Latest

Discos in cathedrals and confusion on doctrine have left Anglicanism wanting at a time when many are searching for a counter-cultural truth. But how should a Catholic convert respond to leaving behind the Church of England? And what good can still be carried across the Tiber? I once read that converts from one church to another have a sort of grace period after which criticism of their former denomination becomes mere malice. Having just become a “stinking papist” (to quote Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander ), I thought I might take advantage of this special dispensation. For although I became Catholic for positive reasons, certainly my old Anglican tribe was generous in its provision of negatives. It would be remiss of me, however, to skate over the good. So let me say that when it comes to beauty I have yet to encounter a psalter quite as gorgeous as Coverdale’s. Regarding “our own hateful Cranmer” (as a Servite priest I know once homilised), the 1662 Prayer Book – containing as it does the Anglican Church’s entire liturgy, from baptism to burial of the dead – is a masterclass in convenience. The Prayer Book was my first introduction to the Divine Office, and I was lucky to have had a pastor open to using it. Indeed, soon after my reception into the Anglican Communion, I was given the honour of leading Morning Prayer on Thursdays. I joined the PCC. I began to deacon. I even began seriously to consider the priesthood. I was also part of a Bible study group, for lack of a better term, which we cheekily called The Corinthians. It was in the Corinthians WhatsApp group that things began to unravel. Prompted by a question from one of the members – I’ll call him Bob – the vicar invited us each to submit our definition of Anglicanism. It is difficult to know quite how to describe the resultant confusion without quoting from the exchange. Bob: What’s the Anglican take on the Eucharist? Closer to Catholic or Reformed? Vicar: Unfortunately that can’t be answered. Bob: So in effect it’s left to each person’s interpretation? Vicar: Not exactly. There are people who receive for years without becoming Anglican. Bob: Well tonight has thrown me a bit. I was absolutely convinced the C of E was Protestant. Vicar: Well, it’s good to be thrown. An expression that Anglican theologians have used over the centuries is the via media. We see ourselves as reconcilers, though that also needs unpacking. Bob: On a side note, I thought I’d share something I found amusing yesterday. There’s a church in Mexico that uses crisps and Coke in the Eucharist. Lol. Lol indeed. I like to think this exchange stands alone as a decisive rebuttal of the entire Reformation project. One would have thought, I mean, that the certainty of Cranmer and his heirs – the sheer resolve with which they hunted priests, sacked abbeys, debased the Virgin Mary and reimagined the liturgy – might have corresponded to an equally certain theology of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Not so. What, then, was it all for? The ability to claim, some four hundred years later, to be a “reconciler”? Reconciled to what, exactly? Error? One is reminded of Newman: “Between two extremes, there is no middle way; between truth and error, there is no neutral ground.” The exchange disturbed me tremendously. For though I had prepared my own answer – itself, in retrospect, confused – I had seen that even the beloved fallback of lex orandi, lex credendi could have no purchase in a communion in which some ministers (I had met them) were unwilling to touch the BCP – their own official liturgy – for being too Catholic. For my fiancée and me, there was to be one other event that drove the nail clean into the Anglican coffin. It was summer. The Corinthians had gathered in one of our gardens to discuss Taizé, the ecumenical youth community based in the French village of the same name. A chance comment led to a discussion of whether we ought really to be hosting discos in our historic cathedrals. That is, should we really be exposing the tomb of St Thomas Becket to spillages of vodka and Coke from jiving millennials who at any rate regard the Church of England as the Jesus contingent of the DEI agenda? The answer, obviously, is no. But it fell to the Corinthians’ three youngest members – the very people whom the C of E’s boomer leadership are most desirous to “attract” – to point this out. Our two pastors, on the other hand, exhibited not the slightest whiff of indignation. Specifically, one was indifferent and the other wholeheartedly in favour. The shepherds had abandoned their flock, or at least that portion of their flock who wished to respect tradition. In my experience, Church of England clergy remain dogmatically obsessed with the nostrums of the 1960s and ’70s. They fail to reckon with the urgent spiritual needs of the 2020s. “Women”, “the gays”, “eco churches” are forefront in their minds – the salvation of souls, not so much. (And why would they be? Most are universalists.) Female bishops are the best thing since Evensong. Sex – the very word – is titillating, as though the ravages of the sexual revolution had never manifested themselves. But is the host transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? “Unfortunately that can’t be answered.” And even if it could, “it’s good to be thrown” – a statement flatly incompatible, one would have thought, with the very possibility of sound catechesis. It took me a long time to realise that, in the end, Anglicanism – which began with the cynical power, land and money grab of a schismatic king – exists and has ever existed to keep the faithful from the Blessed Sacrament in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It may on occasion wear the garb of Catholics in the buildings it stole from Catholics. But, like drag queens, all it can do is insult the object of its pantomime. After announcing my intention to swim the Tiber, my old pastor was keen to present me with a list of what he regarded as the Catholic Church’s sins against liberalism, including its stances on abortion and sexual ethics generally. It was supposed to put me off. He couldn’t understand that they were part of the attraction. I am twenty-nine. Many in my generation have wised up to the fact that we have inherited a civilisation at the nadir of its spiritual, intellectual and artistic life. Modernism, that heresy of heresies – comprising as it does liberalism, rationalism, naturalism, secularism, etc – holds sway. Whole books are written about the consequences of these forces, although a brief shopping list would include the trans phenomenon; the ever-expanding “empire of rights” (to travel, to contracept, to abort and soon perhaps to death itself); and the deification of the political process. There is also the growth of New Age spirituality: for our malaise is spiritual, not political, and one might say that the extent to which cultural commentators grasp this – one thinks of Paul Kingsnorth – is the extent to which they are worth reading. Our Lord says: “If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world – therefore the world hates you.” The Church of England has fallen in love with the idea that it might remain relevant by meeting the world on its own terms. It has lost the ability to exhort us to holiness; it has honed the ability to mock the very notion. It will not condemn degeneracy; it will move heaven and earth to justify it. It cannot preach repentance; it can minimise the need. It’s not that the Catholic Church is immune to the same progressive disease. But she has strong antibodies. She has the Catechism. She has Our Lord’s promise in Matthew 16:18. Whatever the views of Catholic parishioners, one may be sure that every particle of the Eucharist is transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is refreshing to expect the “Hail Mary” by default and not because the minister woke up feeling sufficiently orthodox. From a theological point of view, then, I will be glad to see the back of a communion predicated upon the rejection of the Catholic Church. From a social and cultural point of view, I am not so sanguine. For though they lack the Mass, Anglicans do at least use their churches for quintessentially social and religious purposes that, in spite of the Reformation’s initial violent rupture, have after hundreds of years found a settled – and settling – place in the spiritual and artistic life of the nation. In the years to come, more and more of these beautiful buildings will have to close down, a process already well under way and not at all helped by Welby’s recent war on the parish system. Unless the Catholic Church is willing to reclaim them, they will be converted into flats, clubs or mosques. The loss would be incalculable. Could this process have been arrested by an invigorated Prayer Book Anglicanism that held Jewel and Andrewes dearer than Welby and Cottrell? Who knows. The analogue would be the various Catholic Latin Mass societies, which flourish in spite of – and perhaps because of – what can only be described as persecution from above. Cranmer’s Prayer Book may be lacking from a Catholic point of view. But I have seen firsthand its power to attract the young. Many Anglican ministers hate it, not so much for its theology, but because it leaves so little room for them to impose their personalities. There is no rubric that reads: here the minister may play guitar, or: here the minister may employ the gimmick of pacing the nave during his sermon. British Christianity needs oxygen. When it finds it, it will, I suspect, be inhaled by the two great apostolic lungs of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The recent news that Catholics may soon outnumber Anglicans, and already do in the younger age brackets, in England is a symptom of a larger cultural and spiritual renaissance. Thirsty people go to where the water is. And Canterbury is all dried up.

Pope Leo XIV has published the first encyclical of his pontificate, warning that artificial intelligence risks creating a new “Tower of Babel” built on technocratic power, dehumanisation and moral confusion Pope Leo XIV has published the first encyclical of his pontificate, issuing a warning against the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and what he describes as a growing “culture of power” threatening the dignity of the human person. Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), released by the Vatican on 25 May after being held under strict embargo until late Monday morning in Rome, is the Holy Father’s most substantial intervention yet in the global debate surrounding AI and the technological transformation of society. The encyclical argues that humanity now stands between two paths: the construction of a new “Tower of Babel” founded on pride, uniformity and technocratic power, or the rebuilding of a new Jerusalem grounded in solidarity, communion and God-centred human fraternity. “Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together,” the Pope writes in the opening paragraphs of the encyclical. The 230-paragraph document is the first major social encyclical of Leo XIV’s pontificate and immediately places him within the long tradition of modern Catholic social teaching stretching back to Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum in 1891. Far from rejecting technological progress outright, Leo XIV repeatedly insists that technology is a fundamentally human achievement capable of serving the common good. However, he warns that technological systems can never be considered morally neutral and must remain subordinate to the dignity of the human person. “We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral,” the Pope states. The encyclical presents artificial intelligence as one of the defining res novae — “new things” — confronting the modern world, the language traditionally used by the Church to describe the upheavals of the industrial revolution. The document states that unprecedented technological power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of private actors operating beyond effective political oversight, creating new dangers for democracy, labour, truth and peace. “More power does not necessarily imply something better,” it states. Much of the encyclical is devoted to explaining why the Church believes artificial intelligence cannot be equated with human intelligence. The Pope insists that AI systems, however sophisticated, remain incapable of moral reasoning, authentic relationships or genuine human experience. “So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain,” the encyclical says. “Nor do they have a moral conscience.” Leo XIV repeatedly returns to the theme of human dignity, grounding the entire encyclical in the belief that every person possesses an “infinite dignity” rooted in creation in the image of God rather than in usefulness, efficiency or productivity. “The fundamental dignity of each person,” he writes, “is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified.” The Pope warns that the unchecked growth of AI risks creating new forms of dehumanisation in which human beings are valued according to economic output, algorithmic usefulness or digital visibility. He cautions against reducing human judgement to automated systems and criticises cultural movements that treat technological transcendence as a substitute for spiritual fulfilment. One of the most striking sections of the document is its sustained critique of transhumanist and posthumanist ideologies, which seek to overcome biological limitations through technological enhancement. Without naming particular movements or figures, Leo XIV argues that such projects reflect humanity’s recurring temptation to seek salvation apart from God. “Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing,” the encyclical says. The encyclical also addresses the growing political and social consequences of AI-generated misinformation and manipulated media. Leo XIV warns that artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the public square and undermining trust in democratic institutions through the spread of falsehoods and synthetic content. “Disinformation finds a powerful amplifier in AI,” the document states. The Pope argues that truth itself must be defended as a “common good” and calls for what he describes as an “ecology of communication” rooted in responsibility, education and human relationships rather than manipulation and profit. “The search for truth is an essential element of democracy,” he writes. Questions surrounding labour and the future of work occupy another substantial portion of the encyclical. Leo XIV warns against economic systems that prioritise efficiency over workers and expresses concern about automation displacing millions of people while weakening social bonds and family life. The Pope also calls for stronger political oversight of AI systems, greater international cooperation and safeguards against the monopolisation of data and digital infrastructure. In one of the encyclical’s most arresting phrases, Leo XIV urges world leaders to “disarm AI”. “Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition,” the Pope writes, warning against an escalating technological arms race between states and corporations. The document devotes an extended section to the dangers posed by autonomous weapons systems and the growing use of AI in warfare. Leo XIV argues that artificial intelligence is accelerating the pace and destructiveness of conflict while distancing human beings from moral responsibility for violence. “AI acts as an accelerating factor” in changing the nature of war, he writes. The Pope condemns what he calls the “normalisation of war” and criticises a global culture increasingly resigned to permanent conflict, weakened diplomacy and the collapse of multilateral institutions. “This culture of power infiltrates society,” he warns, “normalising war.” Despite the encyclical’s sombre tone, the document concludes on a strongly hopeful note centred on the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Against ideologies promising technological transcendence, Leo XIV points to Christ as the true fulfilment of humanity. “At the heart of everything is the mystery of the Incarnation, the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us,” he writes. The final pages call on Catholics to resist despair and instead help build what the Pope repeatedly describes as a “civilisation of love” capable of directing technological progress towards authentic human flourishing. “In the era of artificial intelligence,” the Pope writes, “when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanisation, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.”

Magnifica Humanitatis will reportedly place human dignity at the centre of the Church’s response to artificial intelligence as Pope Leo XIV addresses war, algorithms and the moral limits of technological progress Pope Leo XIV will publish his first encyclical on Monday, warning against the dangers of transhumanism and the dehumanising effects of artificial intelligence, according to details revealed in advance by Vatican correspondent Nico Spuntoni. The document, titled Magnifica Humanitatis , has reportedly been described inside the Vatican as the defining text of the new pontificate and places the defence of human dignity at the centre of the Church’s response to rapid technological change. According to Spuntoni, the encyclical argues that humanity now stands “at a crossroads between self-sufficiency and solidarity” as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in political, economic and social life. The text frames that struggle through biblical imagery while returning repeatedly to the theological significance of the Incarnation. Nico Spuntoni wrote that Leo XIV presents “contemplation of the Incarnate Word” as the answer to what the Pope calls “the eclipse of the meaning of what it means to be human”. The encyclical is expected to expand substantially on comments made by the Pope shortly after his election when he explained why he had chosen the name Leo. Addressing the College of Cardinals, the Pope said Leo XIII had confronted “the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution”, while the Church today must respond to “another industrial revolution and to the developments of artificial intelligence, which bring new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and work”. Far from rejecting technological development altogether, the encyclical reportedly argues that artificial intelligence must remain subject to moral responsibility and ordered towards the common good. The Pope is also said to warn against any attempt to replace or transcend the human person through technology. Furthermore, Nico Spuntoni reported that Leo XIV criticises those who seek “to transcend humanity through technology”, while insisting on what he previously described as a “healthy sense of proportion” in relation to scientific development. The document reportedly returns several times to the question of human dignity as the measure against which all technological progress must be judged. In one passage referenced by Spuntoni, the Pope stresses that the human person possesses inherent dignity because each person is “willed, created, and loved by God”. That theme had already appeared in the Pope’s message for this year’s World Communications Day, in which he quoted St Gregory of Nyssa’s teaching that mankind possesses “a royal character” because humanity is created in the image of God. According to Nico Spuntoni’s account, the Pope expresses particular concern about what he sees as the erosion of moral accountability through reliance on algorithms and automated systems. The encyclical reportedly develops warnings Leo XIV issued earlier this year in a message for the International Day of Mathematics, when he called for algorithms to respect “the integral growth of the person” and not exclude “the moral dimension of these emerging technologies”. The impact of artificial intelligence on relationships and public discourse also features prominently in the text. Spuntoni said the Pope warns against forms of digital communication that undermine truth and human freedom, echoing earlier appeals from the pontiff for technology to remain at the service of authentic human interaction. The encyclical is also expected to address the military use of artificial intelligence. Pope Leo, who has appealed for peace since his election, reportedly insists on the ethical limits that must govern technological development in the defence sector. Nico Spuntoni suggested the Pope also uses the document to defend multilateral cooperation at a time of increasing geopolitical instability and international fragmentation. The encyclical is also likely to reinforce Leo XIV’s growing reputation as a pontiff deeply shaped by the intellectual legacy of St Augustine and Pope Benedict XVI. Spuntoni noted that the document revisits themes explored by Benedict in Spe Salvi , particularly the danger of mankind placing excessive faith in its own power and technological capability. According to Spuntoni, the Pope rejects the idea that Catholic social teaching is merely sociological or political, instead presenting it as something rooted directly in Christ and the Gospel. Ultimately, the encyclical does not condemn artificial intelligence itself, but instead seeks to direct technological development towards the service of humanity and the common good. In doing so, according to Spuntoni, the Pope expresses hope that mankind can still place technological progress at the service of human dignity rather than allow it to diminish or replace it. The topic of the text is as expected. The Pope’s choice of name and subsequent comments on artificial intelligence made it almost certain that this would be the theme of his first encyclical. The antimilitarist stance is also not surprising. However, the succinct way in which the pontiff has drawn together two major themes of his pontificate is characteristic of both the diplomatic ability and quiet confidence he has exuded since taking office. JD Vance has already said that he is “looking forward to reading” Magnifica Humanitatis, and it is likely that the text will prove influential on the world stage. By linking war with the topic of AI, the Pope has adeptly given world leaders a way to discuss the need for restraint in conflict without stoking partisan tensions. The full text will be presented tomorrow at 11.30am in the Vatican’s Synod Hall. It will be signed on 15 May, matching the date of the signing and publication of Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s best-known encyclical, issued on 15 May 1891. The same date was also chosen in 1931 by Pope Pius XI for Quadragesimo Anno, which developed the Church’s teaching on social order and introduced the principle of subsidiarity. Thirty years later, on 15 May 1961, Pope John XXIII promulgated Mater et Magistra, focusing on economic justice and social development. The date of release, 25 May, also coincides with Pope John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint, on ecumenism, which was released on 25 May 1995, and Pope Leo XIII’s Annum Sacrum, released on 25 May 1899, which consecrated the entire human race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Archbishop Petrus Canisius Mandagi has accused the makers of a controversial documentary on development projects in Papua of producing “one-sided” propaganda Archbishop Petrus Canisius Mandagi has accused the makers of a controversial documentary about development projects in Papua of producing “one-sided” propaganda as tensions deepen between Indonesians and Indigenous Papuans. The Archbishop of Merauke criticised the film Pig Feast: Colonialism of Our Time for excluding the perspective of clergy in his archdiocese while amplifying accusations that the Church had aligned itself with companies linked to deforestation and the Indonesian government’s National Strategic Project. “Why did they not come to ask the bishop or the priests who live here?” Archbishop Mandagi said in comments released by the archdiocese on May 21. “They only took opinions from those who share the film’s purpose.” The documentary examines the expansion of food estate and bioenergy projects across South Papua and alleges that vast areas of indigenous land are being converted into industrial plantations. It includes criticism from Bishop Bernardus Bofitwos Baru, who has repeatedly warned of the environmental and social consequences of large-scale development in the region. Archbishop Mandagi questioned why the filmmakers had interviewed bishops from outside Merauke while overlooking the local hierarchy. He also rejected claims that his archdiocese had endorsed the destruction of forests or cooperated with companies involved in the projects. He described the allegations as “a major slander”. The Archbishop also objected to the documentary’s use of the pig feast ceremony as a political symbol, arguing that the tradition held deep spiritual significance among Papuan communities. “The pig feast is sacred. It strengthens brotherhood and connects people with God,” he said. “If it is used as a political tool, it becomes an insult to Papuans.” The controversy continues a bitter dispute between Archbishop Mandagi and sections of the Catholic laity of Papuan origin, where protests against the National Strategic Project have continued for months. The National Strategic Project is Indonesia’s large-scale infrastructure and economic programme designated by the government to drive economic growth, improve public welfare and accelerate regional development. However, for many indigenous Papuans, the project is centred on the massive Merauke food, sugarcane and bioethanol estate in South Papua, which they say has resulted in widespread human rights violations, severe environmental degradation and systematic displacement. The Voice of the Papuan Catholic Laity, a movement of indigenous Catholics which has organised demonstrations outside churches since 2024, accuses the Archbishop of siding with state authorities and corporate interests against local communities. Relations deteriorated further after Archbishop Mandagi warned during a homily in April that protesters disrupting churches would “perish”, remarks which triggered fresh demonstrations and renewed calls for his resignation. Soleman Itlay, a leading figure in the lay movement, said the Archbishop’s latest intervention came only after public criticism intensified. “Why didn’t he speak before?” he said while disputing the Archbishop’s denial of support for the National Strategic Project. “He has previously made public statements endorsing these projects. He has received company executives and military officials at the diocesan office, while closing the door to us, the indigenous Papuans.” The lay movement formally demanded Archbishop Mandagi’s resignation earlier this month in a nine-point open letter which accused the 78-year-old prelate of harming the archdiocese and alienating indigenous Catholics. The letter alleged that Archbishop Mandagi had “manipulated the pulpit” against priests and members of the congregation and accused him of fostering “anger, resentment, hatred and anxiety” within the Church. The Archbishop was also accused of maintaining close relations with corporations involved in the strategic development projects and of supporting programmes which indigenous Papuans say threaten forests, livelihoods and ancestral land. Archbishop Mandagi has consistently denied backing environmental destruction and has defended his cautious public approach to the projects. “Silence is also a way of resisting,” he said in the recent interview. “If I speak, my words will be twisted and may divide the Church.” He also criticised what he described as selective outrage over development in South Papua. “There are big eyes on South Papua, but no eyes on destruction elsewhere,” he said in an apparent reference to mining operations in other parts of Papua. Criticism of the National Strategic Project has also increased among environmental campaigners and human rights advocates, who say the programme risks transforming large areas of rainforest and wetland into industrial estates. Reports cited by activists claim concessions covering more than 560,000 hectares have already been granted to companies linked to sugarcane plantations, while wider plans envision the conversion of millions of hectares of forest, swamp and savanna into agricultural land. Archbishop Mandagi, a member of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, previously served as Bishop of Amboina before being appointed Apostolic Administrator of Merauke in 2019 and Archbishop the following year. The Archdiocese of Merauke is home to around 100,000 Catholics, many of them indigenous Papuans living in impoverished rural communities.

Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández has criticised a 2006 Vatican doctrinal notification against liberation theologian Fr Jon Sobrino, arguing it risked portraying theology rooted in “the context of the poor” as “inadequate and dangerous”. Speaking in Rome, the DDF prefect also revealed his own defence of “contextual theology” once caused difficulties with the doctrinal dicastery Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández has criticised a 2006 Vatican doctrinal notification against the Jesuit theologian Fr Jon Sobrino. Speaking at the Pontifical Urban University in Rome on 12 May, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith said the notification, issued by the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal William Levada, appeared to suggest that “theology made in the context of the poor is inadequate and dangerous”. The Argentine cardinal made the remarks during the opening address of a study day titled “Milestones in Contextual Theology Today”, in which he spoke at length on theological development, inculturation and the influence of Pope Francis on contemporary Catholic thought. The 2006 notification, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, examined two works by the Spanish Jesuit Fr Jon Sobrino, a leading figure in liberation theology. The congregation concluded the books contained “notable discrepancies with the faith of the Church”, particularly in relation to Christology, the divinity of Christ and the methodological foundations of theological reflection. In the document, the congregation objected to Fr Sobrino’s assertion that “the poor” constitute a privileged theological locus in Latin American theology. It argued instead “the ecclesial foundation of Christology may not be identified with ‘the Church of the poor’, but is found rather in the apostolic faith transmitted through the Church for all generations”. Cardinal Fernández directly addressed those criticisms in his lecture, recalling that many Latin American theologians had struggled to understand parts of the notification. “One of the strong points of Latin American theology is the importance of taking the historical context into account in theological reflection,” he said. “The problem with this document is that it applies the expression ‘from’ only to ecclesial tradition, in such a way that expressions such as ‘thinking from pastoral experience’, ‘thinking from motherhood’, or ‘thinking from the suffering of the poor’ are excluded.” He added: “What we call ‘contextual theology’ would always be viewed with suspicion.” The cardinal argued the notification did not sufficiently encourage theologians to engage with the social realities surrounding them. “This does not encourage the effort to take seriously the context in which theological reflection takes place,” he said. “It seems to indicate rather that theology made in the context of the poor is inadequate and dangerous, that is, that the life of the poor may occupy only a marginal place in the reflection of faith.” Cardinal Fernández also revealed his own defence of contextual theology caused difficulties with the doctrinal dicastery more than a decade ago. He recalled publishing an article in 2007, shortly before the Latin American bishops’ conference at Aparecida, in which he argued although the faith of the Church remained the “fundamental point of departure”, this did not exclude “other complementary points of departure” linked to concrete historical situations. The article resurfaced in 2010 when the Argentine episcopate proposed him as rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina. According to Cardinal Fernández, the doctrinal congregation delayed granting the required nihil obstat after concerns were raised over the text. “There was at that time an exchange of letters with the dicastery, which forced me to publish a new article in which I would have to retract my affirmations,” His Eminence said. Instead, he published a second article in 2011 in which he restated his earlier arguments while stressing “it is precisely the faith of the Church that provides the most solid and profound foundations to look at the poor as God looks at them”. He also maintained fidelity to tradition alone could leave Christians indifferent to the circumstances in which people suffer. “The simple fact of accepting the tradition of the Church can leave us indifferent to the history into which God has inserted us, if at the same time we do not have our eyes open to what is happening around us,” he said. Cardinal Fernández linked those ideas closely to the pontificate of Pope Francis, saying the late pope had consistently insisted reality is better understood from the peripheries and through the experience of the poor. Cardinal Fernández quoted from Francis’s 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, in which the pope warned against abstract thinking detached from lived reality. “The idea disconnected from reality gives rise to ineffective idealisms and nominalisms,” the passage states. “What engages people is reality illuminated by reason.” The lecture also explored the relationship between contextual theology and inculturation, which Cardinal Fernández described as interconnected but distinct processes. Inculturation, he said, involves the long-term embedding of the Gospel within a culture, while contextual theology responds more immediately to particular historical events and social circumstances. Drawing on the documents of the Second Vatican Council, he argued theological reflection develops more fully when it engages with the experiences and cultures of different peoples. He cited the decree Ad Gentes, which called for theological research to re-examine revealed truths within differing socio-cultural settings, and said such engagement allows aspects of revelation to emerge may otherwise remain unnoticed. Cardinal Fernández also referred to the thought of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II in support of his argument. He quoted Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est: “Closing our eyes to our neighbour also blinds us to God.” He also cited John Paul II’s Novo Millennio Ineunte, in which the Polish pope wrote that Christ must be recognised especially in the faces of those with whom He identified Himself. The cardinal further argued that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself had previously recognised the value of contextual theology. He pointed to the 1986 instruction Libertatis Conscientia, issued under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which stated that theological reflection developed “starting from a particular experience” could make a “very positive contribution” by highlighting dimensions of the Word of God not previously perceived in full. Although Cardinal Fernández criticised aspects of the 2006 notification, he did not reject the authority of Church doctrine or dogmatic formulations. Instead, he repeatedly insisted that contextual theology must remain linked to revelation and the faith of the Church. “The faith of the Church is certainly the fundamental point of departure, the principal theological locus,” he said, while arguing that historical and social realities also shape how revelation is understood and expressed. The original notification on Fr Sobrino emerged during a period of heightened Vatican scrutiny of liberation theology in Latin America. While the movement’s concern for the poor was frequently praised by Rome, Church authorities also warned against interpretations influenced by Marxist analysis or approaches thought to weaken orthodox teaching on Christ and salvation. Fr Sobrino, who taught for many years in El Salvador and was closely associated with the murdered Archbishop St Óscar Romero, became one of liberation theology’s most prominent theologians.

Germany’s bishops are continuing to press Rome on women deacons. Bishop Franz Jung has said that Pope Leo XIV received a “very clear vote in favour” from the country’s episcopal conference following the Katholikentag gathering in Würzburg The German bishops have renewed pressure on Rome to permit women to be ordained as deacons, with Bishop Franz Jung of Würzburg declaring that the country’s episcopal conference had given Pope Leo XIV a “very clear vote in favour of the female diaconate”. Speaking after the conclusion of the Katholikentag in Würzburg, one of Germany’s largest gatherings of Catholic laity and clergy, Bishop Jung said the question of women deacons remained firmly on the agenda of the Church and would not disappear “any time soon”. “We, as the German Bishops’ Conference, have done everything we can,” he told Mainpost.de. “We have very clearly expressed our support in Rome for the diaconate of women. Now it is up to him how things proceed.” The issue of women deacons has become one of the defining fault lines within the global Church in recent years, particularly since the launch of Germany’s Synodal Way in 2019 where German bishops and lay delegates repeatedly backed calls for expanded roles for women, including access to ordained ministries. Pope Francis established two commissions during his pontificate to study the historical question of female deacons in the early Church, but neither resulted in any definitive change. Shortly before his death, Francis authorised the publication of findings from a Vatican study group examining the subject further, although no conclusions were reached on whether women could sacramentally receive the diaconate. Bishop Jung suggested that the election of Pope Leo XIV had not diminished expectations among German bishops that movement might eventually come from Rome. “The issue is on the agenda,” he said, adding that the bishops were now “eager to see what happens”. His intervention came after a Katholikentag heavily focused on questions of Church reform, political engagement and the role of Catholics in German public life. Held under the slogan “Have courage, stand up!”, the gathering drew senior politicians, clergy and lay activists for five days of debates, liturgies and public events across Würzburg. Jung described the event as a success, praising what he called the “joie de vivre and festive spirit” of participants. He said the motto had resonated strongly because it connected with “personal, religious and socio-political” concerns at a time of growing division in society. The event came under criticism after a video of the event appeared to show a woman holding a chalice and reciting the words of consecration while a priest stood behind her. The bishop also defended the organisers’ decision not to invite representatives of the Alternative für Deutschland party, saying the AfD’s “view of humanity does not correspond to the Christian one”. He also pointed to what he described as the party’s “explicitly anti-church stance”. However, the event included other groups and speakers from outside the Church’s traditional structures. The exclusion of the AfD continued the increasingly overt political tone adopted by sections of the German Church hierarchy in recent years, particularly on migration, nationalism and climate policy. Critics, however, argue that Church events have become excessively politicised and risk alienating ordinary Catholics concerned primarily with faith and worship. Bishop Jung rejected those criticisms, insisting that the Katholikentag maintained a balance between political discussion and spiritual life. “Many people come to the Catholic Congress to recharge their spirits and pray together in a large community,” he said, adding that spiritual events during the gathering had been filled to capacity. Among the highlights of the event, he said, was a discussion with former Green Party leader Ricarda Lang on the conference theme of courage and public witness. He also praised a youth prayer service featuring praise, worship and testimonies of faith, saying the enthusiasm of young Catholics had renewed his energy after an exhausting week. The debate surrounding women deacons nevertheless overshadowed much of the wider discussion, continuing the tensions between the German Church and Rome over the direction of reform. The Vatican has consistently distinguished the question of women deacons from the priesthood, but senior cardinals and theologians remain divided over whether historical evidence supports the existence of sacramental female deacons in the early Church. Germany’s bishops have emerged as some of the strongest advocates for change. During sessions of the Synodal Way, delegates repeatedly approved texts calling for women to be admitted to ordained ministries, same-sex blessings and revisions to Catholic teaching on sexuality. The Vatican responded on several occasions with unusually direct interventions. In 2022, the Holy See warned that the Synodal Way had “no authority” to oblige bishops and faithful to adopt new forms of governance or doctrine. A year later, senior German bishops were summoned to Rome for talks over mounting concern about the trajectory of reforms. Yet despite those warnings, bishops such as Jung continue to present the female diaconate as unfinished business within the universal Church. Asked whether he expected Pope Leo XIV to visit Germany in the near future, Jung said he could not say, but added that Würzburg would “certainly roll out the red carpet for him” should such a visit take place.