The Vatican

In an exclusive interview with AdVaticanum, Archbishop Guido Pozzo discusses Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony, Latin in the liturgy, the relationship between the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo, and the path towards greater liturgical unity in the Church AdVaticanum recently sat down with Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Titular Archbishop of Bagnoregio and Superintendent of the Economy of the Pontifical Sistine Chapel Choir. In this exclusive interview, the Italian prelate discusses his administrative responsibilities in supporting the historic choir, recent developments under Pope Leo XIV, the importance of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony, and practical ways to recover the Church’s musical and liturgical heritage. He also offers reflections on the role of Latin in the liturgy, the complementary relationship between the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo , and how both forms of the Roman Rite can contribute to ecclesial unity rather than division. Archbishop Guido Pozzo was ordained priest in 1976 and, in 1987, became a member of the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), renamed in 2022 as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). A seasoned curial prelate, he has held a variety of positions across the Curia and is a respected figure who brings considerable diplomatic skill and liturgical knowledge to his service of the Church. AV: Your Excellency, as Superintendent of the Economy of the Pontifical Sistine Chapel Choir, could you share with us what your principal duties and responsibilities have involved over the past several years? How does the administrative and economic oversight of this historic ensemble support its artistic and liturgical mission in the life of the Universal Church? +GP: The primary task of the Superintendent for the Economy of the Pontifical Musical Chapel is to oversee its proper functioning and administrative activity. Given the close link between the Choir of the Pontifical Musical Chapel and the schola of the Pueri Cantores, which is a state-recognised equal-status school, the Superintendent serves as its legal representative before the Italian State. Although the economic and administrative sphere is distinct from the specifically musical, artistic, and liturgical sphere, there is close collaboration between the person responsible for the Pontifical Musical Chapel (the Master of the Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations), the Choir Director, and the Superintendent for the Economy. The work of the Administrative Office is functional and directed towards achieving the goals of the Pontifical Musical Chapel. AV: How have you found your role serving under the relatively new pontificate of Pope Leo XIV? +GP: For centuries, the Pontifical Musical Chapel has preserved the musical tradition of the Church and traces its origins to the ancient Roman Schola Cantorum. Today, following Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio of 2019, it forms part of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff. Its task, now as in the past, is to take care of everything concerning the musical execution of the liturgical celebrations presided over by the Roman Pontiff, or in his name and by his mandate. In this context, the Chapel has the task of safeguarding and promoting the artistic-musical heritage produced over the centuries by the Chapel itself, as a privileged instrument of evangelisation and of spreading the cultural and spiritual patrimony of the Church. Pope Leo, in continuity with his predecessors, shows himself to be particularly sensitive in recognising and appreciating the role of sacred music in the service of evangelisation and the dissemination of knowledge of the richness of the Church’s musical and religious heritage. To this end, the Choir of the Sistine Chapel also distinguishes itself through regular concert activity in Italy and abroad, carrying the Christian message through sacred chant (Gregorian and classical polyphony) even to peoples and cultures far removed from the Christian tradition. AV: The Vatican has recently released a series of Gregorian chant videos under the title “Let’s Sing with the Pope.” Could you share with readers a little bit about the project? +GP: “Let us Sing with the Pope” is an initiative of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music launched in May 2025 to teach the faithful simple Gregorian chants through social media tutorials. The project aims to involve the Christian community in singing the parts of the Mass celebrated in Latin, such as the Gloria, the Pater Noster, and the Agnus Dei. The initiative seems more than praiseworthy and certainly deserves to be encouraged, because it seeks to make the heritage of Gregorian chant accessible and to foster the active participation of the faithful in liturgical celebrations. AV: What, in your considered judgment as Superintendent of the Economy of the Pontifical Sistine Chapel Choir, role should Gregorian chant and sacred music have in the Roman liturgy? +GP: Gregorian chant is the proper chant of the Roman liturgy and must be given the principal place, as taught by Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council (no. 116). Through its texts it reconnects us to the entire Catholic spiritual tradition, and its melodies, which highlight the ritual words in the proper way, easily lead to contemplation of the heavenly mysteries. The liturgical quality of Gregorian chant consists first of all in its being essentially and simply prayer. It is a chant made solely for God, which expresses the worship of faith and adoration that the Church raises to God. Secondly, it is connatural to the liturgy because the text is essential and the melody is employed only to serve the contemplation of the divine mysteries. Alongside Gregorian chant stands sacred polyphony, with its immense heritage of art and beauty, which must be rediscovered and restored to its due honour, so that the liturgy of the Church may once again become the place where one experiences the most mature fruit of service to the worship of God. AV: It has been suggested that incorporating certain fixed parts of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, such as the Pater Noster immediately after the Consecration or the words of consecration themselves, in Latin could lead to a greater sense of liturgical uniformity and ecclesial unity across different cultures and languages. As someone who is one of the stewards of the Pope’s own Choir, which sings in Latin daily, what are your thoughts on whether selective use of Latin in the vernacular Mass might enrich the faithful’s experience of the universal character of the Roman liturgy? +GP: I personally would not exclude the possibility (without making it a juridical obligation) of inserting, in certain fixed parts of the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the vernacular, some words and texts in Latin. What seems to me even more important, however, is that in every diocese there should be at least one celebration of Holy Mass in Latin according to the Novus Ordo, animated by Gregorian chant, especially on Sundays and solemn liturgical feasts. This would foster among the faithful a deeper perception of the universal character of the Roman liturgy. AV: More broadly, how can we use Latin in the liturgy, whether in the Ordinary Form or in the Choir’s own repertoire, to serve as a source of spiritual enrichment for the entire Church rather than as a barrier? In your experience overseeing the Sistine Chapel Choir, what pastoral fruits have you observed when Latin is allowed to resonate alongside the vernacular? +GP: “A Church that embraces all peoples needs a universal language, but has no reason to adopt the language of this or that people… Humanly speaking, the Church needs a universal, unchangeable, learned language; whoever conspires to deprive her of it makes war on her unity.” These are the words of Fr Luigi Taparelli in his Theoretical Essay on Natural Law (1835), which I have no difficulty in making my own. Liturgical Latin expresses and guarantees the sacral dimension of the liturgy. To address God, the most appropriate words are those that God Himself, through His revelation, has placed on the lips of believers and those who pray. The Catholic Church has adopted the Vulgate, the Latin edition of the Bible, for her life, prayer, and doctrine. Disseminated by St Jerome in the fourth century and then revised after the Council of Trent, the Vulgate was also recognised by the Second Vatican Council, which admitted a limited and reasonable use of the vernacular languages; these, however, were to coexist alongside liturgical Latin (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 §1). To the objection that Latin is no longer a commonly spoken language and is therefore a “dead” language, one may reply that a language that is no longer spoken does not mean a dead language. A dead language is one that has disappeared from the culture and memory of a people. Latin is the living foundation for understanding the cultural tradition and the doctrine of the Church and of Catholic Tradition. Moreover, Latin offers theological precision in verbal formulation and the solemnity of the prayed word, thus helping the faithful to understand that the Mass is the moment in which one enters the mysterium fidei , because we enter with Christ into the oratio offered by the entire Mystical Body to the Father in the Holy Spirit. The most significant pastoral fruits consist in the conscious, progressive recovery of the vertical, cultic dimension of the liturgy, introducing the faithful into the experience of encounter with the incarnate, dead, and risen God, vitally present in the sacrament. AV: The Church today celebrates the liturgy in both the Novus Ordo and the earlier Vetus Ordo. In your view, how can these two expressions of the same Roman Rite best contribute to the unity of the Church rather than appearing as contrasting alternatives? +GP: First of all, it is necessary to clear the field of a major misunderstanding: that of considering the two forms of the Roman Rite as opposed or irreconcilable. I would prefer not to designate them with the terms “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form”, but simply as the Novus Ordo, that is, the Roman Rite reformed by St Paul VI, and the Vetus Ordo, the ancient Roman Rite, in use according to the liturgical books of 1962. It is necessary to escape from the ideological cages that set the two forms of the Roman Rite against each other. Certainly, the Novus Ordo is the common, universal, and habitual form of Catholic liturgy. The form of the ancient Roman Rite is particular and special; therefore, there is a concrete norm, which it is for the ecclesiastical authority to establish, regarding the conditions under which it is to be celebrated. The liturgical reform of Vatican II must not be understood as a rupture with the traditional liturgy, but must be read as a renewal in substantial continuity. Unfortunately, the line of rupture with Tradition taken by large sectors of the Church’s life has led to an ecclesial and liturgical crisis that is still present. It was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself who used grave expressions on the liturgical question: “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends to a large extent on the collapse of the liturgy” — he used the word “collapse” of the liturgy — “it remains to be seen,” continues J. Ratzinger, “to what extent the individual stages of the liturgical reform of Vatican II were true improvements or rather banalisations, to what extent they were pastorally wise or, on the contrary, ill-considered.” Once again, therefore, the crucial issue is not the renewal desired by the Council, but the reception and the concrete form of its implementation in practice. Critical observations about questionable forms of implementation cannot call into question the Missal published by St Paul VI and later reissued a third time with the approval of St John Paul II, which remains the ordinary and universal form of the Eucharistic liturgy. However, the celebration of Holy Mass in the antiquior rite certainly helps to recover and highlight, in a more pregnant and marked way, certain aspects and certain doctrinal truths that risk being obscured by a mistaken or banalised way of celebrating the reformed rite. For example, the convivial aspect of the Eucharist, that is, the Eucharist as a banquet (already highlighted by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei , and certainly emphasised by Vatican II and the liturgical reform), is so accentuated at the expense of the essentially sacrificial nature of the Eucharist that one forgets that without the sacrifice there is no communion. Communion arises from the sacrifice of Christ, not the other way round. The aspect of assembly and social participation, which is undoubtedly emphasised and made more visible in the liturgical reform, is sometimes emphasised at the expense of the transcendent and Christocentric element. The aspect of the common priesthood of all the faithful is emphasised at the expense of the irreplaceable role of the ministerial priesthood. It is clear that in the texts and liturgical books of the Novus Ordo there is no such imbalance; rather, it is found above all in the way the minds of the Christian people, and also of priests, are formed, and in the way the rite is concretely understood, interpreted, and celebrated by some. Consider, for example, the concept of actuosa participatio (active participation), so emphasised in the liturgical reform. It is not reducible to external activity, speeches, words, or comments, to a kind of “do-it-yourself”. It also includes silence, which expresses a real, deep, and personal participation, because the liturgy does not ask for arbitrary and attractive creativity, but demands solemn repetition. There is therefore a real risk of this collapse, of this instrumentalisation of the reformed rite to the detriment of the integrity of the faith and of divine worship. Finally, I would like to draw attention to some of the underlying reasons for the difficulties of a peaceful integration of the ancient rite into the life of the Church. The fundamental reasons are essentially two. Some are of a practical order and we can leave them aside because they are certainly not important or serious. The first fundamental reason for the difficulties is found in the lack, or presumed lack, of obedience to the Second Vatican Council, which certainly wanted to reform the liturgical books. The second reason is seen in the risk of a rupture of ecclesial unity due to the difference between these two liturgical forms, which may also imply divergence in forms of catechesis and pastoral care. As regards the first difficulty, it must be recalled that Vatican II certainly asked for a revision of the liturgical books, but also laid down certain fundamental criteria, and it is in the light of these criteria that the revision, and above all the practice of celebrations in the post-conciliar period, must be evaluated. Otherwise, one is not disobeying St Pius V; one is disobeying the Second Vatican Council. The criteria are formulated in numbers 34 and 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium . The Council did not abrogate the previous books but asked for a renewal and a revision. The other difficulty would be the existence of two different forms of the rite, which would represent an obstacle to the unity of the Church, to liturgical and pastoral unity. Here a distinction must be made, I believe, between a theological aspect and a practical one. From the theological point of view, it is well known that in the Church there have always existed different forms of the Latin rite, most of which fell into disuse following the greater unification of civil and secular European cultures. Nevertheless, until Vatican II, alongside the Roman rite in the Latin Church there existed the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite (of Toledo), that of Braga (Portugal), and the variants of the Roman rite: the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian rites. No one was ever surprised by these differences. No one found it scandalous to participate in the Dominican rite, which has some variants with respect to the Roman rite of St Pius V. What must be avoided, I believe, is judging the two forms of the Roman Rite on the basis of their external characteristics. Public opinion considers the following to be essential to the new liturgy: that it be celebrated in the vernacular and not in Latin, because otherwise, they say, “we don’t understand anything”; that the priest face the faithful; that a certain space be left to the free creativity of the celebrating priest and also of the lay faithful participating in the celebration, so that they can move around the altar and intervene with short or long reflections. In the ancient liturgy, on the contrary, it was considered essential that it be in Latin, that the celebrant face the altar ( coram Deo ), and that the faithful participate, yes, but in silence. It is not that the faithful did not participate at all before; they participated, but through silence, and not, as the reform of St Paul VI proposes and encourages, through a more active and visible role. The difference is therefore between the visible and the invisible, between silence and external activity that is phenomenologically perceptible: there is therefore a difference. But the question is whether it is an essential difference. For some, the two liturgical forms would express two fundamentally different attitudes in conceiving both the liturgy and the Church: a hierarchical Church versus a “People of God” Church. Some pronounce: “Before the Council the Church was hierarchical and pyramidal; now instead it is communal and popular; the whole people participates.” We reply: certainly there are different emphases and highlights. But the communion of which the Second Vatican Council speaks, the Church as communion, is a communio hierarchica . And even before Vatican II, it is not that the people and the faithful were considered second-class persons in relation to the priest. In any case, the point of view that considers the phenomenological, empirical aspect essential for the liturgy is not the essential point of view. The contrasts that have come to light do not in reality originate in the Council. I insist on emphasising this. In Sacrosanctum Concilium it is stated that Latin must be preserved, while giving ample space to the vernacular, but it is stated that Latin must be preserved. So how does one truly obey the Council? By making Latin disappear completely? In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this is not a question of diminishing the principles and criteria of the Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Sacred Liturgy; on the contrary, it is precisely a question of recovering those criteria even for the celebration of the ordinary form. There will certainly remain different spiritual and theological emphases between the two forms, but not as two opposed ways of being Catholic or of celebrating the praise and sacrifice of the Lord, but rather as a common patrimony, albeit with different emphases, of the one faith. AV: Many Catholics today appreciate both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine form of the Mass. From a liturgical and musical standpoint, why would you say these two expressions of the one Roman Rite do not stand in fundamental opposition to each other, but can instead be seen as complementary enrichments of the Church’s worship? +GP: In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum , Pope Benedict XVI expressly declared that the ancient use of the Roman Liturgy is to be considered a precious treasure to be preserved for all the faithful. In a recent letter to the French Bishops, Pope Leo XIV urged the prelates to foster the reconciliation and unity of the Church, avoiding the marginalisation and exclusion of those faithful who show a particular sensitivity and attachment to the liturgical form of the ancient Roman Rite, provided that they accept the orientations of the Second Vatican Council in liturgical matters and, obviously, do not oppose or contest the Novus Ordo. On the other hand, the denunciation of the intolerable deviations and deformations of the liturgy in the Novus Ordo form, frequently cheapened by sloppiness, arbitrary omissions of the rubrics, and manipulations, which have occurred and unfortunately still occur, even through the unjustified tolerance of ecclesiastical authorities, cannot and must not lead to calling into question the reformed liturgy. When the Mass of St Paul VI is celebrated with fidelity, recollection, and awareness of the mystery, the spiritual distance between the ancient Roman Rite and the reformed rite appears much less pronounced than some would like to maintain. Pope Leo XIV has expressed himself along these lines, speaking some time ago with the journalist Elise Ann Allen. The Holy Father stressed that the deep issue does not consist in the language of the celebration nor in the distinction between the Ancient Roman Rite (Vetus Ordo) and the renewed Missal of the Novus Ordo, but in the liturgy’s capacity to arouse in the soul wonder before the living God. The crucial point today, in my view, is that the liturgy must once again become a renewed encouragement to believe, to live a life starting from the centre and dynamism of faith, to rediscover God by rediscovering Christ, and thus to rediscover the centrality of the Christian faith celebrated in the liturgical mystery. It is in the relationship with the liturgy that the destiny of the faith of the Church is decided (Benedict XVI). AV: Your Grace, thank you for your time and priestly ministry. RISPOSTE AI QUESITI AV: AV: Eccellenza, come Sovrintendente all’Economia del Coro della Cappella Sistina Pontificia, potrebbe condividere con noi quali sono stati i suoi principali compiti e responsabilità negli ultimi anni? In che modo la supervisione amministrativa ed economica di questo storico ensemble sostiene la sua missione artistica e liturgica nella vita della Chiesa Universale? +GP: Compito del Sovrintendente all’economia della Cappella Musicale Pontificia è principalmente quello di vigilare sul funzionamento e l’attività amministrativa di questo organismo. Dato il legame stretto tra il Coro della Cappella Musicale Pontificia e la schola dei pueri cantores, che è una scuola paritaria, riconosciuta dallo Stato italiano, il Sovrintendente è il suo rappresentante legale presso lo Stato italiano. Pur essendo l’ambito economico e amministrativo distinto da quello propriamente musicale, artistico e liturgico, sussiste una stretta collaborazione tra il responsabile della Cappella Musicale Pontificia, che è il Maestro delle Celebrazioni liturgiche Pontificie, il Maestro Direttore del Coro e il Sovrintendente dell’economia. Il lavoro dell’Ufficio Amministrativo è funzionale e finalizzato al raggiungimento delle finalità della Cappella Musicale Pontificia. AV: Come ha vissuto il suo ruolo sotto il pontificato relativamente nuovo di Papa Leone XIV? +GP: La Cappella Musicale Pontificia da secoli custodisce la tradizione musicale della Chiesa e ha la sua origine nell’antica Schola Cantorum Romana. Attualmente, a seguito del Motu proprio di Papa Francesco del 2019, essa fa parte dell’Ufficio delle Celebrazioni Liturgiche del Sommo Pontefice. Oggi, come nei tempi precedenti, suo compito è curare tutto ciò che riguarda l’esecuzione musicale nelle celebrazioni liturgiche presiedute dal Romano Pontefice, oppure in Suo nome e per Suo mandato. In questo contesto, la Cappella ha il compito di custodire e promuovere l’eredità artistico-musicale prodotta nei secoli dalla Cappella stessa come strumento privilegiato di evangelizzazione e di divulgazione del patrimonio culturale e spirituale della Chiesa. Papa Leone XIV, in continuità con i suoi predecessori, mostra di essere particolarmente sensibile nel riconoscere e apprezzare il ruolo della musica sacra al servizio dell’evangelizzazione e della diffusione della conoscenza della ricchezza del patrimonio musicale e religioso della Chiesa. A tal fine il Coro della Cappella Sistina si distingue anche per una periodica attività concertistica in Italia e all’estero, portando il messaggio cristiano attraverso il canto sacro (gregoriano e della polifonia classica) anche a popoli e culture lontane dalla tradizione cristiana. AV: Il Vaticano ha recentemente pubblicato una serie di video di canto gregoriano dal titolo “Cantiamo con il Papa”. Potrebbe condividere con i lettori qualche informazione su questo progetto? +GP: “Cantiamo con il Papa” è un’iniziativa del Pontificio Istituto di Musica Sacra promossa nel maggio 2025 per insegnare ai fedeli canti gregoriani semplici tramite tutorial social. Il progetto mira a coinvolgere la comunità cristiana nel canto delle parti della Messa celebrate in latino, come il Gloria , il Pater Noster e l’Agnus Dei . L’iniziativa appare più che lodevole e certamente da incoraggiare, perché si propone di rendere accessibile il patrimonio del canto gregoriano e di favorire la partecipazione attiva dei fedeli alle celebrazioni liturgiche. AV: Quale ruolo, a suo giudizio di Sovrintendente all’Economia del Coro della Cappella Sistina Pontificia, dovrebbero avere il canto gregoriano e la musica sacra nella liturgia romana? +GP: Il canto gregoriano è il canto proprio della liturgia romana, cui deve essere riservato il posto principale, come insegna la Sacrosanctum Concilium, del Concilio Vaticano II , n. 116, perché tramite i suoi testi, ci ricollega a tutta la tradizione spirituale cattolica e le melodie stesse, che mettono nel giusto risalto le parole rituali, conducono facilmente alla contemplazione dei misteri celesti. La qualità liturgica del canto gregoriano consiste anzitutto nel suo essere essenzialmente e semplicemente preghiera. E’ un canto fatto unicamente per Dio, che esprime il culto di fede e di adorazione che la Chiesa innalza a Dio. In secondo luogo esso è connaturale alla liturgia perché il testo è essenziale, e la melodia viene adoperata soltanto per servire alla contemplazione dei misteri divini. Accanto al gregoriano, sta la polifonia sacra con il suo immenso patrimonio di arte e bellezza che deve essere riscoperto e riportato nel debito onore, affinché la liturgia della Chiesa torni ad essere il luogo in cui si sperimenta il frutto più maturo del servizio al culto di Dio. AV: È stato suggerito che l’inserimento di alcune parti fisse della Forma Ordinaria della Messa, come il Pater Noster subito dopo la Consacrazione o le stesse parole della consacrazione, in latino potrebbe favorire una maggiore uniformità liturgica e unità ecclesiale tra culture e lingue diverse. Come uno dei responsabili del Coro del Papa, che canta quotidianamente in latino, quali sono i suoi pensieri riguardo a un uso selettivo del latino nella Messa in lingua vernacola, per arricchire l’esperienza dei fedeli del carattere universale della liturgia romana? +GP: personalmente non escluderei la possibilità (senza che ciò diventi un obbligo giuridico) di inserire in alcune parti fisse della Messa del Novus Ordo celebrata nelle lingue vernacole parole e testi in latino. Ciò che mi sembra però ancora più importante è che nelle Diocesi sia prevista nella Cattedrale o nel Duomo almeno una celebrazione della Santa Messa in latino nel Novus Ordo , animata dal canto gregoriano , specialmente nelle domeniche e nelle solennità liturgiche. Ciò favorirebbe l’arricchimento nei fedeli della percezione del carattere universale della liturgia romana. AV: Più in generale, come possiamo usare il latino nella liturgia – sia nella Forma Ordinaria sia nel repertorio proprio del Coro – affinché sia fonte di arricchimento spirituale per tutta la Chiesa e non un ostacolo? Nella sua esperienza di supervisione del Coro della Cappella Sistina, quali frutti pastorali ha osservato quando il latino viene lasciato risuonare accanto alla lingua vernacola? +GP: “Una Chiesa che abbraccia tutti i popoli abbisogna di una lingua universale, ma non ha motivo di adottare una lingua di questo o di quello… La Chiesa abbisogna, umanamente parlando, di una lingua universale, inalterabile, dotta, chi cospira a privarnela fa guerra alla sua unità”. Sono parole del P. Luigi Taparelli nel saggio teoretico di diritto naturale (1835), che non ho difficoltà a farle mie. Il latino liturgico esprime e assicura la dimensione sacrale della liturgia. Per rivolgersi a Dio le parole più appropriate sono quelle che Dio stesso con la sua rivelazione ha messo nella bocca dei credenti e degli oranti. La Chiesa Cattolica ha assunto per la sua vita e la sua preghiera e dottrina la Vulgata, ossia l’edizione latina della Bibbia. Diffusa da san Gerolamo nel IV secolo e poi rifatta dopo il Concilio di Trento. Lo stesso Concilio Vaticano II ha ammesso un uso limitato e ragionevole delle lingue nazionali, che però avrebbero dovuto coesistere accanto al latino liturgico (SC 36, §1). All’obiezione che il latino non sia più una lingua correntemente parlata, e quindi sia una lingua morta, si può rispondere che una lingua non più parlata non significa una lingua morta. Una lingua morta è una lingua scomparsa dalla cultura e dalla memoria di un popolo. Il latino è la base vivente per comprendere la tradizione culturale e la dottrina della Chiesa e della Tradizione cattolica. Il latino, inoltre, offre la precisione teologica della formulazione verbale e la solennità della parola pregata, aiutando così i fedeli a capire che la Messa è il momento in cui si entra nel mysterium fidei , perché entriamo con Cristo nell’ oratio rivolta dall’intero Corpo mistico al Padre nello Spirito Santo. I frutti pastorali più rilevanti consistono nella consapevole ripresa progressiva della dimensione verticale, cultuale della liturgia, introducendo i fedeli nell’esperienza dell’incontro con il Dio incarnato, morto e risorto, vitalmente presente nel sacramento. AV: La Chiesa celebra oggi la liturgia sia nel Novus Ordo sia nel Vetus Ordo. Secondo lei, come possono queste due espressioni dell’unico Rito Romano contribuire al meglio all’unità della Chiesa, anziché apparire come alternative contrastanti? +GP: Occorre in primo luogo rimuovere il campo da un grosso equivoco: quello di ritenere opposte o inconciliabili le due forme liturgiche del Rito Romano, che preferirei non denominare con i termini di forma ordinaria e forma straordinaria, ma semplicemente come Novus Ordo , cioè il Rito Romano riformato da S. Paolo VI, e Vetus Ordo, il Rito Romano antico, in uso secondo i libri liturgici del 1962. E’ necessario uscire dalle gabbie ideologiche che contrappongono le due forme del Rito Romano. Certamente il Novus Ordo è la forma comune, universale e abituale della liturgia cattolica. La forma del Rito Romano antico è particolare e speciale, per cui si dà una normativa concreta, che spetta all’autorità ecclesiastica stabilire, sulle condizioni per cui deve essere celebrata. La riforma liturgica del Vaticano II non dev’essere compresa come rottura con la Liturgia tradizionale, ma dev’essere letta come rinnovamento nella continuità sostanziale. Purtroppo la linea della rottura con la Tradizione da parte di larghi settori della vita della Chiesa ha portato ad una crisi ecclesiale e liturgica tuttora presente. E’ stato lo stesso Papa Benedetto XVI, ancora da Cardinale, a usare gravi espressioni sulla questione liturgica: “Sono convinto che la crisi ecclesiale in cui oggi ci troviamo dipende in gran parte dal crollo della Liturgia – ha usato questa parola: ‘crollo’ della Liturgia – resta da vedere – continua ancora J. Ratzinger – fino a che punto le singole tappe della riforma liturgica del Vaticano II siano stati veri miglioramenti o non piuttosto banalizzazioni, sino a che punto siano state pastoralmente sagge o non, al contrario, sconsiderate”. Ancora una volta quindi la questione cruciale non è il rinnovamento voluto dal Concilio, ma la recezione e la forma di attuazione nella prassi concreta di tale rinnovamento. Le osservazioni critiche circa le discutibili forme di attuazione non possono rimettere in discussione il Messale pubblicato da S. Paolo VI, poi riedito una terza volta con l’approvazione di S. Giovanni Paolo II, che rimane la forma ordinaria e universale della Liturgia eucaristica. Ma la celebrazione della Santa Messa nel rito antiquior aiuta certamente a riprendere e a evidenziare in misura più pregnante, più marcata certi aspetti, certe verità dottrinali che rischiano di essere oscurate da un certo modo sbagliato o banalizzato di celebrare il rito riformato. Esemplificando: l’aspetto conviviale dell’Eucaristia, cioè l’Eucaristia come banchetto ( già Pio XII l’aveva messo in evidenza nell’Enciclica Mediator Dei , ma certamente il Vaticano II e poi la riforma liturgica hanno sottolineato questo momento, questa dimensione conviviale dell’Eucaristia), viene talmente accentuato a scapito della natura essenzialmente sacrificale dell’Eucaristia, dimenticando quindi che senza il sacrificio non c’è comunione. La comunione nasce dal sacrificio di Cristo, non il contrario. L’aspetto della partecipazione assembleare e sociale che viene indubbiamente sottolineato e reso anche più visibile nella riforma liturgica talvolta è a scapito dell’elemento e della dimensione trascendente e cristocentrica. L’aspetto del sacerdozio comune di tutti i fedeli viene sottolineato a scapito del ruolo insostituibile del sacerdozio ministeriale. E’ chiaro che nei testi, nei Libri liturgici del Novus Ordo non c’è questo sbilanciamento, ma esso si trova soprattutto nel modo di formare la mente del popolo cristiano, e anche dei sacerdoti. Lo sbilanciamento si trova nel modo di comprendere, interpretare, celebrare concretamente il rito da parte di alcuni. Consideriamo, ad esempio, il concetto di actuosa participatio (partecipazione attiva) così messo in risalto nella riforma liturgica. Essa non è riducibile ad un’attività esteriore, discorsi, parole, commenti, ad una specie di ‘fai da te’. Essa è anche il silenzio, che esprime una partecipazione reale profonda e personale, perché la liturgia non chiede creatività arbitraria e accattivante, ma esige ripetizioni solenni. Quindi, c’è il rischio effettivo di questo crollo, di questa strumentalizzazione del rito riformato a detrimento dell’integrità della fede e del culto divino. E per concludere, vorrei attirare l’attenzione su alcune ragioni che stanno alla base, delle difficoltà di una pacifica integrazione nella vita della Chiesa dell’antico rito. Le ragioni di fondo sono sostanzialmente due: alcune sono di ordine pratico e le possiamo anche tralasciare perché non sono certo importanti e gravi. La prima ragione di fondo delle difficoltà è trovata nella mancanza, o presunta mancanza, di obbedienza al Concilio Vaticano II che voleva certamente riformare i Libri liturgici. La seconda ragione è vista nel rischio di una rottura dell’unità ecclesiale a motivo della differenza di queste due forme liturgiche che possono poi implicare anche una divergenza nelle forme di catechesi e di pastorale. – Quanto alla prima difficoltà, occorre ricordare che il Vaticano II ha certo chiesto una revisione dei Libri liturgici, ma ha fissato anche alcuni criteri fondamentali, ed è alla luce di questi criteri che bisogna valutare la revisione e soprattutto la prassi delle celebrazioni liturgiche nel dopo-Concilio. Altrimenti non si disubbidisce a San Pio V, si disubbidisce al Concilio Vaticano II! I criteri sono formulati nei numeri 34 e 36 della Sacrosanctum Concilium . Il Concilio non ha abrogato i Libri precedenti ma ha chiesto un rinnovamento e una revisione. – L’altra difficoltà sarebbe l’esistenza di due forme differenti del rito, che rappresenterebbero un ostacolo all’unità della Chiesa, all’unità liturgica e pastorale. Qui occorre distinguere, credo, un aspetto teologico e un aspetto pratico. Dal punto di vista teologico è noto che nella Chiesa sono esistite sempre diverse forme del rito latino e che esse sono cadute in disuso, gran parte di esse, in seguito alla maggiore unificazione delle culture civili, secolari, europee. Comunque, fino al Vaticano II, accanto al rito romano, nel rito latino, vi è il rito ambrosiano, il rito mozarabico, cioè di Toledo, quello di Braga (Portogallo), e le varianti del rito romano: il rito domenicano, quello carmelitano, quello dei certosini. Nessuno si è mai meravigliato di queste differenze. Nessuno ha trovato scandaloso partecipare al rito domenicano che ha qualche variante rispetto al rito romano di San Pio V. Ciò che si deve evitare, io credo, è giudicare le due forme del Rito Romano sulla base delle loro caratteristiche esteriori. L’opinione pubblica considera essenziale della nuova liturgia: che sia celebrata in lingua vernacola, e non in latino, perché altrimenti, dicono, “non capiamo niente”; che il sacerdote sia rivolto verso i fedeli; che si sia lasciato un certo spazio alla libera creatività del sacerdote celebrante e anche dei fedeli laici che partecipano alla celebrazione, così che possano muoversi attorno all’altare e intervenire con brevi o lunghe riflessioni. Nell’antica liturgia, al contrario, si riteneva essenziale che essa sia in latino, che il celebrante sia rivolto all’altare (c oram Deo ), che i fedeli partecipino sì, ma in silenzio. Non è che prima i fedeli non partecipassero affatto; essi partecipavano, ma attraverso il silenzio, e non come invece propone e sollecita la riforma di S. Paolo VI attraverso un ruolo più attivo e visibile. Quindi la differenza è tra visibile e invisibile, tra il silenzio e l’attività esterna, fenomenologicamente percepibile: c’è quindi una differenza. Ma la domanda è se si tratta di una differenza essenziale. Per qualcuno le due forme liturgiche esprimerebbero due atteggiamenti di fondo differenti di concepire sia la Liturgia sia la Chiesa: Chiesa gerarchica e Chiesa popolo di Dio. Certuni sentenziano: “prima del Concilio la Chiesa era gerarchica e piramidale, adesso invece è comunionale e popolare, tutto il popolo partecipa”. Rispondiamo: certo, ci sono delle accentuazioni e delle sottolineature diverse. Ma la comunione di cui parla il Concilio Vaticano II, la Chiesa come comunione, è una communio hierarchica ,! E così anche prima del Vaticano II, non è che il popolo e i fedeli fossero considerati persone di serie inferiore rispetto al sacerdote. Comunque, il punto di vista che considera essenziale per la liturgia l’aspetto fenomenologico, empirico, non è il punto di vista essenziale. I contrasti che si sono messi in luce in realtà non hanno origine nel Concilio. Ci tengo a sottolinearlo. Nella Sacrosanctum Concilium si dice che il latino deve essere mantenuto, pur dando ampio spazio alla lingua vernacola, ma si dice che il latino deve essere mantenuto. Allora, come si obbedisce veramente al Concilio? Facendo scomparire totalmente il latino? Allora, alla fine vorrei ribadire che qui non si tratta di ridimensionare i principi e i criteri della Costituzione Conciliare Sacrosanctum Concilium sulla Divina Liturgia, anzi, si tratta proprio di riprendere quei criteri anche per celebrare nella forma ordinaria. Rimarranno certamente degli accenti, delle sottolineature spirituali e teologiche differenti tra le due forme, ma non come due modi opposti di essere cattolici o di celebrare la lode e il sacrificio del Signore, ma piuttosto come un patrimonio comune, pur con delle sottolineature differenti, dell’unica fede. AV: AV: Molti cattolici oggi apprezzano sia il Novus Ordo sia la forma tridentina della Messa. Dal punto di vista liturgico e musicale, perché direbbe che queste due espressioni dell’unico Rito Romano non si trovano in opposizione fondamentale tra loro, ma possono invece essere considerate arricchimenti complementari del culto della Chiesa? +GP: Papa Benedetto XVI nel Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum dichiarava espressamente che l’uso antico della Liturgia Romana è da considerare tesoro prezioso da conservare per tutti i fedeli. Papa Leone XIV in una recente lettera ai Vescovi francesi ha esortato i Presuli a favorire la riconciliazione e l’unità della Chiesa, evitando di marginalizzare e di non includere i fedeli che mostrano una sensibilità e un attaccamento particolare per la forma liturgica del Rito Romano antico, purchè accettino gli orientamenti del Concilio Vaticano II in materia liturgica, e ovviamente non si oppongano o contestino il Novus Ordo. D’altra parte , la denuncia delle insopportabili deviazioni e deformazioni della liturgia nella forma del Novus Ordo , numerose volte svilita da sciatteria, omissioni arbitrarie delle rubriche, manipolazioni, che sono avvenute e purtroppo avvengono ancora, anche per una ingiustificata tolleranza delle autorità ecclesiastiche, non può e non deve condurre ad una rimessa in discussione della Liturgia riformata. Se la Messa di S. Paolo VI viene celebrata con fedeltà, raccoglimento e coscienza del mistero, la distanza spirituale tra il Rito Romano antico e il Rito Riformato appare molto meno accentuata di quanto qualcuno vorrebbe sostenere. In tale linea si è espresso Papa Leone XIV, parlando tempo fa con la giornalista Elise Ann Allen. Il Santo Padre ha sottolineato che la questione profonda non consiste nella lingua della celebrazione né nella distinzione tra Rito Romano Antico ( Vetus Ordo ) o Messale rinnovato del Novus Ordo , ma la capacità della liturgia di suscitare nell’anima lo stupore dinnanzi al Dio vivente. Il punto cruciale oggi, a mio avviso, è che la liturgia deve ridiventare un rinnovato incoraggiamento a credere, a vivere una vita a partire dal centro e dal dinamismo della fede, a riscoprire Dio riscoprendo Cristo, e dunque a riscoprire la centralità della fede cristiana, celebrata nel mistero liturgico. E’ nel rapporto con la liturgia che si decide il destino della fede della Chiesa (Benedetto XVI). AV: Eccellenza, la ringrazio per il suo tempo e per il suo ministero sacerdotale.

Pope Leo XIV will ask the world’s cardinals to discuss war, peace and the future of the Synod on Synodality at an Extraordinary Consistory on 26 and 27 June. The agenda includes the international situation and Magnifica Humanitas, but makes no provision for discussion of the liturgy Pope Leo has decided not to include the liturgy in the agenda for the upcoming June consistory. The pontiff will instead ask the world’s cardinals to discuss war, peace and the future of the Synod on Synodality when they gather in Rome later this month for an Extraordinary Consistory. Details of the agenda emerged after a letter sent to cardinals by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, was published by the Italian blog Messa in Latino. According to Diane Montagna, the meeting, which will take place on 26 and 27 June, will focus on the international situation, Pope Leo’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and the implementation of the Synod on Synodality. Cardinal Re said the gathering was intended to provide “a space for mutual listening, discernment, and shared reflection on certain matters of importance for the life and mission of the Church at the present time”. He wrote that Pope Leo wished “to draw upon the experience and counsel of the members of the College of Cardinals” and to count on “the active assistance and support of each one in the various places and responsibilities in which he serves the Church”. The first session will be dedicated to the situation facing the Church and the world. Cardinals will be invited to reflect on “what sufferings, tensions, and questions are today affecting with greatest force the peoples and ecclesial communities entrusted to your care” and to identify “signs of hope, fidelity to the Gospel and possible reconciliation” that should be brought before the College and the Pope. Two sessions will then be devoted to Magnifica Humanitas , Pope Leo’s first encyclical. One discussion will centre on Chapter Five of the document, titled The Culture of Power and the Civilisation of Love , with particular attention given to questions of war and peace. Cardinal Re noted that the encyclical teaches that “peace is not simply one issue among others, but a prerequisite for the universal common good and a test of the moral maturity of peoples”. The cardinals will be asked to consider how best to reaffirm the encyclical’s assertion “that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated”, and to discuss “what concrete paths might help peoples and Christian communities to safeguard and build peace”. A further session will examine the encyclical’s call to interpret contemporary social and cultural changes in the light of the Gospel and to direct the search for happiness and fulfilment towards what the document describes as integral human development. The final working session will focus on the next stage of the Synod on Synodality, the worldwide consultation process launched under Pope Francis. Cardinals will receive an update on preparations for the assemblies planned for 2027 and 2028 following the publication of the document Toward the Assemblies 2027–2028: Stages, Criteria, and Tools for Preparation . The update will be followed by a period of open discussion with Pope Leo. According to Cardinal Re’s letter, interventions from members of the College will be limited to three minutes each. The consistory will conclude on 29 June, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, when Pope Leo celebrates Mass in St Peter’s Basilica and imposes the pallium on newly appointed metropolitan archbishops.

Maria Montserrat Alvarado, president and chief operating officer of EWTN News, has been appointed Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication by Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first lay woman to head a department of the Roman Curia. She will take up the role on 1 November, succeeding Paolo Ruffini Pope Leo XIV has appointed Maria Montserrat Alvarado, president and chief operating officer of EWTN News, as Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication, making her the first lay woman to head a department of the Roman Curia. The Vatican announced that the Mexican-born media executive will assume office on 1 November, succeeding Paolo Ruffini, who was himself a trailblazer when he became the first lay prefect of a Vatican dicastery in 2018. Dr Alvarado has led EWTN News since 2023, overseeing the Catholic broadcaster’s global news operations across television, radio, print and digital media in seven languages. Prior to joining EWTN, she spent 14 years in senior roles at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Washington-based legal organisation known for defending religious freedom cases before courts in the United States and internationally. Her appointment places one of the most prominent figures in Catholic media at the head of the Holy See’s vast communications apparatus, which includes Vatican News, Vatican Radio, Vatican Media, L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See Press Office and the Vatican publishing house. The decision also marks a significant milestone in the increasing involvement of lay people, and particularly women, in senior Vatican leadership positions. In a statement released following the announcement and provided to EWTN, Alvarado said she had received the news “with deep gratitude, humility, and trust in the Lord”. She added that her years working alongside colleagues at EWTN had strengthened her faith and prepared her for the new responsibility entrusted to her by the Pope. Michael Warsaw, chairman and chief executive of EWTN, praised her leadership and described her as having helped shape the network’s international outreach during a period of rapid expansion into digital media. “Montse’s background in international media, public affairs, and Church engagement has helped shape EWTN’s outreach at a critical moment in the history of our apostolate: the pivot into a deeper engagement with the digital space,” he said. “Just as importantly, she has remained deeply committed to the mission that defines EWTN: proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church with clarity, fidelity, and charity.” Ruffini, who will work alongside his successor during the transition period, said he had come to know Alvarado over recent years and looked forward to assisting her in the months ahead “in the spirit of communion that unites us in the Church”. The Dicastery for Communication was created by Pope Francis in 2015 as part of his wider reform of the Roman Curia. The restructuring merged a collection of previously separate Vatican media institutions into a single department intended to coordinate the Church’s global communications strategy and modernise its engagement with contemporary media. While women religious have held influential offices within the Roman Curia, Alvarado becomes the first woman who is neither a nun nor a member of a religious order to be appointed prefect of a dicastery. Born in Mexico City, she studied at Florida International University and George Washington University before building a career focused on public policy, religious liberty and Catholic communications. Her writings and commentary have appeared across a range of international media outlets, and she has received recognition for her work promoting religious freedom. The appointment places her among the most senior lay officials in the Vatican and gives her responsibility for shaping how the Holy See communicates with more than 1.4 billion Catholics around the world. Although Ruffini had been expected to leave office later this year at the conclusion of his mandate, Pope Leo has effectively brought forward that transition by naming his successor several months in advance, allowing for an extended handover before Alvarado formally takes up the post on 1 November.

Retired Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has said Pope Francis believed Humanae Vitae required “necessary updates” to address modern questions surrounding sexuality Retired Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has said Pope Francis believed Humanae Vitae required “necessary updates” to address modern questions surrounding sexuality. Archbishop Paglia, the former president and grand chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said in a lengthy interview published by the Italian website Settimana News that the late pontiff had personally asked him to prepare a text ahead of the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical banning artificial contraception. “Pope Francis felt the need to adapt the doctrine to the new times,” Archbishop Paglia said. “He asked me to prepare a text that would highlight its prophecy, while also highlighting some necessary updates.” “I prepared a text for him, drafted with the collaboration of a group of theologians,” the archbishop said. “He greatly appreciated it, asking me to continue the research, which resulted in subsequent texts.” The archbishop made the remarks while reflecting on the Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015, which discussed homosexuality, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and what he called “irregular situations”. “The themes of the two synodal assemblies are well known,” Archbishop Paglia said. “The topic of homosexuality, then questions relating to marriage and ‘irregular’ situations, and the topic of the Eucharist for divorced and remarried people.” Archbishop Paglia also defended the reforms made under Francis to the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences, which was restructured in 2019 following the promulgation of new statutes by the Vatican. The archbishop said the old institute had been based on “a static and immutable vision of natural law” and an “essentialist and ahistorical paradigm”. “The situation of the John Paul II Institute presented even greater challenges,” he said. “It was an institution strongly focused on marital morality.” Archbishop Paglia said Pope Francis asked him to reorganise both the John Paul II Institute and the Pontifical Academy for Life because “both of these institutions of the Holy See needed to be rethought”. According to Archbishop Paglia, the institutions had become centres of resistance to the direction set by Francis after the publication of Amoris Laetitia in 2016. “The Pontifical Academy and the JPII Institute had thus become, so to speak, loci of pronounced doctrinal resistance to papal teaching,” he said. The archbishop went further, saying: “The task entrusted to me was, therefore, to restore the ability of these two institutions to listen to the living magisterium, so that they might accompany the reform the Pope desired.” The reforms at the John Paul II Institute led to the removal of several professors associated with the theological vision of Pope St John Paul II, who established the institute in 1981 following the Synod on the Family. Archbishop Paglia acknowledged the scale of the changes. “Opponents understood correctly: a very profound reform was at stake,” he said. Throughout the interview, Archbishop Paglia repeatedly criticised what he described as “moralistic” approaches to Catholic theology. “At the time, both institutions were characterised by a strongly moralistic emphasis,” he said. “Pope Francis disliked what he called ‘armchair theology’, abstract and disconnected from pastoral care.” He also criticised the language of “non-negotiable values”, saying it carried “a strong moralistic connotation”. “Reducing such a delicate and complex subject to the application of a doctrinal algorithm of morality and discipline imposes a vision of human reality alien to the actual forms of consciousness and the real conditions of experience,” he said. Archbishop Paglia also spoke about broadening the membership of the Pontifical Academy for Life to include economists, engineers, experts in robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as non-Catholics and non-believers. “Until then, the academics had been exclusively Catholic ethicists and moral theologians,” Archbishop Paglia said. “We also included members from other Christian and religious traditions, as well as non-religious professionals and thinkers.” The archbishop also said the academy sought to widen discussion of life issues beyond abortion and euthanasia. “It was a matter of understanding [life] in all its richness,” he said, “not only in its biological and chronological dimension, from the beginning to the end of existence”. He recalled tensions with American pro-life groups after proposing a conference linking opposition to abortion with gun control. “I envisioned a conference that would simultaneously oppose abortion and address gun control in schools,” he said. “Well, the proposal was rejected.” Archbishop Paglia also referred to the publication in 2024 of The Joy of Life: A Journey of Theological Ethics , which he described as “the most mature fruit of this journey of reflection”. “It also included reflection on the updating of Humanae Vitae ,” Archbishop Paglia said. The reforms to the John Paul II Institute and the Pontifical Academy for Life were among the most controversial of Archbishop Paglia’s tenure. The archbishop, however, insisted they reflected Francis’s desire for “a theology capable of penetrating the depths of culture, history, and people’s lives”. During his presidency, he was also criticised for comments which appeared to give tacit support to assisted suicide. Speaking at the Perugia Journalism Festival in 2023, the archbishop said: “Personally, I would not practise assisted suicide, but I understand that legal mediation can constitute the greatest common good concretely possible in the conditions in which we find ourselves.” Two books which questioned Catholic teaching on matters of life were produced by the institute under Paglia’s leadership, leading renowned papal biographer George Weigel to comment that the institute was betraying “the intention of the saint and scholar who founded it”. It is also not the first time the archbishop has appeared to soften the teaching of Humanae Vitae on human sexuality. In May 2023, he said that “the recognition of the unbreakable connection between married love and generation in Humanae Vitae does not mean that every marital act must necessarily bear fruit”. He added: “We are facing epochal challenges. In the Sixties, the ‘pill’ was considered a total evil. Today, we face even greater dangers. All human life is at risk if we don’t stop spiralling conflict, the arms race, and the destruction of the environment.” The removal of Archbishop Paglia as president and grand chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and the appointment of his successors, Cardinal Baldassare Reina as grand chancellor and Renzo Pegoraro as president, was one of the first changes to the Curia under Pope Leo XIV. Paglia reached the mandatory retirement age of 80 on 21 April 2025, the day of Pope Francis’s death, so the change was not unexpected and had likely been arranged under the previous pontificate.

Magnifica Humanitas is far more than an encyclical on artificial intelligence. Michael Haynes finds that Pope Leo XIV’s first major text offers a window into the moral vision shaping his pontificate With the launch of his first encyclical there is now no doubt that Leo’s choice of regnal name and entire papacy is centred around what he sees as a pivotal moment for the future of the Church and humanity. “Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed,” said Leo XIV while launching Magnifica Humanitas today. “This moment needs words capable of attracting attention, of awakening consciences.” This is not to say that Leo opposes the seemingly relentless drive of artificial intelligence (AI) or the wider technological development of the modern world. While AI cannot be deemed “morally neutral”, Leo urged that “it must be at the service of all and the common good”. In short, this could be taken as a summation of the entire encyclical : a plea for the pursuit of the common good. It is certainly written as a response to AI and describes itself as being in the “age of AI”. But it is much wider than AI itself, as Leo appeared to launch his pontificate anew. Just as during his address to the College of Cardinals last May he outlined his papal priorities, in Magnifica Humanitas Leo revealed his deeper concerns about wider society. Given the length of the encyclical, no single analysis can justly summarise all that it contains, but one key element to examine first is what the text reveals about the Pontiff’s moral compass and his view of addressing crises in the Church and wider secular society. Far from being a mere appeal from another cleric for some generically responsible behaviour, this time regarding AI, Leo delved into the entire foundation of societal life. For Leo, the link between his encyclical and his namesake’s Rerum Novarum is palpable. “Like the earlier Leo, I feel entrusted to look upon another huge transformation with eyes of faith, with lucidity of reason, with openness to mystery, and with cries of the poor and the earth resounding in my heart,” he commented during the launch event. This is why Magnifica Humanitas does not deal briefly and solely with AI, but instead uses the topic to launch into a wider schooling of society about improving standards of behaviour and acting in a more Christian manner while seeking the common good. Leo’s assessment of how to preserve humanity from the dangers posed by AI is to attempt a ground-up re-education of society with God at the centre. In part this explains the considerable length of the text, which will have disappointed those looking for a return to briefer tomes. Of the 245 paragraphs and 224 footnotes, Pope Francis is cited 54 times, Benedict XVI 16 times, John Paul II nearly 40 times, and the Second Vatican Council 13 times. St Augustine also features throughout, with a quotation drawn from J.R.R. Tolkien. The tone is a mixture of different elements. Firstly, it is undeniably clear that Leo is seeking to address the result of many years of increasingly anti-Catholic secularism. “We live at a time of significant spiritual and cultural blindness,” he stated. In order to resolve this crisis, a crisis which then spills over into the use of AI, Leo urges society to return to elements intrinsic to Christian civilisation, such as pursuing the common good. “In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human,” he writes. “We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendour of which no machine can ever replace.” His approach to how best to use AI thus necessarily involves a quasi-catechesis on the re-Christianisation of society. Leo decried how “the risk of dehumanization — of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise”. Should AI and wider technological development continue in the line of the Tower of Babel, then all will suffer, Leo argued. “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.” “What saves humanity,” he added later in the encyclical, “is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within.” The Pontiff urged all readers to recognise “the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord”. Such lines present a decidedly Christian tone to the text, if perhaps not a stridently or overtly Catholic one. It reads as Leo’s heartfelt appeal to the world at large to act in a more polite, respectful and ultimately Christian manner. “In order to protect the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice,” wrote Leo, having noted that “a city founded on the common good implies, first and foremost, building on a firm relationship with God”. At other times the text seems less unabashedly Catholic than a papal encyclical ought confidently to appear. In large part this is due to the Pope’s reiteration of his predecessor’s text Dignitas Infinita regarding human dignity, and an underlying tone in the text which appears to orient the Pope’s proposed societal changes as being chiefly desirable because they benefit man, rather than being linked to a conversion of hearts and minds to Catholicism. Assuredly, in certain sections the Pope notes the importance of having God at the foundation of activity, but in others a far more secular tone is present. Modern teaching on human dignity tends to upend traditional teaching, generally remaining silent on supernatural dignity and then elevating natural dignity. For a more detailed analysis on the topic than is possible here, see this correspondent’s article and book on the topic. Citing this teaching on human dignity, Leo writes that it is this which “requires us to shape the way we live together, including our economic and political choices, and the makeup of our cities”. Yet such an aspect is also very much in line with Leo’s papal style: avoiding polemics, and outwardly remaining calm as he seeks to find common ground with all in an apparent attempt to defuse tensions and foster peaceful dialogue. This does not stop him from once again decrying abortion and euthanasia. Nor did Leo feel restrained in making a bold statement declaring that the Church’s longstanding teaching on a “just war” is “now outdated” since “humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness”. Indeed, this latter point places his repeated calls for peace in a new light, given that, for Leo, it appears that armed conflict can no longer be justified, a pronouncement which is not supported either by Scripture or Tradition. For an encyclical billed as being solely about AI, the text delivers far more than that. It reads as a window into Leo’s moral and social views and thus into the style and priorities of his pontificate. Vaticanists waiting for a “tell” on Leo have finally been granted an inside look. Leo highlights the Christian foundation of society before noting that only Christianity can lead society and mankind to truly flourish. He then moves to address questions relating to the common good, alongside topics likely to interest more secular readers, including his passionate appeals regarding armed conflict and the growing use of AI in fuelling the global war industry. But in closing he returns once more to his overtly Christian theme, emphasising the importance of prayer in sustaining any endeavour aimed at fostering a better society in pursuit of the common good. “The spirituality that we need,” he wrote, “is a Eucharistic spirituality, that is, a spirituality of ecclesial unity in love.” Leo urged society to recognise the beauty that comes not from AI’s takeover of the world, or even man himself through transhumanism, but from the frailty of humanity which must rely upon God for everything. “Our rule,” he concluded, “must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality, and should be characterized by shared responsibility and a language characterized by the Gospel.” Michael Haynes is an English journalist in the Holy See Press Corps. He serves as Vatican Correspondent and Analyst for Pelican+ , while readers can follow him at Per Mariam and on X @MLJHaynes .

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.”