The Vatican

Pope Leo XIV has appointed Sister Alessandra Smerilli as Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, making her the second woman to lead a Roman Curia dicastery. We examine her background, her rise through the Curia, and the wider development of women’s leadership in the Vatican over the past two decades Pope Leo has appointed Sister Smerilli as Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. The appointment will take effect on 1 September 2026. Born in Vasto, Italy, she entered the Salesian Sisters of Don Bosco in 1997, where she continued her studies in economics. In June 2006, she obtained a doctorate in political economy from the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. She joined the Roman Curia during the pontificate of Pope Francis when, in 2021, she was appointed Under-Secretary for the Faith and Development Sector of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. She was then named interim Secretary on 26 August 2021, which made her the first woman to hold the second-ranking position in a dicastery of the Roman Curia, and the highest-ranking woman in the Curia at the time. In April 2022, her role as Secretary was made permanent. In 2021, she received the Order of the Star of Italy, one of Italy’s national honours, in recognition of her academic work and contribution to ethical business and finance. Women have been appointed to positions in the Roman Curia for more than twenty years. The first was in 2004, when Pope Saint John Paul II appointed Sr Enrica Rosanna, also a Salesian Sister of Don Bosco, as an Under-Secretary of a Roman Curia dicastery at the then Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Flaminia Giovanelli as Under-Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, making her the first laywoman to hold a senior leadership post in a dicastery. In 2011, Sr Nicla Spezzati was appointed Under-Secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. During the latter part of his pontificate, Pope Francis took the cautious work of his predecessors considerably further. In 2021, he appointed Sister Nathalie Becquart as Under-Secretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, making her the first woman to hold the post. In 2022, he appointed Raffaella Petrini, Sister Yvonne Reungoat and María Lía Zervino as the first women to become members of the Dicastery for Bishops. In 2023, he appointed Sister Simona Brambilla as Secretary of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, before promoting her to Prefect in 2025, making her the first woman to lead a Roman Curia dicastery. The Pope has also made a number of other appointments within the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. Alongside Sister Alessandra Smerilli as Prefect, he has named Cardinal Fabio Baggio as Pro-Prefect with special responsibility for the Laudato si’ Higher Education Centre, and Monsignor Jozef Barlaš as Secretary.

What did the cardinals make of Pope Leo XIV’s second Extraordinary Consistory? Over the past week, AdVaticanum has spoken to members of the College of Cardinals, both before and after the gathering, on and off the record. This exclusive report brings together those conversations, offering a rare insight into what was really discussed behind closed doors. As Pope Leo XIV hands the Metropolitan Archbishops their palliums today, Monday 29 June, in St Peter’s Basilica, this exclusive feature presents the behind-the-scenes, unfiltered reflections of the Church’s Princes regarding the debates that took place during the Extraordinary Consistory on Friday 26 and Saturday 27 June. Over the past week, AdVaticanum has engaged in in-depth conversations with several members of the College of Cardinals, some speaking on the record and others preferring to speak off the record, both before and after the Consistory. These senior voices offer a rare glimpse into what actually went on and what may yet unfold in the Church. Compared to Pope Leo XIV’s inaugural Extraordinary Consistory in January, the atmosphere of this Consistory felt distinctly different from the very beginning. The January Consistory began with afternoon sessions. This time, however, the schedule was quietly revised in favour of intensive morning sessions. This change, which meant the first day began with Holy Mass at 7 a.m., required earlier arrivals and a tighter format that limited the usual interactions which had characterised the first Consistory. Furthermore, the deliberate move away from the more open media engagement of January was immediately noticeable. During the first Consistory, daily press briefings and the occasional comment from a cardinal followed each day’s sessions. This time, however, journalists received only an official summary from the Holy See Press Office, creating the feeling of a media blackout. This should not have come as a surprise, as Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re’s pre-Consistory letter had already set the tone for the entire gathering. In the letter sent to the College of Cardinals, the Dean, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, laid out clear expectations regarding the tone and conduct of the meeting. Under the heading “Confidentiality”, the document stated: “You are asked to maintain confidentiality regarding the proceedings and not to release any statements to the press during the Consistory. A press conference will be held at the end. It is recommended that you do not reveal the attribution of the speakers.” Multiple cardinals, when contacted privately by several Vatican correspondents, sent almost identical cautious replies even before the Consistory: “We will wait… we can’t comment even after the Consistory… we’ll wait for the press conference.” Inadvertently, this media blackout created an atmosphere of mild tension in which journalists relied on behind-the-scenes conversations and anonymous reflections. Those conversations often carried more weight than the official meditations and statements issued by the Holy See Press Office, precisely because official Vatican channels had been so deliberately constrained. Beyond the general atmosphere of the June Consistory, attendance was also noteworthy. Of the roughly 241 current members of the College of Cardinals, 178 participated. This marked a modest increase from the approximately 170 cardinals who attended the first Extraordinary Consistory in January. However, overshadowing this was reporting by Il Giornale Vatican correspondent Nico Spuntoni, who revealed that several prominent conservative voices were absent, including Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong, Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk of Utrecht, and Cardinal Péter Erdő of Esztergom-Budapest. AdVaticanum also has been informed that certain Rome-based cardinals were not in attendance due to advanced age. For example, prominent figures such as Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, the longtime secretary to Pope John Paul II, did not attend the Consistory. While some cardinals who had missed the first Consistory did attend the second, including Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop Emeritus of Vienna, after recovering from a health scare, other prelates, particularly those from regions further from the Vatican, were absent from both Consistories. Examples include Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes of Managua and Cardinal Ignatius Suharyo Hardjoatmodjo of Indonesia. Prior to the Consistory, many cardinals offered measured and largely positive comments when speaking to AdVaticanum. Italian Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, for instance, stated: “I am deeply grateful to Pope Leo for the Consistory in January and the one scheduled for June. Convening cardinals from around the world is an expression of the Pope’s pastoral concern.” The Cardinal Emeritus of Genoa went on to say: “The cardinals’ specialty is to assist the Supreme Pontiff in his lofty task of governance. The Consistory is always an experience of ecclesial communion and a great enrichment: 200 men come from all over the world to pray and reflect with the Pope on selected themes. My hope is that the Holy Father will increasingly sense our fraternal closeness and filial support, both from us and, through us, from the entire Church.” Papabile Cardinal Maung Bo said he was “really happy to be here” and that he “loved the Pope”, adding that he was thankful the Holy Father had invited them to Rome again “to discuss the real issues”. Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich similarly commented that the cardinals, united as the College of the Church, must “protect and represent the Church well in this Consistory.” Yet this public-facing tone contrasted sharply with the private conversations AdVaticanum had with several cardinals in the days before the sessions began. Before even discussing this Consistory, many of the cardinals who wished to speak first reflected on the January gathering. A few praised it; however, the majority of those I spoke to did not. Speaking about the voting process used to determine the discussion topics, one conservative cardinal said: “There was this votation, but now we have a very wide program, no? This is not only one point, but one theme. And I don’t know how, at the end, it will work.” However, a few cardinals begged to differ. Cardinal Napier told AdVaticanum that he was quite surprised by the complaints about the synodal-style voting at the discussion tables. “I went there with an open mind, and I thought, I accept—I accepted or expected, maybe even accepted, that everyone was doing the same. “Pope Leo offered us an opportunity to deal with topics which we had been advised about beforehand, and we had time to prepare which ones we would like to deal with, and just put them in the order of priority that we’d want to deal with them.” Similarly, a liberal cardinal from South America thought that the topics themselves were not necessarily rooted in the needs of every region: “Yeah, it’s just a question about the main needs for the Church today, but it’s not—it’s not, uh, absolutely strange. We have the great challenges in the world of today. Countries are different.” Similarly, the conservative cardinal who spoke to AdVaticanum about the voting system later told us: “In Europe, we have these wrong ideas, ideologies, wrong ideas of human existence and essence, and the goal of human existence, the wrong anthropology, LGBT, and the destruction of the family, or of one’s own identity, of the importance of the body.” Turning to the June Consistory itself, one issue some cardinals believed had been overlooked was the question of the liturgy. “No, but it’s not forbidden to speak about all these questions about the liturgy, because liturgy is in the Catholic faith, and life is the main mission of the Church, the veneration of God, the transmission of grace in the seven sacraments, in the prayers, and in the worship of God.” However, a liberal cardinal told AdVaticanum: “I don’t think too many of us would have been overcome. Not all of us are upset about those not getting liturgy to the fore.” Similarly, there was also concern among moderate and conservative cardinals regarding Cardinal Grech’s emphasis on synodality. A European moderate cardinal said: “Until now, he has not been able to give a definition of what synodality is. What can we implement? Synodality is not a revealed reality.” A former Curial cardinal went further, saying: “It’s only a form of working together of everybody in the Church, but has nothing to do with the Synod of Bishops.” Cardinal Müller told AdVaticanum before the Consistory: “The Synod of Bishops is a realisation of the collegiality of the bishops, but now when it is opened to laypeople and other priests, it has nothing to do with the synod in the classical sense. There’s no ecclesiastical basis, no?” He continued: “Like in this working group, I think nine, where they introduced homosexuality as the same form of living together, like a sex matrimony of man and woman, no? And in another working group, they really devised the sacramentality of priesthood, no? And this is a very vile way to change the doctrine, the revealed doctrine of the Church, no? This is manipulation, no?” However, it is important to note that this Consistory was not viewed by many as a litmus test of Pope Leo. As one conservative cardinal from Africa put it: “He has still not appointed cardinals, but some bishops, but it’s not at the highest level.” He continued: “But in his homilies, and what he said in Spain, in the Parliament, for example, or the encyclical, it’s a higher level, no? Intellectual level, no? I think he understands it.” More colourfully, a non-voting cardinal, who insisted that his remarks remain firmly off the record, remarked: “For the stupid people, it’s an invitation to present their stupidities. The past few years it’s been a little bit dangerous to speak out the Catholic truth, which was not wanted, no?” As these pre-Consistory questions began to be answered, the Consistory itself commenced. AdVaticanum reported extensively on the official proceedings in previous coverage. However, what was said behind closed doors was another story. Unsurprisingly, the first day was calm and largely uneventful, focusing on the meditative reflections delivered by Cardinal Ryś. One conservative cardinal commented simply: “I think they addressed the subject in a very thoughtful way.” Another moderate cardinal added: “I think it was a good meditation.” Then came the bombshell intervention from Cardinal Müller. Nico Spuntoni of Il Giornale reported that Cardinal Gerhard Müller used his free intervention to address the SSPX directly. The cardinal called for a clear doctrinal response to the Fraternity’s recent open letter to the Pope and the College of Cardinals, while proposing the establishment of a new Pontifical Commission modelled on the former Ecclesia Dei to facilitate the return to full communion of those affected by the upcoming episcopal consecrations which have no papal mandate. Prior to Cardinal Müller’s intervention, the German cardinal spoke exclusively to AdVaticanum about what he described as the grave danger of schism posed by the SSPX and the Church’s duty to address it. “Cardinals cannot neglect this theme, because it’s a system. There’s a great number of, of course, faithful souls. Faithful, and they are going the wrong way,” His Eminence warned. Cardinal Müller continued: “And the schism is always very bad for the Church. Saint Augustine had all his life questions with the Donatists, and this separation and these divisions was responsible.” Drawing on historical examples, Müller added: “And later the Church was not able to resist Islam, no? And the Jansenists and the Old Catholics, these schisms, it’s all the type of wound of the Body of Jesus Christ, no?” Cardinals who defended Cardinal Müller told AdVaticanum that, “Cardinals are not absolutely bound to the thematic.” After the Consistory, Cardinal Müller simply told AdVaticanum that “the best kings were always those who had the best counselors.” AdVaticanum was also told that there was “no verbal resonance” and “no pushback” and that the Pope did not react and remained stoic throughout the intervention. A former Curial conservative cardinal defended Cardinal Müller, saying: “They were called for interventions, and I mean, at least I and a number of my brother cardinals were, were very concerned that this crisis is going on with regard to the SSPX, and we never addressed it. So I was happy that Cardinal Müller made his intervention.” However, this isn’t the full story, as many moderate and liberal cardinals also had their grievances. A liberal cardinal told AdVaticanum : “My first thought when I heard him launching out on that was, ‘Here’s a man who’s not actually respecting the agenda, and the Pope has drawn up the agenda, or the other cardinals who’ve come here to discuss the agenda.'” Even a conservative cardinal said: “He’s going off on a tangent. But I know Müller quite well, so I’m not terribly surprised that he took that angle.” A moderate added: “I must say I’m disappointed that, even at this stage, he was blaming Francis for everything that was going wrong in the Church. Now, already in these early days, it seems he’s pointing to Leo.” AdVaticanum spoke to a table of cardinals, and one of them told us: “I must honestly say, at our table, most of us said, ‘Oh, there he goes again.’ That would have been the reaction because it’s not on the agenda.” After this bombshell, there were a few discussions about the liturgy, albeit briefly. From what AdVaticanum understands, concerns were raised about liturgical reverence. One internal conversation between cardinals touched on liturgical abuse, with one saying: “There’s too many—too much freedom in people doing what they feel is right, but not necessarily following what the Church understands of that particular aspect of the liturgy.” On the second day, things heated up following Cardinal Brislin’s meditation, which was generally praised. However, it was Cardinal Grech’s presentation on synodality that proved most divisive. Speaking during the final sessions of Pope Leo XIV’s Extraordinary Consistory, Cardinal Grech argued that the Church had reached the point where synodality could no longer be regarded as a temporary initiative or isolated ecclesial project, but as a permanent dimension of Catholic life. Presenting his report on the implementation of the Synod, Cardinal Grech told the assembly that the Church was entering “a new stage in the reception of the Second Vatican Council”, moving beyond the Synod on Synodality itself towards the practical application of its conclusions in dioceses throughout the world. Rather than presenting synodality as a programme with a defined end, he proposed it as a lasting way of exercising ecclesial responsibility through listening, discernment and shared participation. A conservative cardinal did not hold back, saying: “It was not acceptable. I don’t accept it. That final document is a document of the ordinary magisterium; that is not true. The Pope can only declare the ordinary magisterium on the basis of the doctrine of the deposit of the faith.” Other interventions included that of Cardinal Rouco, Archbishop Emeritus of Madrid. He explained what synodality was and was not, criticising it by appealing to the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. Summarising his speech, one cardinal said: “He pointed out that there is nothing in the tradition of canon law regarding synodality; yes, there is on synods, but synods were viewed as extraordinary events to seek consultation from the faithful, from the bishops, whoever it may be. But it certainly was never conceived as an essential mark of the Church, or as a way for the Church to conduct her life.” This paved the way for the free interventions on the final day, when the Consistory reached its most intense point as Cardinal Burke decided to intervene against synodality. In an exclusive account compiled by AdVaticanum from multiple cardinals who listened attentively to his remarks, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke delivered a substantive free intervention. In particular, addressing the Final Report of Study Group No. 9 concerning theological and methodological criteria for shared discernment on emerging doctrinal, pastoral and ethical questions, Burke focused significant attention on its section dealing with the “experiences of believing homosexual persons”. Numerous cardinals reported that he described the publication as manifesting “the very grave difficulty with the current direction and functioning of the Synod”. Arguing that, even though it was presented as the work of a study group, its integration into the broader synodal direction gives it weight as part of the official “theological and methodological synodal criteria”. Numerous sources told us that Cardinal Burke warned that the report, by invoking a so-called “paradigm shift”, takes a path divergent from the Church’s perennial moral teaching on the homosexual condition and corresponding acts. He defended the Courage apostolate, long supported by faithful Catholics seeking to live chastely, as a model pastoral response developed under a holy priest, while criticising the document for slandering such efforts and appearing to validate agendas in “open opposition to the traditional moral doctrine of the Church”. His Eminence called for restoring the Synod’s proper integrity under the Successor of St Peter, ensuring authentic dialogue remained rooted in divine truth, the objective moral order and the inspirations of the Holy Spirit rather than individual inclinations or worldly ideologies. He concluded by invoking St John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor in defence of immutable moral norms as a service to true freedom. According to those familiar with the closed-door proceedings, Cardinal Burke’s intervention resonated strongly and garnered notable support even from several moderate cardinals. While a number of more progressive and Curial cardinals appeared visibly disgruntled, some reacting almost as if inebriated by discomfort at the direct challenge to prevailing synodal directions. However, there were less contentious interventions as well. Cardinal Wilton Gregory spoke movingly about his forefathers being brought in chains as slaves to the United States, describing it as the “worst memory in the life of mankind that was possible.” Furthermore, it was confirmed to AdVaticanum by a cardinal that the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) was raised during a free intervention. The cardinal said: “I do believe that one or two of the cardinals, I think from North America in particular, have commented on how the numbers of young Catholics are coming back to the Eucharist, but coming precisely to those churches where the old liturgy is being celebrated.” A liberal cardinal corroborated this, saying: “Now, whether it’s the language, I don’t know if it’s in Latin or whether it’s in English, but whether it’s also because the priests are observing the instructions more closely, they are talking about the old liturgy.” Furthermore, Cardinal Goh of Singapore also spoke publicly in defence of the Latin Mass during his intervention, AdVaticanum can reveal. Looking ahead, attention is already turning to the next Consistory, which is expected to take place next year. After two Extraordinary Consistories, several cardinals indicated that liturgical questions are likely to be the next major subject for discussion, although plans could yet change. While there appeared to be broad appreciation among the cardinals for Pope Leo XIV’s leadership and willingness to foster open discussion, the synodal format remained a point of unease for some participants. Yet the overriding impression was that the atmosphere within the College of Cardinals had shifted. As one cardinal remarked: “I think with a new Pope, everybody feels free, and that’s absolutely clear.”

The final session of Pope Leo XIV’s Extraordinary Consistory focused on the future of synodality, as Cardinal Mario Grech told the College of Cardinals that the Church was entering a new stage in implementing the Synod’s conclusions Cardinal Mario Grech has declared that the Church’s synodal process is entering a permanent new phase, insisting that synodality must become embedded in the ordinary life and governance of the Catholic Church. In an address to the Extraordinary Consistory, the Secretary General of the Synod described the implementation of synodality as “a new stage in the reception of the Second Vatican Council”. Speaking during the final sessions of Pope Leo XIV’s Extraordinary Consistory, Cardinal Grech argued that the Church had reached the point where synodality could no longer be regarded as a temporary initiative or isolated ecclesial project, but as a permanent dimension of Catholic life. Presenting his report on the implementation of the Synod, Cardinal Grech told the assembly that the Church was entering “a new stage in the reception of the Second Vatican Council”, moving beyond the Synod on Synodality itself towards the practical application of its conclusions in dioceses throughout the world. Rather than presenting synodality as a programme with a defined end, he proposed it as a lasting way of exercising ecclesial responsibility through listening, discernment, and shared participation. The Maltese cardinal’s intervention was the centrepiece of the Consistory’s fourth and final working session, held in the Synod Hall on Friday afternoon under the moderation of Cardinal Joseph Tobi. Cardinals subsequently reflected on the report, agreeing that further work was needed to deepen both the historical and ascetical dimensions of synodality, while ensuring that its implementation strengthened, rather than distracted from, the Church’s evangelical mission. Several speakers also emphasised the need to present “a beautiful, creative, evangelical, yet non-clerical image of the priesthood”, according to the Holy See Press Office, while cautioning against allowing consultation processes to become so complex that they burden the Church’s witness. The discussion also reaffirmed that “the hierarchical Church and the People of God both participate, in different ways, in discerning what the Spirit is saying to the Church”, while recognising the contribution that the Eastern Catholic Churches could make through their long-established synodal traditions. Cardinal Grech’s intervention followed a morning devoted to Pope Leo XIV’s new social encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas , with cardinals considering how the Church should respond to the social, political, and technological challenges shaping the modern world. The day’s principal meditation was delivered by Cardinal Stephen Brislin, who reflected on the encyclical under the title Building for the Common Good: the Building Sites of Our Time . The Cardinal focused on the biblical contrast between Babel and Jerusalem and argued that both cities represented collective human endeavour, yet embodied radically different understandings of progress. Babel, he said, demonstrated that “unity sought without God ultimately leads to the confusion of tongues – that is, to fragmentation and disintegration”, whereas Jerusalem symbolised human intelligence placed at the service of God and directed towards “promoting the dignity of every person”. The cardinal said the encyclical asked a fundamental question extending far beyond technological innovation: “What form does human endeavour take when it has access to ever more effective tools?” While artificial intelligence formed part of that discussion, the deeper issue was whether technological progress was accompanied by a corresponding sense of moral responsibility or whether it risked exposing humanity to “new forms of exclusion and reductionism”. Cardinal Brislin argued that the answer lay not in rejecting technology but in ensuring that human progress remained rooted in Christian anthropology. He pointed to four principles identified in the encyclical’s introduction — desire, limitation, shared responsibility, and discernment — describing them as the “grammar of building” needed if society was to pursue the common good rather than technological progress for its own sake. Human desire for happiness, he said, should not be dismissed but purified. “When happiness is reduced to performance or control, it impoverishes the person; when it is shaped by faith, it rediscovers its proper measure in our relationship with God, with others, and with our common home.” Equally important was recovering an appreciation of human limitation. Rather than viewing fragility as a defect to be eliminated, Cardinal Brislin said recognising limits reminded humanity that life was “a gift to be received and safeguarded”, enabling society to recognise the dignity of those marked by illness, disability, or old age. The cardinal also linked the principle of shared responsibility directly to Catholic social teaching, saying that “the common good flourishes when every individual can contribute their part and be supported in doing so”. No individual possessed the whole project, he observed, and “no one builds alone”. The conclusion of the encyclical, Cardinal Brislin continued, showed how these themes were fulfilled through the theological virtues of faith, charity, and hope. Faith revealed history as sustained by God’s saving plan through the Incarnation, charity found its source in the Eucharist, and hope enabled Christians to continue building what the document called the “civilisation of love”. Cardinal Brislin concluded by returning to the encyclical’s opening contrast between Babel and Jerusalem, arguing that Magnifica Humanitas ultimately entrusted the Church with the responsibility “to engage with the struggles of history in its own distinctive way, adopting a synodal approach”. The themes identified by Cardinal Brislin echoed repeatedly during the cardinals’ discussions. Reports from the eleven working groups highlighted what participants described as the profound fractures affecting contemporary society, including divisions between nations, communities, and families. Many of the groups warned that the erosion of identity and meaningful relationships had encouraged tribalism and exaggerated individualism, creating the illusion that others existed merely for personal success. The Holy See Press Office said that the cardinals viewed artificial intelligence not simply as a technological issue but as an anthropological challenge requiring careful ethical discernment. They stressed the importance of identifying shared human values, defending the dignity of work, and resisting the temptation to reduce human beings “to numbers and statistics”. Furthermore, synodality emerged repeatedly throughout these discussions as both a practical method of listening and a sign of ecclesial responsibility. Many groups described it as a path capable of strengthening communion while enabling the Church to respond more effectively to the cultural and political challenges confronting contemporary society.

Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández delivered the principal theological meditation during the second session of the first day of Pope Leo XIV’s Extraordinary Consistory The College of Cardinals concluded the first day of Pope Leo XIV’s Extraordinary Consistory with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández clarifying the Pope’s call for the Catholic Church to move beyond the traditional just war theory. Following presentations by the working groups, the remainder of the afternoon was devoted to open interventions from cardinals, who returned repeatedly to the themes of the Pope’s landmark encyclical. According to the Holy See Press Office, the interventions centred on the need for Christians to transform society through the witness of their lives, while many cardinals expressed gratitude for what they described as the spirit of communion fostered during the Consistory. The Holy See said the discussions stressed Christian witness as the means by which “mentalities and cultures” could be changed, with cardinals reflecting that authentic evangelisation depended not simply on words but on lives capable of demonstrating the Gospel before an increasingly sceptical world. The interventions also returned to one of the most striking passages of Magnifica Humanitas , in which Pope Leo acknowledged that the Church had been too slow in unequivocally condemning slavery. According to the Holy See, cardinals said the Pope’s forthright admission had “opened the hearts of millions to the Gospel”, bringing “light and hope to the Church”. Rather than weakening the Church’s witness, they suggested that the Pope’s willingness to confront painful chapters of history had strengthened its credibility in the modern world. Cardinals also described the encyclical as a personal appeal directed not only to Catholics generally but particularly to members of the College of Cardinals, calling them to assume responsibility for building peace in a world marked by conflict and instability. They noted the continuing importance of symbolic acts of reconciliation, recalling St John Paul II’s Prayer Meeting for Peace in Assisi in 1986 as an example of the Church exercising moral leadership beyond political divisions. The session concluded shortly before 7.30 pm with Pope Leo leading the cardinals in prayer. Earlier in the day, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, delivered the principal theological meditation on the fifth chapter of Magnifica Humanitas , offering what amounted to the clearest exposition yet of Pope Leo’s teaching on war and legitimate defence. Cardinal Fernández argued that the encyclical’s originality lay not simply in its treatment of armed conflict but in its diagnosis of what it calls the “culture” of power, a global mentality that enables wars to emerge and continue with diminishing resistance from societies increasingly shaped by modern communications and artificial intelligence. He said the encyclical’s most significant doctrinal development was its assertion that “the ‘just war’ theory […] is outdated”, explaining that Pope Leo was not abandoning the Church’s concern for legitimate defence but warning that the traditional doctrine had “all too often been used to justify any kind of war”. “The Church’s Social Doctrine is manipulated to provide a theoretical foundation for the most unjust wars,” Cardinal Fernández said. “Instead of stopping wars, it helps to justify them.” He insisted that legitimate self-defence remained part of Catholic teaching, but only when understood “in the strictest sense”, rejecting broad interpretations that had been used to justify so-called pre-emptive wars. Recalling the Catechism’s traditional conditions governing legitimate defence, Cardinal Fernández stressed that military action could only be justified where grave and certain aggression had occurred, all peaceful means had failed, success remained realistically possible, and military action would not inflict greater harm than the evil being resisted. He argued that these principles had become increasingly difficult to satisfy given the destructive capacity of modern weapons. “The destruction of entire cities cannot be considered a proportionate defensive action,” he said, before citing Gaza and southern Lebanon as examples where the scale of military intervention had become impossible to reconcile with classical Catholic teaching on proportionality. “The enormous disproportion of the military interventions in Gaza and southern Lebanon, for example, is evident,” he said. Referring to civilian casualties and widespread destruction, he added that “the percentage of civilian deaths relative to the total population, the enormous number of children killed… and the number of homes bombed allow us to speak of total destruction.” He argued that appeals to self-defence had become increasingly elastic, not only in the Middle East but also in Ukraine and elsewhere, asking: “What remains of the conditions that sought to limit wars?” Cardinal Fernández suggested that contemporary conflicts reflected a broader cultural shift identified by the encyclical as the “normalisation of war” and a “troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics”, accompanied by what Pope Leo describes as a “loss of historical memory”. The Argentine cardinal warned that this culture was sustained through systematic misinformation, the discrediting of political opponents, and the cultivation of fear. Quoting directly from the encyclical, he said modern politics increasingly relied upon “misinformation and ridiculing opponents, and systematically cultivating fears and resentments”, creating “an environment in which new conflicts can develop almost imperceptibly”. He also criticised what he described as a false political realism that dismissed peace as naïve. “This so-called realism,” he said, “dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that ignore the risks at stake.” He warned that even bishops could become trapped by such thinking through fear of appearing unrealistic. Cardinal Fernández also criticised what he called selective moral consistency in international affairs, pointing to differing responses to conflicts depending on political alliances. He argued that countries often condemned abuses committed by adversaries while overlooking similar violations committed by allies, concluding that geopolitical interests frequently displaced objective moral principles. The cardinal’s meditation concluded on a more hopeful note, presenting Catholic social teaching as offering a coherent alternative to ideological polarisation. He said the Church remained distinctive because it consistently defended unborn life while simultaneously protecting migrants, opposing war, defending vulnerable populations, and rejecting abortion, all without becoming captive to electoral politics or ideological factions. “It always proclaims the saving love of Christ,” he said, “but never separates it from the constant defence of human dignity in every circumstance, since such a defence lies at the heart of the Gospel.” He ended by turning the challenge back upon the bishops themselves, asking whether local Churches reflected the same integrity found in papal teaching or whether they too had succumbed to the culture of power that the encyclical seeks to overcome.

Report from Day 1 of the Consistory: During the opening session, Pope Leo XIV and the College of Cardinals examined the wounds of today’s world The College of Cardinals opened the Extraordinary Consistory by reflecting on the wounds of the modern world, with Pope Leo XIV urging the Church’s senior prelates to discern how to proclaim the Gospel at a time marked by war, loneliness, secularisation and growing social fragmentation. Following Mass in St Peter’s Basilica on the morning of 26 June, 178 cardinals gathered in the Paul VI Hall for the first working session of the two-day meeting. After the singing of the Veni Creator , Cardinal Luis José Rueda Aparicio opened proceedings before Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, welcomed the assembly. Pope Leo XIV then delivered an introductory address before Cardinal Rueda Aparicio introduced the day’s theme, “In What World Are We Called to Proclaim the Gospel?”, reminding the cardinals of the Holy Father’s request for their assistance and assuring him of “their support, with faith, joy, and availability”. The principal reflection was delivered by Cardinal Grzegorz Ryś of Łódź, who framed the discussions around Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan. Rather than approaching the modern world through political or sociological analysis, the Polish cardinal argued that the Church should begin with the individual person. “The old story of the Samaritan,” he said, recalling St Paul VI’s closing address to the Second Vatican Council, should remain the Church’s exemplum atque norma , its “model” and “paradigm”, for understanding the contemporary world. “The old story of the Samaritan does not speak about ‘the world’; its subject is a single person – ‘a certain man’,” Cardinal Ryś said. “Instead of talking about an abstract and sociological concept of ‘the world’, let us think about concrete MAN and WOMAN,” because each person is both a “co-creator of the world” and “a primary and fundamental way for the Church”. Reflecting on the wounded traveller, Cardinal Ryś said modern humanity increasingly resembles the victim left on the roadside. “Violence has nearly become a name of today’s world,” he observed, pointing to “32 wars” currently taking place while noting that children and young people frequently encounter “drastic violence at school”. Such violence, he warned, “starts with aggressive language, and it ends with murder and suicide”. The traveller’s robbery, he continued, was also symbolic of modern society. Having been stripped of everything, the man is deprived not only of his possessions but also of his dignity. Nakedness, the cardinal noted, was a biblical sign of slavery, adding that contemporary forms of slavery range from the exploitation of migrants to addictions “caused by drugs, pornography, all kinds of addictions, and even modern technologies”. He described today’s men and women as increasingly “beaten and injured”, explaining that humanity is now in need of “a field hospital”. While some wounds are visible, he said, others remain “deeply hidden and never exposed, yet determine a person’s behaviour and actions”, leaving countless people scarred physically, psychologically and spiritually. Cardinal Ryś devoted particular attention to loneliness, describing the Gospel’s image of the traveller abandoned by passers-by as one of the defining characteristics of contemporary life. The wounded man, he said, is “left behind”, forced to face his suffering alone while others deliberately pass him by. “This is another sort of violence that today’s men and women face: indifference,” he said, recalling Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe’s description of modern society as suffering a “tsunami of loneliness”. Despite possessing “the best, most sophisticated means of communication”, modern men and women remain relictus – abandoned. The cardinal also reflected on the traveller being “half-dead”, asking, “How many people today live on such an edge or margin of life?” He suggested the root of many contemporary problems lies in humanity’s movement away from God, observing that the wounded traveller was descending “from Jerusalem to Jericho”, away from the Temple. That image, he argued, reflects societies that have become “secularised, seeking greatness in freedom from religion”, or which misuse religion “to promote ideas and actions absolutely foreign to it”. Turning to the Samaritan himself, Cardinal Ryś argued that Christians should not only seek to teach the modern world but also be willing to learn from it. Although regarded as “a foreigner, an alien, even an enemy”, the Samaritan becomes Christ’s example of authentic charity. “What does today’s Samaritan teach?” the cardinal asked. His first answer was simple: “compassion.” Referring to the Latin phrase misericordia motus , he said mercy should not become the object of rivalry between the Church and the world. “There are so many charitable activities and works in the world we can admire and follow, or simply take part in,” he said. “Instead of stupid jealousy and pretence, it is much better to learn and to encounter. Mercy and charity may be a meeting place of the Church and the world, the place of true dialogue and healing unity.” Following a prolonged period of silent prayer, the cardinals divided into working groups before returning to the Paul VI Hall for reports from the secretaries of the various groups. According to the Holy See Press Office, the discussions displayed remarkable agreement across the College of Cardinals. Summarising the discussions, the Press Office said: “All groups emphasised in deeply conscious terms the suffering experienced by men and women in this time of profound social transformation.” Among the principal concerns raised were “growing polarisation within societies and communities”, which the cardinals said generates “political tensions and violence” while being fuelled by “social divisions, the use of false information, and widespread communication that fails to foster understanding”. The reports warned that such polarisation “hinders governance and coexistence” and contributes to increasing violence at every level of society. Several groups also raised “a lack of respect for religious and ethnic minorities” that “undermines religious freedom and leads to hostility, or even violence, particularly against the Church”. Some also referred specifically to “the rise of anti-Semitism”. The cardinals repeatedly returned to the weakening of family life and growing individualism. According to the Press Office summary, many linked “the crisis of the family, especially loneliness, among both the elderly and the young” to “the rise in suicides and drug use”. Discussions also focused extensively on young people facing economic uncertainty, unemployment and financial instability. Other reports highlighted “a general sense of distrust, fatalism, and impotence towards institutions, democracy, and the future”, together with declining birth rates, criminal gangs, juvenile delinquency and drug trafficking. Several groups also pointed to “the role of secularism, the loss of transcendent and spiritual values, and the meaning of life”, warning that “the spreading sense of weariness and the absence of a perspective of truth mark the inability to recognise otherness and to build relationships”. Migration likewise featured prominently. The cardinals agreed on “the need to address the phenomenon of migration in a humane and Christian manner”, recognising that migration “is changing the face of peoples, societies, and communities”, while making “effective integration policies” increasingly urgent. Despite the sombre diagnosis, the reports also identified numerous signs of hope. According to the Holy See, every group stressed “the need for the Church to show herself as a mother, a welcoming place”, even if this requires “restructuring parishes”, while remaining capable of “acknowledging her own mistakes and making suffering a moment of growth”. The summary added that “a strong awareness of the responsibility entrusted to the Church in the current historical moment also emerged”. While “many institutions are experiencing a crisis of credibility”, the cardinals believed “the Church feels called to speak with authority for the dignity of the person, for peace, reconciliation, and the common good”. Pope Leo returned for the closing plenary session before thanking the cardinals for their participation. Recalling Cardinal Ryś’s meditation, the Holy Father reflected on “the image of the victim, almost dead”, adding: “If we are not blind, it is true that there is so much suffering.” Loneliness and suffering, he said, are products of contemporary society, and the Church’s response is to invite people into communion “not only by opening churches and celebrating the sacraments, but by creating opportunities and experiences of encounter”. The format of the Extraordinary Consistory itself reflects the increasingly synodal style that has become established in Vatican consultation. As in January’s consistory, the cardinals were divided into small working groups led by presidents and secretaries before moving through three stages consisting of personal interventions, shared listening, and the drafting of a common report. Those reports were then presented to the wider assembly before participants were invited to make brief interventions or submit written observations. The methodology mirrors the process employed during the Synod on Synodality and indicates that the consultative approach developed under the previous pontificate continues to shape the work of the College of Cardinals under Pope Leo XIV. Photo credit: Eros R. Santana/ACFI/EUROPA PRESS

Read Pope Leo XIV’s homily to the Cardinals at the opening Mass of the Extraordinary Consistory in full At 7:30 this morning, in Saint Peter’s Basilica, the Holy Father Leo XIV presided over Holy Mass with the Cardinals gathered in the Extraordinary Consistory from 26 to 27 June 2026. AdVaticanum gives the English translation to the Homily given today: Dearest brothers, We have gathered around the altar of the Lord, near the tomb of Saint Peter, to begin the Consistory. We come to celebrate this Eucharist from every part of the world: together with our lives, we therefore offer to God the communities and peoples we carry in our hearts, as well as our pastoral projects and experiences, both joyful and challenging. This variety of affections and thoughts now concentrates: that is, it finds that luminous center, which is Christ. He himself, in person, addresses us, saying: “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1). Through Jesus, grace and truth flow into our lives (cf. Jn 1:17), renewing us intimately: these divine gifts are also the fertile sap of the Consistory we inaugurate today. It is the Gospel itself that prepares the conditions for it to be fruitful: “Abide in me, and I in you” (Jn 15:4). On the one hand, the Master warns us that “without me you can do nothing” (v. 5), on the other, he wants his disciples to bear “much fruit” (v. 8). Yes, much: the grace of God does not produce stunted growth in those who welcome it, but rather a thriving development. The eternal Word, in fact, became man so that all “may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). Begun in faith, this life is even strengthened by the test of pruning, because it is cultivated by the Father’s care. As we ask God to grant us strength and wisdom, it is significant that our Consistory takes place on the eve of the solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Let us pause together in this memory, which recalls the pillars of the Catholic and Roman Church, the two missionary martyrs whose preaching became so integral to their lives that it became part of Sacred Scripture. Listening today to St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians, we can note their happy consonance with those of the Gospel. The different charisms, ministries, and ecclesial activities are like branches of the one vine, that is, of the one Lord (cf. 1 Cor 12:4–6) who infuses the Holy Spirit into his Church. This organic unity corresponds to the criterion that makes all those ecclesial services good and enjoyable: the criterion of the common good (cf. v. 7). Dearest ones, from the Word of God that we have heard, I would like to draw some indications for our discernment in these days. First, the example of Saints Peter and Paul encourages us to share true freedom in faith. Indeed, it is precisely our relationship with the Lord Jesus that frees us from sin and fear: while he calls us to follow him, he himself sends us into the world as successors of the Apostles. Proclaiming the Gospel, celebrating the Sacraments, and dedicating ourselves to the Lord’s flock is accomplished and bears fruit to the extent of our belief in him, the Good Shepherd. Faith is that virtue, never to be taken for granted, that gives life to the Church, because it corresponds to the grace that nourishes the branches of the one vine. The living Church is the Church that believes, through the gift of the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts: this Church bears much fruit. Just as divine grace precedes human freedom, so the Church’s faith precedes ours and demands to be witnessed to with ardour. This mission has Christ as its beginning and end: in the words of the psalmist, “Proclaim his salvation day after day; declare his glory among the nations” (Ps 96:2–3). Second, we ask for the gift of peace in unity. While we invite all peoples to faith, in which we are truly free, international tensions and conflicts gravely wound the human family. However, initiatives and experiences are not lacking; indeed, they are multiplying in the Church and throughout the world that call for respect for human dignity, justice, law, and simply for humanity. This is a reason for hope, because it attests to the beauty of the work of God, who created us in his image and likeness, as a sign of his glory in the world. When this sign is wounded, we are all wounded. When it is corrupted, we all suffer. When it is killed, we all feel torn apart. Therefore, war is never worthy of man, and is never blessed by God, because the Creator has endowed us with the intelligence and will to resolve conflicts as human beings and not as beasts, perhaps equipped with hyper-technological weapons. The unity of the human family precedes individual peoples and states. This is not just a biological fact: it is an ethical principle. Peace is a duty of justice because we are one human family, a magnificent humanitas that finds in Christ its Head and Redeemer. Reflecting on the Encyclical I promulgated on May 15, we must therefore continue on the path traced by Saint Paul VI: when he “introduced the expression ‘civilization of love,’ the world was marked by the Cold War, the arms race, and serious economic imbalances. In that context, the Church pointed to an alternative path to the ideological opposition between systems, imagining a social order in which justice and charity are intertwined” (Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas, 186. Cf. Saint Paul VI, Regina Caeli, May 17, 1970). This is how Christian witness becomes the prophecy of a new world, evangelization and service, a cultural and social project that integrally promotes human development. While proclaiming the Gospel, amid joys and persecutions, the Church is never partisan: she is for everyone, and to each she addresses the same word of conversion and salvation. Third, today and always, let us enjoy harmony in obedience, that is, in the listening that recognizes the gift of the Word, made flesh for us. Through this exercise, the Holy Spirit guides us, himself pointing out pastoral problems and opportunities, purifying intentions and correcting what deviates from the common path. The implementation of the Synod, to which we are committed, invites everyone to proceed in the unity of faith, in the promotion of peace, in obedience to the living Word, who is Jesus. In this light, “the enormous and rapid cultural changes demand that we constantly seek to express the truths of all time in a language that allows us to recognize their enduring newness” (Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 41). The one Word, made man, is indeed expressed in all languages: the dead and risen Christ is the true vine, who bears fruit through all the cultures that Christians transform from within. Thus, while the ideologies of the world wither, the Holy Spirit makes fraternal understanding, charity, and missionary zeal flourish in the Church. Working together, our collegiality epitomizes the synodality in which all the baptized participate, in the unity of the People of God. Synodality and collegiality are, in fact, forms of Christian fraternity, which binds us as baptized persons and as bishops. Therefore, the help you can give me in the exercise of the Petrine ministry finds in me the one who asks, not the one who commands. The authority of the primacy, in fact, belongs to one who listens and only therefore leads, to one who learns and only therefore teaches, always following the one Master. May the intercession of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul accompany us on this exciting journey.