
“I must state, in good conscience, that a rethinking of the choices made is more necessary and
urgent than ever” (Diocese of Cremona, Italy, response to question 9).
“I have the impression that any explicit intervention could cause more harm than good: if the line of
the MP Summorum Pontificum is further confirmed, it will provoke new waves of perplexity among the clergy (and not only them). If the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is denied, it will provoke
new waves of dissent and resentment among the supporters of the Old Rite” (Archdiocese of Milan,
Italy, answer to question 9).
“I certainly believe that Summorum Pontificum cannot simply be revoked. Doing so would create
more problems than we want to solve” (Diocese of Pitigliano-Sovana-Orbetello, Italy, response to
question 9).
“I do not think it is appropriate to abrogate or restrict it with new regulations, so as to avoid creating
tensions and further conflicts, which would give the impression of a lack of respect for “minorities
and their sensitivities” (Diocese of Pescia Italy, response to question 9).
The Episcopal Conference of Mexico believes that authentic liturgical formation is indispensable at
all levels” (CEM general report)
A warning shot? The New York Times and Pope Leo XIV
The end of the grace period
30. June 2025
A note by Giuseppe Nardi
Last Saturday, June 28, the New York Times published two articles (here and here) that can hardly be dismissed as randomly placed routine articles. On the eve of the Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul – the outer feast day of the papacy and the visible unity of the Ecclesia militans – the leading American media outlet placed the new pope at the center of a double abuse analysis. Is the grace period over?
The symbolism of the time of publication was probably deliberately chosen: On the very day on which Pope Leo XIV personally awarded the palliums to new metropolitans for the first time again – a ritual that had receded into the background under Francis and particularly emphasizes the unity of the Church sub Petro – the New York Times placed a story that at least scratches this very authority, if not questioned. Francis – spared, Leo – under supervision?
While Pope Francis has been treated with kid gloves by the influential globalist media for years – one thinks, for example, of the conspicuous restraint in the McCarrick scandal – the tone towards his successor is noticeably cooler, more analytical, more distant. In both articles, Robert Francis Prevost, today's Pope Leo XIV, is evaluated on the basis of two cases of abuse from his time as bishop of Chiclayo in Peru (2014-2020): In one, he is praised for his decisive action against the conservative Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana – even celebrated as a "hero" of the victims. In the other case, on the other hand, which took place within his own diocese, he is accused of a lack of consistency and weak supervision. He had acted "formally according to the rules", but this is presented as insufficient.
The contrasts are sharp: on the one hand, the courageous churchman who opposes an influential, conservative clergy – on the other hand, the administrator, under whose jurisdiction accused priests were allowed to continue to celebrate in public. Today's Pope as Diocesan Shepherd – sometimes consistent, sometimes hesitant? The New York Times does not give a clear answer, but focuses on contradictions.
Ambivalence as a message of the New York Times
The title already hints at it: It's not about a reckoning, but about a kind of test. The articles construct an ambivalent picture: once with integrity, sometimes dubious – a man who has yet to earn his trust. But whose trust? That of the abuse victims? Or that of the global, liberal elites, whose agenda Francis supported for long stretches? (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, andhere.)
Curia Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo summed up the attitude of Leo's predecessor in 2017 as follows, when he praised the Bergoglian pontificate with regard to the globalist establishment:
"Humanity is experiencing a magical moment: for the first time, the Magisterium of the Pope and that of the UN coincide."
Whether compatibility with the Magisterium of the Church was still given was apparently of secondary importance to Sanchez Sorondo.
Instrument or partner?
Was Francis a like-minded person – or a welcome lever to involve the Church in a globalist agenda? The Catholic Church, with its unique, globally structured order, is viewed by parts of this establishment primarily as functional: useful as long as it serves the agenda – annoying as soon as it resists.
So how is Pope Leo XIV rated? The New York Times does not practice open hostility. But it checks, observes, doubts – and sends a signal with a fine needle. The new pope no longer moves in the shelter of benevolent leniency, but is subject to reservations. The tone is professional but cool. The invitation is clear: it will be measured – not only by the standards of the Church, but by the expectations of an agenda that has long since ceased to act in a hidden way.
__
A Bishop Embraces the Holy Father in the Name of All Clerics Present
“Strengthen yourselves, ye sons of Benjamin, in the midst of
Jerusalem, and sound the trumpet in Thecua, and set up the standard over
Bethacarem: for evil is seen out of the north, and a great destruction. I have
likened the daughter of Sion to a beautiful and delicate woman. The shepherds
shall come to her with their flocks: they have pitched their tents against her
round about: every one shall feed them that are under his hand. Prepare ye war
against her: arise, and let us go up at midday.” (Jer. 6:1-4)
Bethacarem means “house of their lamb,” and it is the house of Israel from
which the Lamb of God went out, which had come to save the sheep which had died
there; and because Christ was signally sent to this people of Israel, the Holy
Spirit says to first put the flag of His love over it, to remedy the evil which
comes from aquilon, which is a northeast wind, cold and sharp, which does much
harm, and has the shape of the chilling of charity, which brought Christ from
heaven to the earth for its remedy; since you should know that just as at the
second advent, which will be at the judgment, the charity of many will be chilly,
so it was in the first advent, and it was for this that the Lord was born at
midnight and in the middle of winter, with ice, which signified the chilling of
charity which there was in those times, which Christ came to remedy. So it is
written that the boy was born very lively, chosen among thousands, to remedy
the lack of love, later beginning to shed blood, which is a very warm liquid;
and later when he began to preach, he chided the lack of love, and in this way hoisted
the flag of charity over the house of Israel and began to fight the battle of
love in the first way, by flatteries and rewards, doing favors and graces to
all; and for this reason the prophet compared this holy soul of Christ to the
beautiful woman and the refined daughter of Zion; to which, because of her
graciousness, the shepherds with their flocks were to come, who are the
apostles, with the provinces of the world, which, while Christ lived, they
converted to Him.
“Shepherds” in Hebrew means (according to The Gloss)
either pastors of lovers; which is very fitting for the apostles, who for Christ,
the standard of love, where made lovers of the Holy Spirit, Who gave Him the
flag. And I say that they were made His lovers: on the one hand, because the
thing which Christ most preached to the apostles was love; and on the other
hand, because, telling them many and very great things about the Holy Spirit, He
enamored them of Him; and, therefore, the apostles set up their tabernacles
around Christ, living and being, and remaining with Him all their lives, and they
sanctified the battle of love with much holiness with which they sought to better
love, and they desired to ascend to the midday of glory with the wife, where
love is in its highest fervor, where the divine sun infuses the most ardent
rays to perpetually ignite the loves. The greatest consolation which the most
blessed soul of Christ received in this world, was to see that the number of the
lovers of God multiplied, and in this he was consoled and was favored as the Standard
when he sees that many fighters arrive at his flag; and, therefore, the Canticle
(Canticle of Canticles 2:5-6) said that they should garland it with
flowers and surround it with apples, because He was sick in love. The flowers
which appeared in the land of the Church at that time were new lovers of God which
came to join Christ; and the apples, which are of more substance, were those
who were more advanced in love, with which the Standard of love was more
pleased. Furthermore, it says that the left hand of His beloved the Holy Spirit
is under His head, because Christ rested in the love of neighbor, symbolized by
the left hand, and night and day he exercised all of his senses in it. And, in
Christ, the left hand is called love of neighbor, not because there is anything
sinister in it, but rather that this most perfect love of neighbor which He
had, made him suffer many human evils and disasters and countless fatigues; but
the Holy Spirit put them under his head, giving Him rest in them, because total
love, when it works for the beloved, rests.
The right hand of the Holy Spirit, which embraced the soul
of Christ, was the love of God, which was in Him at the sovereign level at which
it now is; and because the love of God was exposed the way that the “possessors”
of heaven have it, it says that it embraces Him; because, when we embrace
someone with an arm, we make the hand return to that from which it came, which
is our own body, and make a full circuit around; and in this way the love which
the soul of Christ had for God, made the full circle, which is the most fitting
image which goes back to its beginning, because that most sacred soul upon
leaving from God by creation, turned back to Him by love with greater breadth
of heart, in order better to love, than could be said: and the love of God embraced
her (His soul), later turning her to Himself, without making it wait in hope as
to the other souls; and because the soul cannot embrace God without being
embraced by God, nor God perfectly embrace the soul without being embraced by
her; because love which is not corresponded is not perfect love.
In the words said above from the Canticle of Canticles
you should notice four grades of supreme love; the first is a complete
drunkenness which this most blessed soul reached entering the cellar of
love, where there are as many ways of love as there are of wines, and all the
conditions of wine you will find in love. The second grade is the prison
with which the lover gives himself over in the soul and takes complete
jurisdiction over her so that no other love may any more have any place, nor
may the soul know any other Lord, except that one that has her captive by
violent charity. The third grade of love is the sickness that the love
itself causes by the vehement desire and fervor to look for lovers that they
may help it to love the One Who has her totally captive. The last and final grade
of love is laziness within the arms of the Lover, which is reached after
many toils and after the consummatum est, when it finally says (Luke
23:46) In manus tuas commendo spiritum meum. Then Jesus the great Lover
rested within the arms of His Beloved, which were open awaiting His soul for it
to rest from the toilsome love of our redemption, leaving the flag of love
stained with His blood, which is the Cross, so that all of the warriors that
would fix themselves to it should wait while the true Lover, conquering Himself
unto death, conquers the Beloved, and all of the victory which He achieves is
itself an obligation which He puts on the one for whom he conquered Himself.
So it is that while we see the flag of love stained with the
blood of Jesus Christ, it remains for us, as persons obligated and defeated by
such strong love, to open our hearts to also shed our blood in the battle field
of love.
Panegyric on Saints Peter and Paul: Pillars and Protectors of Rome
Rome, the city of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, is the Seat of the Church of Christ!, chosen by emperors and by the will of Heaven; crowned with laurel and with the palm of martyrdom. Rome was consecrated and sanctified by the blood of the holy apostles— Peter and Paul, the twin pillars upon which the universal Church stands!
Peter, the Fisherman, to whom the keys of the Kingdom were entrusted—rock immovable, foundation of faith! Paul, the Apostle of the nations, fire of the Word, whose sword divides truth from error! These two, joined by divine commission, labored, suffered, and triumphed in Her, eternal Rome, sealing their testimony with their blood, that She, the Church of Rome, might reign forever in the Spirit of Christ.
From the day their voices fell silent in martyrdom, their presence has never left the walls of Rome. They dwell more gloriously now, on invisible thrones set above Her altars, vigilant sentinels of Her fate. Where Caesar once ruled by force, Peter now reigns by faith in Jesus Christ; where legions once trampled, Paul now strides with the gospel of Christ. Through the long centuries of trial—barbarian, plague, heresy, fire, sword—their intercession has sustained Her, Rome, The Mother of Churches!
Remember that most radiant moment, when Attila the Hun, the barbarian threat, attacked Rome like the wrath of the devil. What was Rome's hope then? Her armies scattered, her palaces trembling—but her shepherd, Saint Leo the Great, went out to meet the enemy and stood firm. He met the tyrant, not alone, but borne up by the prayers of the Church and the guardianship of the two apostolic princes, the pillars of Rome.
As Saint Leo spoke with meek majesty, the eyes of Attila saw a frightful sight: he saw Saint Peter and Saint Paul, clothed in heavenly armor, swords drawn, faces aflame with the justice of God, flanking the Supreme Pontiff as protectors of the fold. Leo’s words, and the silent powerful presence of the Apostles, turned the enemy back. The Pope, Saint Leo the Great, saved Rome—not by gold, nor by treaties, nor by the force of arms—but by the intercession of her holy patrons, Peter and Paul.
Her heavenly patrons have thus always labored for the eternal City, the See of Peter, for the successor of Saint Peter, and for the apostolic succession of the Church. Every Pontiff who sits upon Peter’s throne is flanked by the defending care of Saint Peter and Paul; every danger faced by the Church is borne beneath their mighty protection. They who once walked Rome’s streets in humility, and there shed their blood for the Church, they now reign over Her with power from heaven, guardians of the truth, correctors of error, friends of peace.
With joy and trembling hope, we honor Saints Peter and Paul—apostles of the past, heavenly princes of the present. We stand proudly on the Rock of Peter and heed the voice that speaks from his Chair, the voice of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, for he speaks in the name of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, God Himself. As long as Peter holds the keys of right judgment, and Paul holds the sword of truth, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul!
O Holy Apostles, pillars of the Church and protectors of Rome, defend your Church today, the Church of Rome, in our Roman Pontiff Pope Leo XIV and every Pope, until Christ returns in glory!
ADDRESS OF POPE LEO XIV TO MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
Hall of Benediction Saturday, 21 June 2025
___
Madam President of the Council of Ministers, and Mr President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Republic of Italy, Madam President and Mr Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Distinguished Representatives of Academic Institutions and Religious Leaders,
I am pleased that we can meet in the context of the Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, during the present Jubilee of Governments. I offer a warm greeting to the members of the Delegations coming from sixty-eight different countries, and, in a particular way, the Presidents of the respective Parliamentary Institutions.
Politics has rightly been defined as “the highest form of charity,” quoting Pope Pius XI (Address to the Italian Catholic University Federation, 18 December 1927). Indeed, if we consider the service that political life renders to society and to the common good, it can truly be seen as an act of Christian love, which is never simply a theory, but always a concrete sign and witness of God’s constant concern for the good of our human family (cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, 176-192).
In this regard, I would like to share with you this morning three considerations that I deem important in the current cultural context.
The first concerns your responsibility to promote and protect, independent of any special interest, the good of the community, the common good, particularly by defending the vulnerable and the marginalized. This would mean, for example, working to overcome the unacceptable disproportion between the immense wealth concentrated in the hands of a few and the world’s poor (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum, 15 May 1891, 1). Those who live in extreme conditions cry out to make their voices heard, and often find no ears willing to hear their plea. This imbalance generates situations of persistent injustice, which readily lead to violence and, sooner or later, to the tragedy of war. Sound politics, on the other hand, by promoting the equitable distribution of resources, can offer an effective service to harmony and peace both domestically and internationally.
My second reflection has to do with religious freedom and interreligious dialogue. This area has taken on greater significance in the present time, and political life can achieve much by encouraging the conditions for there to be authentic religious freedom and that a respectful and constructive encounter between different religious communities may develop. Belief in God, with the positive values that derive from it, is an immense source of goodness and truth for the lives of individuals and communities. Saint Augustine spoke of the need to pass from amor sui – egotistic, myopic and destructive self-love – to amor Dei – a free and generous love, grounded in God and leading to the gift of self. That passage, he taught, is essential for the building of the civitas Dei, a society whose fundamental law is charity (cf. De Civitate Dei, XIV, 28).
In order to have a shared point of reference in political activity, and not exclude a priori any consideration of the transcendent in decision-making processes, it would be helpful to seek an element that unites everyone. To this end, an essential reference point is the natural law, written not by human hands, but acknowledged as valid in all times and places, and finding its most plausible and convincing argument in nature itself. In the words of Cicero, already an authoritative exponent of this law in antiquity, I quote from De Re Publica: “Natural law is right reason, in accordance with nature, universal, constant and eternal, which with its commands, invites us to do what is right and with its prohibitions deters us from evil... No change may be made to this law, nor may any part of it be removed, nor can it be abolished altogether; neither by the Senate nor by the people, can we free ourselves from it, nor is it necessary to seek its commentator or interpreter. And there shall be no law in Rome, none in Athens, none now, none later; but one eternal and unchanging law shall govern all peoples at all times” (III, 22).
Natural law, which is universally valid apart from and above other more debatable beliefs, constitutes the compass by which to take our bearings in legislating and acting, particularly on the delicate and pressing ethical issues that, today more than in the past, regard personal life and privacy.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved and proclaimed by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, is now part of humanity’s cultural heritage. That text, which is always relevant, can contribute greatly to placing the human person, in his or her inviolable integrity, at the foundation of the quest for truth, thus restoring dignity to those who do not feel respected in their inmost being and in the dictates of their conscience.
This brings us to a third consideration. The degree of civilization attained in our world and the goals you are charged to achieve are now facing a major challenge in the form of artificial intelligence. This is a development that will certainly be of great help to society, provided that its employment does not undermine the identity and dignity of the human person and his or her fundamental freedoms. In particular, it must not be forgotten that artificial intelligence functions as a tool for the good of human beings, not to diminish them, not to replace them. What is emerging is in fact a significant challenge, one that calls for great attention and foresight in order to project, also in the context of new scenarios, healthy, fair and sound lifestyles, especially for the good of younger generations.
Our personal life has greater value than any algorithm, and social relationships require spaces for development that far transcend the limited patterns that any soulless machine can pre-package. Let us not forget that, while able to store millions of data points and answer many questions in a matter of seconds, artificial intelligence remains equipped with a “static memory” that is in no way comparable to that of human beings. Our memory, on the other hand, is creative, dynamic, generative, capable of uniting past, present and future in a lively and fruitful search for meaning, with all the ethical and existential implications that this entails (cf. Francis, Address to the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence, 14 June 2024).
Politics cannot ignore a challenge of this magnitude. On the contrary, it is called to respond to many citizens who rightly look with both confidence and concern at the issues raised by this new digital culture.
During the Jubilee of the Year 2000, Saint John Paul II indicated Saint Thomas More as a witness for political leaders to revere and an intercessor under whose protection to place their work. Sir Thomas More was a man faithful to his civic responsibilities, a perfect servant of the state precisely because of his faith, which led him to view politics not as a profession but as a mission for the spread of truth and goodness. He “placed his public activity at the service of the person, especially the weak and poor; he handled social disputes with an exquisite sense of justice; he protected the family and defended it with strenuous commitment; and he promoted the integral education of youth” (Apostolic Letter E Sancti Thomae Mori, 31 October 2000, 4). The courage he showed by his readiness to sacrifice his life rather than betray the truth makes him, also for us today, a martyr for freedom and for the primacy of conscience. May his example be a source of inspiration and guidance for each of you!
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your visit. I offer my prayerful good wishes for your work and upon you and your loved ones, I invoke God’s abundant blessings.
Thank you to all of you. God’s blessings upon you and your work. Thank you.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article I All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article
19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Presented by the Holy See to all persons, institutions and authorities concerned with the mission of the family in today's world October 22, 1983
Preamble
Considering that:
A. The rights of the person, even though they are expressed as rights of the individual, have a fundamental social dimension which finds an innate and vital expression in the family;
B. the family is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman which is constituted in the freely contracted and publicly expressed indissoluble bond of matrimony and is open to the transmission of life;
C. marriage is the natural institution to which the mission of transmitting life is exclusively entrusted;
D. the family, a natural society, exists prior to the State or any other community, and possesses inherent rights which are inalienable;
E. the family constitutes, much more than a mere juridical, social and economic unit, a community of love and solidarity, which is uniquely suited to teach and transmit cultural, ethical, social, spiritual and religious values, essential for the development and well-being of its own members and of society.
F. the family is the place where different generations come together and help one another to grow in human wisdom and to harmonize the rights of individuals with other demands of social life;
G. the family and society, which are mutually linked by vital and organic bonds, have a complementary function in the defense and advancement of the good of every person and of humanity;
H. the experience of different cultures throughout history has shown the need for society to recognize and defend the institution of the family;
I. society, and in a particular manner the State and International Organizations, must protect the family through measures of a political, economic, social and juridical character, which aim at consolidating the unity and stability of the family so that it can exercise its specific function;
J. the rights, the fundamental needs, the well-being and the values of the family, even though they are progressively safeguarded in some cases, are often ignored and not rarely undermined by laws, institutions and socio-economic programs;
K. many families are forced to live in situations of poverty which prevent them from carrying out their role with dignity;
L. the Catholic Church, aware that the good of the person, of society and of the Church herself passes by way of the family, has always held it part of her mission to proclaim to all the plan of God instilled in human nature concerning marriage and the family, to promote these two institutions and to defend them against all those who attack them;
M. the Synod of Bishops celebrated in 1980 explicitly recommended that a Charter of the Rights of the Family be drawn up and circulated to all concerned;
the Holy See, having consulted the Bishops' Conferences, now presents this "Charter of the Rights of the Family" and urges all States, International Organizations, and all interested Institutions and persons to promote respect for these rights, and to secure their effective recognition and observance.
Article 1
All persons have the right to the free choice of their state of life and thus to marry and establish a family or to remain single.
a) Every man and every woman, having reached marriageable age and having the necessary capacity, has the right to marry and establish a family without any discrimination whatsoever; legal restrictions to the exercise of this right, whether they be of a permanent or temporary nature, can be introduced only when they are required by grave and objective demands of the institution of marriage itself and its social and public significance; they must respect in all cases the dignity and the fundamental rights of the person.
b) Those who wish to marry and establish a family have the right to expect from society the moral, educational, social and economic conditions which will enable them to exercise their right to marry in all maturity and responsibility.
c) The institutional value of marriage should be upheld by the public authorities; the situation of non-married couples must not be placed on the same level as marriage duly contracted. Article
2 Marriage cannot be contracted except by free and full consent duly expressed by the spouses.
a) With due respect for the traditional role of the families in certain cultures in guiding the decision of their children, all pressure which would impede the choice of a specific person as spouse is to be avoided.
b) The future spouses have the right to their religious liberty. Therefore to impose as a prior condition for marriage a denial of faith or a profession of faith which is contrary to conscience, constitutes a violation of this right.
c) The spouses, in the natural complementarity which exists between man and woman, enjoy the same dignity and equal rights regarding the marriage.
Article 3
The spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization and abortion.
a) The activities of public authorities and private organizations which attempt in any way to limit the freedom of couples in deciding about their children constitute a grave offense against human dignity and justice.
b) In international relations, economic aid for the advancement of peoples must not be conditioned on acceptance of programs of contraception, sterilization or abortion.
c) The family has a right to assistance by society in the bearing and rearing of children. Those married couples who have a large family have a right to adequate aid and should not be subjected to discrimination.
Article 4
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
a) Abortion is a direct violation of the fundamental right to life of the human being.
b) Respect of the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo.
c) All interventions on the genetic heritage of the human person that are not aimed at correcting anomalies constitute a violation of the right to bodily integrity and contradict the good of the family.
d) Children, both before and after birth, have the right to special protection and assistance, as do their mothers during pregnancy and for a reasonable period of time after childbirth.
e) All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, enjoy the same right to social protection, with a view to their integral personal development.
f) Orphans or children who are deprived of the assistance of their parents or guardians must receive particular protection on the part of society. The State, with regard to foster-care or adoption, must provide legislation which assists suitable families to welcome into their homes children who are in need of permanent or temporary care. This legislation must, at the same time, respect the natural rights of the parents.
g) Children who are handicapped have the right to find in the home and the school an environment suitable to their human development.
Article 5
Since they have conferred life on their children, parents have the original, primary and inalienable right to educate them; hence they must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children.
a) Parents have the right to educate their children in conformity with their moral and religious convictions, taking into account the cultural traditions of the family which favor the good and the dignity of the child; they should also receive from society the necessary aid and assistance to perform their educational role properly.
b) Parents have the right to freely choose schools or other means necessary to educate their children in keeping with their convictions. Public authorities must ensure that public subsidies are so allocated that parents are truly free to exercise this right without incurring unjust burdens. Parents should not have to sustain, directly or indirectly, extra charges which would deny or unjustly limit the exercise of this freedom.
c) Parents have the right to ensure that their children are not compelled to attend classes which are not in agreement with their own moral and religious convictions. In particular, sex education is a basic right of the parents and must always be carried out under their close supervision, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them.
d) The rights of parents are violated when a compulsory system of education is imposed by the State from which all religious formation is excluded.
e) The primary right of parents to educate their children must be upheld in all forms of collaboration between parents, teachers and school authorities, and particularly in forms of participation designed to give citizens a voice in the functioning of schools and in the formulation and implementation of educational policies.
f) The family has the right to expect that the means of social communication will be positive instruments for the building up of society, and will reinforce the fundamental values of the family. At the same time the family has the right to be adequately protected, especially with regard to its youngest members, from the negative effects and misuse of the mass media.
Article 6
The family has the right to exist and to progress as a family.
a) Public authorities must respect and foster the dignity, lawful independence, privacy, integrity and stability of every family.
b) Divorce attacks the very institution of marriage and of the family.
c) The extended family system, where it exists, should be held in esteem and helped to carry out better its traditional role of solidarity and mutual assistance, while at the same time respecting the rights of the nuclear family and the personal dignity of each member.
Article 7
Every family has the right to live freely its own domestic religious life under the guidance of the parents, as well as the right to profess publicly and to propagate the faith, to take part in public worship and in freely chosen programs of religious instruction, without suffering discrimination.
Article 8
The family has the right to exercise its social and political function in the construction of society.
a) Families have the right to form associations with other families and institutions, in order to fulfill the family's role suitably and effectively, as well as to protect the rights, foster the good and represent the interests of the family.
b) On the economic, social, juridical and cultural levels, the rightful role of families and family associations must be recognized in the planning and development of programs which touch on family life.
Article 9
Families have the right to be able to rely on an adequate family policy on the part of public authorities in the juridical, economic, social and fiscal domains, without any discrimination whatsoever.
a) Families have the right to economic conditions which assure them a standard of living appropriate to their dignity and full development. They should not be impeded from acquiring and maintaining private possessions which would favor stable family life; the laws concerning inheritance or transmission of property must respect the needs and rights of family members.
b) Families have the right to measures in the social domain which take into account their needs, especially in the event of the premature death of one or both parents, of the abandonment of one of the spouses, of accident, or sickness or invalidity, in the case of unemployment, or whenever the family has to bear extra burdens on behalf of its members for reasons of old age, physical or mental handicaps or the education of children.
c) The elderly have the right to find within their own family or, when this is not possible, in suitable institutions, an environment which will enable them to live their later years of life in serenity while pursuing those activities which are compatible with their age and which enable them to participate in social life.
d) The rights and necessities of the family, and especially the value of family unity, must be taken into consideration in penal legislation and policy, in such a way that a detainee remains in contact with his or her family and that the family is adequately sustained during the period of detention.
Article 10
Families have a right to a social and economic order in which the organization of work permits the members to live together, and does not hinder the unity, well-being, health and the stability of the family, while offering also the possibility of wholesome recreation.
a) Remuneration for work must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, either through a suitable salary, called a "family wage," or through other social measures such as family allowances or the remuneration of the work in the home of one of the parents; it should be such that mothers will not be obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially of the education of the children.
b) The work of the mother in the home must be recognized and respected because of its value for the family and for society.
Article 11
The family has the right to decent housing, fitting for family life and commensurate to the number of the members, in a physical environment that provides the basic services for the life of the family and the community.
Article 12
The families of migrants have the right to the same protection as that accorded other families.
a) The families of immigrants have the right to respect for their own culture and to receive support and assistance towards their integration into the community to which they contribute.
b) Emigrant workers have the right to see their family united as soon as possible.
c) Refugees have the right to the assistance of public authorities and International Organizations in facilitating the reunion of their families.
art. 9 Laborem exercens, nos. 10 and 19; Familiaris consortio, no. 45; Universal Declaration, nos. 16, 3 and 22; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, nos. 10, 1. a) Mater et magistra, Part II; Laborem exercens, no. 10; Familiaris consortio, no. 45; Universal Declaration, nos. 22 and 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 7, a, ii. b) Familiaris consortio,nos. 45 and 46; Universal Declaration, no. 25, 1; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, nos. 9, 10, 1 and 10, 2. c) Gaudium et spes, no. 52; Familiaris consortio, no. 27.
%2010.51.46%E2%80%AFa.%C2%A0m..png)
