Thus, the words, “excommunication” and “schism” are once again in the lively vocabulary of online semi-canonists and theologians. But what do these words really mean? And how can one be excommunicated?

In this article, we will shed light on these questions. However, we will not be discussing the specificity of the case of the SSPX. That merits a more detailed and spiritually mature article that I think still needs time and prayer before writing. So, if you are here for my opinion on the subject, then I am sorry to disappoint you.

You can use this Table of Contents to jump to the question you like to read first:

Penalties and sanctions in Canon law

The Catholic Church’s daily life and order is maintained by Canon law. Unlike civil law, the ultimate goal and supreme rule of ecclesiastical law is salus animarum (the salvation of souls). Thus, sanctions and penalties must be read in this light.

Book VI of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is dedicated to delicts and penalties. Can. 1312 clarifies that sanctions in the Church are either (1) medicinal penalties or censures; (2) expiatory penalties; or (3) remedies and penalties.

The immediate goal of medicinal penalties or censures is the rehabilitation of the offender, can. 1347 establishes that this is done if the offender has ceased in doing the offense, has repented of it and has repaired the damage and scandal it caused. Thus the duration depends on the offender himself.

The finality of expiatory penalties is the reparation of the damage caused to the ecclesial community while penal remedies are not really penalties in the strict sense.

Thus, it is wrong to say excommunication or any other sanction given by the Church is a vindictive act. Rather, it is an act of charity or of fraternal correction, if you will.

What excommunication is and what is it not?

An excommunication falls into the first category of sanctions. Thus, it is technically called a censure. It is the principal and severest censure that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society and is thus reserved only to the gravest offenses. 

It is medicinal in nature and as such is designed to “shock” a person’s conscience, encourage them to repentance, and ultimately lead them back to full communion with the Church.

Censures cannot be imposed neither in perpetuity nor for a determined time since its duration depends on the fulfillment of the above-mentioned requirements by the offender.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Art. IX) describes: “excommunicated persons, because excluded by [the Church’s] sentence from the number of her children, belong not to her communion until restored by repentance. But with regard to the rest; however wicked and flagitious, it is certain that they still belong to the Church.”

Pope Leo X, in Exsurge Domine (1520), condemned Martin Luther’s twenty-third proposition that states that excommunications are merely external punishments and not spiritual. Pius VI reiterated this condemnation in Auctorem fidei (1794). 

Clement XI, in his condemnation of Pasquier Quesnel’s Jansenist theses in Unigenitus (1713), asserts the Church’s authority to excommunicate and invalidates the counterargument of a hypothetical “unjust excommunication” that does not separate the excommunicated to the Church and that “to suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity” (thesis 92). 

In other words:

An excommunication is not:

• A vindictive act of ecclesiastical authority;
• A proclamation of eternal damnation;
• A merely external punishment with no spiritual consequences;
• An act that becomes “invalidated” because it is “unjust”, or that its spiritual effects are not applied because of this supposed “unjust” character.

An excommunication is:

• A penalty or censure reserved to grave offenses whose end is the medicinal, that is, the full restoration of the excommunicated to the Church after fulfilling the above-mentioned three requirements;
• A penalty that separates the excommunicated from the society of the Church and its effects are both in the external forum and the internal forum, thus the effects are both practical and spiritual.

Does an “unjust” excommunication make it invalid?

We have to make an excursus here since we’ve discussed the Jansenist claim that an “unjust” excommunication makes it invalid.

An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. 

An “unjust” excommunication is still valid, but it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. This, of course, means that it is not a question of excommunication latae sententiae and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence (ferendae sententiae). 

A null excommunication produces no effect whatsoever, and may be ignored without committing sin. But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the internal forum and the external forum, between legal justice and the real facts.

Pope Innocent III formally admits in De sententia excommunicationis the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. 

The Pope concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. 

Therefore, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. 

However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

Who can excommunicate?

Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge).

The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial. We will revisit this later when we discuss latae sententiae and ferende sententiae.

Excommunication is a jurisdictional matter in the Church, thus it follows that whoever has proper jurisdiction can excommunicate but only those subject to him. Subjection here means residence (or quasi-residence) on the territory under the responsibility of the proper authority and by reason of the offense committed in that territory.

For example, a Bishop can only excommunicate those who reside in his Diocese. A regular prelate can excommunicate a religious. But, a parish priest cannot exercise this to his parishioners.

It follows that both de jure and ab homine excommunications can be exercised by the Pope.

Who can be excommunicated?

Ecclesiastical censures can only be applied to those who belong to the Church, i.e. the baptized. A baptized Christian who is a delinquent (who committed the crime) and is contumacious (willfully persists in such conduct) can be excommunicated as a medicine in the hope of repentance. 

Thus, non-Christians like pagans, Jews, and Muslims cannot be excommunicated.

Furthermore, no one can be automatically excommunicated of any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law (cf. can. 1323 n. 2) or that a penalty is attached to the law (can. 1324 §1 n. 9). 

The same applies to minors (below 16 years old, those who have imperfect use of reason, those who lack the use of reason (drunkenness, mental disturbance, consumed by passion), those who were forced through grave or relatively grave fear, those who were forced through serious inconvenience or necessity since otherwise will constitute a greater evil, and those acting in self-defense (cf. can. 1324). However, this does not mean that the perpetrator is exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place.

Since it is a remedy, censure is only applied to the living baptized Catholic. The same can be said on its absolution since the penalty ceases at the time of death.

However, the Pope can summon an ecclesiastical tribunal for retrial and rehabilitation of a dead person who was excommunicated while living. If it is proven that the excommunication was unjust, the Church rehabilitates the good name of the person (it is not “absolving” since the person is already dead).

An example of this was St. Joan of Arc who was excommunicated and executed by an ecclesiastical court, heavily influenced by English civil power, in Rouen in 1431. Pope Calixtus III called for a retrial in 1455 to investigate the original trial and its verdicts. On 7 July 1456, the original trial was judged to be invalid due to improper procedures, deceit, and fraud, and the charges against Joan were nullified. She was canonized in 1920.

As a side note, here are other saints, aside from St. Joan of Arc, who received excommunication in their lives:

• St. Athanasius - excommunicated by Pope Liberius who was forced to do so by the Emperor who was favorable to the Arian heresy;
• Pope St. Leo I - excommunicated by Dioscorus I, Patriarch of Alexandria and ten other bishops in the “Robber” Synod of Ephesus in 449 AD (which was later condemned and anathemized by the Council of Chalcedon in 451);
• St. Columba - excommunicated in 562 by the synod of Teltown for allegedly praying for the winning side in an Irish War. The excommunication was later held to be an abuse of justice and the bishops in question removed their charge;
• St. Arialdo - excommunicated by Guido da Velate, Bishop of Milan while he was working against clerical abuses in Milan. He was immediately reinstated by Pope Stephen IX;
• St. Mary Mackillop - excommunicated by Bishop Laurence Sheil in 1871 for insubordination. Five months later, from his deathbed, Shiel rescinded the excommunication.

And, as a “fun fact”, the most excommunicated person in history is Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, who holds the record of having been excommunicated five times and by three Popes in his life.

The first person in history to be excommunicated was Simon the Magus who was excommunicated by the first Pope, St. Peter, after trying to buy apostolic powers–thus the name of the sin: simony–(cf. Acts 8:9-24).

What happens to the excommunicated?

Although the excommunicated person is excluded from the society of the Church, he or she still bears the indelible mark of baptism and thus is still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church and must still fulfill his christian obligations though he or she cannot receive the sacraments. Can. 1331 lists the prohibitions inflicted to the excommunicated:

1. Celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments;
2. Receiving the sacraments;
3. Administering sacramentals and celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship;
4. Taking an active part in the celebrations listed above;
5. Exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions;
6. Performing acts of governance.

The excommunicated is also prohibited from the moment his ferendae sententiae excommunication has been imposed or a latae sententiae excommunication declared from benefiting from privileges already granted, acquiring any remuneration held in virtue of a merely ecclesiastical title, and acquiring offices, duties, ministries, functions, rights, privileges or honorific titles.

If the excommunicated insists on defying numbers 1-4, he is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary.

What is ferendae sententiae and latae sententiae?

Surely, you’ve heard of these terms after the events of July 1st 2026 and also because I’ve been using these throughout this article. Let us define what these terms mean.

Pope Pius IX promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Sedis in 1869 simplifying the categorization of excommunications and divides penalties into either ferendae or latae.

Ferendae sententiae

A ferendae sententiae is an excommunication imposed by a judge. It is foreseen by the law as a penalty, but only inflicted afterwards. Thus, there should first be a summons of the accused to appear before the tribunal and a trial to confirm if the offense has indeed been committed. If proven guilty, the accused is then invited to recant or else the judge may impose to him the pain of excommunication.

Thus, a ferendae sententiae is not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed (cf. can 1314).

An example of a ferendae sententiae excommunication in recent memory is in 2008 when then Archbishop of St. Louis (USA), Raymond Burke (now Cardinal) excommunicated a woman for simulating the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Latae sententiae

Sadly, latae sententiae is not a type of coffee you can buy in your local coffee shop.

Latae sententiae excommunication is incurred as soon as the act is committed and by reason of the act itself (eo ipso). Thus the offender is excommunicated by the fact itself (ipso facto). The ecclesiastical authority afterwards only declares (not imposes) the excommunication.

Therefore, most headlines are wrong in saying that the “Vatican excommunicates…” Technically, it should rather be: “The Vatican declares the excommunication of…”

Thus, while a ferendae sententiae excommunication is always public, a latae sententiae can be public or occult. For example, a person who committed or assisted in abortion is automatically excommunicated ipso facto even if no one knows. Thus, all the penalties are already applied at the very moment of the act.

When the competent ecclesiastical authorities become aware of the act, they have to make it public by declaring that it has taken place.

Can. 1364-1398 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (amended by special laws like Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutelam and Vox estis lux mundi) lists the crimes that inflict latae sententiae excommunication as follows:

• Offenses against the Faith and the unity of the Church (apostasy, heresy, or schism);
• Sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist;
• Physical attack against the Roman Pontiff (attacking the Bishop incurs latae sententiae interdict, another type of sanction; attacking a priest or religious or any other lay faithful a just sanction must be imposed);
• Attempting to confer Holy Orders to a woman (both the one who attempts and the woman who simulates receiving the Orders are excommunicated);
• Absolving an accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment;
• Violating the sacramental seal of confession;
• Ordaining without a papal mandate (both the one who confers and the one who receives the Orders are excommunicated);
• Procuring or assisting in abortion;
• Being an accomplice without whose assistance a violation of a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed.

Other crimes not listed in the Code, but included by other documents and thus inflict latae sententiae excommunication:

• Violation of the secrecy of Papal Conclave;
• Simony and other intents of interfering with the Conclave;
• Communicating the veto of a civil authority in a Conclave;
• Being a member of a Masonic association.

What about other crimes?

You might be asking how about crimes like murder or calumny or sexual abuse. These are also punished by the law, but have their own sanctions not necessarily excommunication. Because of that, we will not discuss them here. 

But, suffice it to say that the rule in Canon law is that if civil law can already enforce a punishment, it is not convenient that a person be punished twice for the same crime.

Why are some of those who hold on to Catholic orthodoxy excommunicated while some modernists not?

Can. 1330 states: “An offence which consists in a declaration or in some other manifestation of will or of doctrine or of knowledge is not to be regarded as effected if no one actually perceives the declaration or manifestation.”

There are people who like to walk around the margins of orthodoxy without formally endorsing heres. That is why excommunication cannot be imposed upon them (much less if they do not commit a crime with latae sententiae excommunication).

The competent authority who has jurisdiction, however, can make use of other sanctions to call the attention of these people like suspension or expiatory penalties.

What is the difference between an excommunication and an anathema?

In the dogmatic canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the word “anathema” signifies exclusion from the society of the faithful because of heresy. It might be said that it is the gravest and harshest condemnation.

Already in the 9th and 10th century, canonists began distinguishing anathema from excommunication, speaking of “major” and “minor” excommunications. The 1917 Code of Canon Law already abandoned the use of these terms (it still exists in the Code for Eastern Churches).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law no longer contains the word anathema so as not to confuse this solemn condemnation of heresy with that of the medicinal nature of excommunication.

What does excommunication “reserved to the Apostolic See” mean?

An excommunication is either reserved or non-reserved. This refers to the one who can absolve the censure. A non-reserved censure can be lifted by any confessor in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

When the excommunication is “reserved to the Apostolic See”, then it is only the Pope who can lift the censure. When it is “reserved to the Bishop or Ordinary”, then only the Bishop or Ordinary can lift the censure.

In cases of excommunications ab homine (that is, imposed by a judge), the censure can be lifted by the judge who imposed it.

An example of an excommunication reserved to the Bishop was abortion, but in 2016, Pope Francis, in Misericodia et misera, gave all priests, “by reason of their ministry”, the faculty to absolve those who have procured the sin of abortion.”

As always, in the case of danger of death, any priest can remit validly and licitly virtually all penalties (can. 976).

Excommunications reserved to the Apostolic See

The 1983 Code of Canon Law, as amended by Pascite gregem Dei (2021), reserves to the Apostolic See the excommunication of the following:

1. "A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if the offender is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, may be added according to the gravity of the crime." (can. 1370)
2. "Both a person who attempts to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive the sacred order, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by dismissal from the clerical state." (can. 1379)
3. "One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state." (can. 1382)
4. "A priest who acts against the prescription of can. 977 (absolution of an accomplice against the Sixth Commandment) incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See." (can. 1384)
5. "A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence." (can. 1386)
6. "Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See." (can. 1387)

By Tradition, excommunication of sovereigns is also reserved to the Apostolic See.

Absolution from excommunication

Again, we have to reiterate: excommunication is medicinal. Its end goal is the restoration of justice and of the guilty to full communion with the Church.

The excommunicated individual is asked to reflect upon the injustice of the act he has committed and to repent truly. The proper ecclesiastical authority can lift the penalties once the offender stops his contumacious act, repents, and restores damages and scandal caused by the action.

Conclusion: is it a badge of honor or an eternal damnation?

No one should be happy when an excommunication is imposed or declared since it means that a great wound has opened in the Mystical Body of Christ. 

For the excommunicated, the penalty is not a badge of honor just like how the Jansenists saw it to be. Rather, it is a call by the Church as Mother and Teacher to repent and repair the communion.

On the other hand, it should not be a cause for joy for those who are against the excommunicated or those who remain “Catholics in good standing”. The imposition or declaration of excommunication is not a vindication of one’s own ideology and position. It is not a decree of eternal damnation.

Rejoicing in excommunication of the other constitutes a neo-Donatist attitude, very similar to that of the elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

So, in these times of great tribulations against the barque of Peter: the best reaction is to pray. Pray the priestly prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane: “that they may be one.”

In the next article, we will discuss what schism is and what it is not. So stay tuned for that!

The post What is an excommunication? appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

The upcoming consecrations by the Society of St. Pius X mark a pivotal moment in the Church's ongoing struggles with authority, legitimacy, and tradition. Are they a desperate leap toward reclaiming lost roots or a dangerous shift that could deepen divisions within Catholicism?

If you're a faithful seeking clarity on what’s really at stake—beyond the headlines—this episode unwraps the complex web of history, doctrine, and church politics behind the event.

Dive into a candid, insightful analysis of the SSPX’s intentions and the Vatican’s cautious reactions. You'll discover how historic schisms still influence today’s tensions.

We break down the significance of recognition, legitimacy, and the risk of further excommunication, all while exploring why the Church's response remains both critical and nuanced.

Our discussion touches on the power dynamics at play—such as Pope Francis's role, the Vatican’s diplomatic moves, and the implications for ordinary Catholics—and why the outcomes could reshape the landscape of traditional and modern Catholic practice alike.

This episode offers a vital perspective for anyone who still believes in the Church's mission but fears losing sight of its core. Whether you’re deeply rooted in tradition or simply curious about the future of Catholic unity, you’ll gain a clearer understanding of how these consecrations could impact both the Church’s integrity and its global image.

You’ll leave with a sharper sense of the stakes—and why prayer and patience remain our strongest tools in navigating these turbulent waters.If you care about the future of Catholic identity, the preservation of tradition, or just want to understand recent events with insight, this is essential listening. It’s about faith, history, and hope—conversations every Catholic should follow as the Church’s story unfolds.

Please read Bl. Pius IX's Quartus supra to understand what constitutes a schism.

Edit: The Decree of Excommunication has been released formally declaring that SSPX sacred ministers and formally adherent laity are in schism with the Catholic Church. Thus Fr. Lennon's advice in this episode that one can still receive the sacraments from SSPX priests must be corrected. It is no longer feasible, our advice is to receive the sacraments from a priest who celebrates the TLM but is still in communion with the Holy Father. You can read the Decree here.

Watch the episode in YouTube:

Watch our History of the 1966 Écône Consecrations here

The post Usapang SSPX Episcopal Consecrations 2026 appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

This episode dives into the profound teachings of Saint Josemaría Escrivá, illustrating that holiness is attainable even in a chaos-filled world. With special guest Father Mark Sese, we explore how ordinary lives can be transformed into extraordinary calls for sanctity, emphasizing practical spirituality rooted in daily life and the richness of tradition.

In this episode:

• Saint Josemaría's message that holiness is possible amid life's chaos
• How Opus Dei promotes sanctity for laypeople and priests alike
• The significance of understanding and embracing the Mass, especially the Latin Mass
• The importance of the sacraments, especially confession, as tools for spiritual renewal
• Clarifying misconceptions about Opus Dei
• The structure, membership, and hierarchy within Opus Dei, including the difference between numeraries, supernumeraries, and associates
• Responses to common criticisms and misconceptions about Opus Dei and the Church
• Personal anecdotes from Father Mark about his journey, the community, and the saints

The post Usapang St. Josemaría Escrivá and Opus Dei appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

Episode summary

Most of us think technology, especially AI, is a neutral tool—either good or bad depending on how we use it. But what if the real issue lies in who controls it, and why? Pope Leo XIV’s groundbreaking encyclical Magnifica Humanitas challenges us to see beyond efficiency and productivity, urging us to center human dignity rooted in our divine image. 

This episode cuts through the noise to explore how technology can either diminish or elevate our shared humanity, revealing surprising biblical metaphors like Babel and Jerusalem that caution us against hubris and call for participatory, love-driven innovation.

You’ll discover how the Church’s social doctrine emerges from crises—be it the Industrial Revolution, totalitarianism, or ecological breakdown—and how each crisis invites a deeper reflection on human dignity. We break down key issues: the risk of dehumanization through AI, the danger of technocratic power, and whether machine intelligence can ever truly possess moral consciousness. 

Why does the Pope say AI is not neutral? How does the biblical Tower of Babel warn us against the 'efficiency as idol' mindset? And what does rebuilding Jerusalem teach us about participative, human-centered tech?

This episode ventures into philosophical territory—examining Aristotle’s telos, Aquinas’s human flourishing, and Nietzsche’s superhuman ambitions—highlighting that progress isn’t just about technological mastery but about love, sacrifice, and the infinite mystery of the human spirit. 

It’s essential listening for anyone concerned that the rapid march of AI and transhumanist dreams might threaten what makes us truly human—our capacity for love, morality, and transcendence.Whether you’re a tech skeptic, a believer concerned with human dignity, or a curious thinker, this episode offers a profound perspective on technology’s role in shaping or distorting our shared future. Be part of a conversation rooted in hope—guided by faith, wisdom, and the call to build a civilization of love, not just power.

Time stamp:

00:00 Introduction

02:33 PART I FROM RERUM NOVARUM TO MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS

07:41 PART II THE GRANDEUR OF THE HUMAN PERSON

18:23 Philosophical roundtable 1

31:51 PART III BABEL AND JERUSALEM

43:33 PART IV WHAT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS AND IS NOT

48:55 Philosophical Roundtable 2

57:27 PART V THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM

01:05:31 Philosophical Roundtable 3

01:12:36 PART VI TRUTH IN THE AGE OF ALGORITHMS

01:18:27 PART VII WORK, LABOR, AND HUMAN DIGNITY

01:27:32 PART VIII TRANSHUMANISM AND THE NEW PROMETHEUS

01:39:11 PART IX AI, WAR, AND THE CULTURE OF POWER

01:44:13 FINAL PHILOSOPHICAL SYMPOSIUM

01:52:38 EPILOGUE: THE MAGNIFICAT

The post Usapang Magnifica Humanitas appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

I have been blessed to be in this event in person and Banderas' speech is not only an celebration of religion, but a celebration of its intimate relationship with the arts and its power to transform humanity. I believe this speech is a powerful testimony on art's place in humanity in this AI dominated age and having found no available English translation of the speech online (as of writing and publishing this), I have decided to translate it myself and make it available to the English reader (you can read the original Spanish here).

Antonio Banderas' Full Speech Before the Pope

Authorities,

Dear friends,

There are encounters that are not only measured in time but in their meaning.

Holy Father, your presence today in Madrid is not just a visit. It's a gesture. A gesture of listening, of closeness, of dialogue with civil society which, without doubt, thanks you for it.

That dialogue, sometimes, should be reinforced using a common language. That language is, and has been on many occasions throughout history, art.

The relationship between the Catholic Church and art has not only been fruitful: it has been decisive. We are not afraid to be wrong when we say that the church has been the greatest art producer in the history of humanity.

At the heart of that creative impulse is the one who crosses the centuries, styles, and cultures, and who has certainly been the most represented figure in the history of art: Jesus Christ. The great protagonist of the movie of life. In all the arts Christ is a constant presence. Not as a repeated image, but as an icon of peace, love, and sacrifice, surrounded by an inexhaustible mystery.

I could reduce my speech simply to listing the great artists who with their works have magnified the message coming from the word of Jesus.

I could also limit myself to giving a series of data that illustrate the path traveled between the Church, artists, intellectuals, philosophers... but today, Holy Father, I feel a certain obligation to offer a little reflection out loud about my own experience.

For this I have to go back in time to the Holy Week celebrations in my beloved Malaga back in the 60’s of the last century. Those popular manifestations that take over the streets enveloping them with a majestic ritual of art and faith, of roots, and devotion. A multicolored polyhedron of elegant beauty, of theatrical liturgy that every year transforms the city into a space where the artistic and the spiritual merge.

And it was there, Holy Father, in that frame of anonymous popular art, when at only 4 or 5 years old, a question was born in me that only contained one word: God? Little by little I found answers, some as simple as the one I recognized in my mother's eyes while she fixed her gaze and her devoted heart to the Virgin of Hope who passed on her throne in front of us in those distant years. Or through the voice that broke the clear spring air of the singers of saetas. Or among the humble and good people of my city who go out every year, and they take to the street with their neighborhood in tow, carrying their images that help them look for themselves while they look for God. And they do it leaving behind them the self, to cling to the we... from we they pass to them, from them to everyone, from everyone to the world, from the world to the universe, from the universe to God, and then they land again intuiting that God can be in every particle, in every molecule of every drop of water, of every sea, of every rose petal, of every heartbeat, of every sigh.

But art is not just beauty.

Art is a question.

It's a reflection.

It's a contrast.

It's a revolution.

It's a tension between what we know and what we intuit.

Art has been–and must continue to be–the mirror that reflects lives that pass by the wounded neighbor. It is also the denunciation of empty creeds that forgot love. It is the voice to alert societies that have become accustomed to injustice.

Art must be an alternative to violence

Art must be an alternative to violence. All violence. Just as Christ himself did, the artist must act with courage and not abandon being a critical instance to society, art itself, and religion itself.

Holy Father... we have to share an obligation. We are obliged to look, and to see, and to try to understand the complexities of the human soul.

All human beings face the great questions of our existence:

Who are we?

What is the meaning of life, and the pain?

What does it mean to love... really... your neighbor... like yourself?

What's there beyond?

And in this search, we all approach, perhaps without knowing it, the transcendent.

Holy Father,

In a world that runs, that is fragmented, that is sometimes oversimplified, art helps us recover the depth and soul that is trying to be stolen by artificial intelligences that must be at the service of the human being and not the other way around.

A soul that whispers to us that there is something more. The constant whisper of hope for that something else. This meeting between the Church and civil society is not only timely: it is necessary.

We need to keep creating and sharing.

Keep asking.

Keep looking for beauty, yes... but also Truth.

Because where we dare to ask in depth, always, always, a path begins, a path that can lead us to the spiritual, which is nothing more than the fraternity that beats in the heart of every human being and in the mysterious heart of God.

"You say that times are bad. Be better yourselves and times will be better. You are the time," Saint Augustine said.

Holy Father, I'm here for Godspell. Godspell is a musical play created in your country of origin. Godspell's Spanish translation is "The Spell of God" (“El hechizo de Dios”). I am here today confessing to having been a victim of God's spell.

Thank you very much.

The post Antonio Banderas’ Full Discourse on Art and the Church Given in the Presence of Pope Leo XIV [Full English Translation] appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

I decided to share with you the text of the Pope's address in English as this address is not just directed to Spain but, in the words of the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the Pope spoke in Madrid to Europe and to the World.

First, the context

Before proceeding to the full text, the current political context of the Kingdom of Spain must be reviewed.

The current government is the coalition of the Socialists (PSOE) and a conglomerate of extreme left wing parties called Sumar. Both parties were not the most voted parties. The conservative Partido Popular won the election, but failed to get a majority. After the Socialists, the anti-immigration right wing party Vox comes next. Sumar is fourth.

PSOE and Sumar does not have a majority, their government is sustained by the votes of the right wing Catalan nationalist party Junts whose party president called for people to boo the Pope because he was not speaking ONLY in Catalan in Barcelona, but in Catalan and Spanish.

The current government has been very aggressive towards the Church. While the Pope was in Madrid, they have quietly started the desecration of the Basilica of the Valley of the Fallen. Just a few days after the Pope left for Barcelona, they have tabled Euthanasia in the Parliament. They are also trying to modify the Constitution to make abortion a "fundamental" right.

In fact, the Prime Minister (Presidente del Gobierno), Pedro Sánchez, never attended any religious event not even funeral masses offered for the the victims of Covid, the flooding in Valencia, or the volcanic eruption in the Canary Islands. He preferred a "lay funeral", something that most people criticize as a "masonic tone deaf invention". Sánchez's first public appearance in a religious event is the Mass and Blessing of the Tower of Jesus Christ in the Basilica of Sagrada Famìlia in Barcelona (Catalonia being a Socialist bastion might be influential in his decision).

With this context, I think we can now go to the full text of the address and understand why mainstream media will just highlight whatever suits best to the political narratives of their owners.

Address of the Holy Father to the Spanish Cortes (8 June 2026) - Full text

Mr Prime Minister,
Madam President of the Congress of Deputies,
Mr President of the Senate,
Mr President of the Constitutional Court,
Madam President of the Supreme Court and the General Council of the Judiciary,
Members of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate,
Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank the President [*of the Congress of Deputies] for her kind words, as well as for the invitation the Apostolic See received on the occasion of my visit to this country. I am also grateful for the courtesy of welcoming me to this historic Palace of the Congress of Deputies, a prominent center of the institutional, legal and democratic life of the Kingdom of Spain. I come before you as the Bishop of Rome and Shepherd of the Catholic Church, aware that the mission entrusted to the Successor of the Apostle Peter, as the principle and foundation of the unity of the Bishops and the faithful (cf. Lumen Gentium, 23), places the Holy See, in a special way, in dialogue with peoples and with States.

My presence among you is intended as a gesture of closeness to Spain, within the framework of mutual cooperation, and as a message offered in the spirit of service to the human person. The Church “walks alongside humanity,” shares its hopes and its wounds, listens to the questions of every age and allows herself to be challenged by “everything concerning the lives of contemporary men and women.” For this reason, when the Church addresses anything concerning public life, she does so while respecting the proper mission of institutions and the legitimate responsibility of those who have received the mandate to legislate. She recognizes “the autonomy of earthly realities” and “the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community”; and, precisely from this awareness, the Church offers a reflection born of the desire to serve the common good and to recall what makes human coexistence truly human (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 18, 19, 22).

In this chamber, social coexistence takes legal form. Here, differences are heard, sorted out, and, when possible, transformed into shared decisions. For this reason, beyond the legitimate diversity of positions, every legislative task ultimately confronts a decisive question: what conception of the human person inspires laws, and what kind of society do those laws build?

In this regard, Spain has a particularly rich heritage. Its geographical and political identity is intertwined with a history in which faith and reason, art and law, tradition and thought have come together in a fruitful manner. In its cathedrals and universities, its immortal literature, its legal institutions and the very spirit of its people, endures a heritage that has shaped its way of living out freedom, practicing justice and organizing communal life.

From the timeless pages of Don Quixote, where Cervantes proclaimed that “freedom… is one of the most precious gifts that heaven has bestowed upon men” (Don Quixote de la Mancha, II, 58), to the spiritual depth of Saint Teresa of Ávila, and from the great Spanish legal tradition to the metaphysical restlessness of Unamuno, who recalled that man “was not resigned to die utterly” (The Tragic Sense of Life, I), Spain has known how to view the human being as more than just a cog in the social, economic or political order. It has recognized the human being as a creature open to truth, endowed with freedom, and driven by a thirst for eternity that no temporal reality can quench — in a word, as someone whose dignity takes precedence over all utility and to whose service legislative action is subject.

For this reason, when speaking today of the human person, this reflection naturally leads to Salamanca and the thought that matured there. The symbolic presence in this hall of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella recalls the moment when Spain found itself facing historic responsibilities of universal scope. A few years later, Salamanca would undertake, with particular clarity, the moral and legal reflection that the situation demanded. At that university, five hundred years ago, when new worlds and immense possibilities were opening up in relations among peoples, some teachers understood that reason could not be invoked to legitimize whatever force or self-interest that seemed convenient. They thus introduced into historical discernment the question of the irreducible value of every human being and the moral limits of power. It must be acknowledged that society and the Church herself did not always live up to these insights found in their own Christian tradition.

However, that question opened up an intellectual and moral horizon that transcended its historical moment. The intuition of the totus orbis — of a human community broader than any particular power — made it possible to affirm the existence of legal and moral bonds among peoples. From Spain, the reflections of the School of Salamanca — and in particular those of Fray Francisco de Vitoria, along with other Dominicans and Jesuits — helped to shape a legal and moral consciousness capable of remembering that authority always entails responsibility and that every human being must be recognized as a subject of rights and duties. That aspiration continues to resonate today: that dignity, justice and the common good should be the measure of social relations, both at the national and international levels.

This is one of Spain’s great legacies: having united historical action with the clarity of moral reason. That contribution, born on the banks of the Tormes, transcended classrooms and libraries, and became part of a broader consciousness, shared by the international community, which continues to ask itself how to build peace on the recognition of the person and not on the imposition of force. That legacy also lives on in this Parliament, every time lawmakers ask themselves how to ensure that what is possible is just, that what is legal is truly humane, and that the will of the majority safeguards those goods that belong to all and respects that which no majority can legitimately violate.

The “Salamanca Question” continues to guide the work of those who serve in public life. Today, the new worlds opening up before us are no longer marked on maps: they unfold in technology, the economy, biomedicine, and the digital realm, where human power reaches into increasingly sensitive areas of personal and social life.

Progress offers admirable possibilities, and today we see this in a unique way in the development of artificial intelligence and new technologies. As I recalled in my recent Encyclical, technology in itself is not neutral because it takes on the face of those who conceive, finance, regulate and use it (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 9); therefore, in the face of the transformations of our time, our discernment must focus on the place of the human person in our decision making and on how the dignity of work, solidarity, social policy and the common good are today being addressed in new ways.

This discernment begins with a fundamental affirmation: every truly just society is built upon the recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person. Such dignity precedes any concession by the State and cannot be subordinated to shifting social consensus or the whims of the majority at any given moment (cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the German Federal Parliament, 22 September 2011). It belongs to every human being by the very fact of their existence, and for this reason, it must guide every positive legal system. The Christian faith proclaims it on the basis of Revelation; human reason can recognize it as a requirement inscribed in the truth of man (cf. ibid.). When this conviction remains alive, the law becomes a safeguard for all and a guarantee against the imposition of particular interests and agendas.

On this basis, it falls to me today to speak a calm and firm word to those who bear the grave responsibility of legally ordering social coexistence. This coexistence can be threatened by the throwaway culture, as Pope Francis so often warned (cf. Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 27 September 2021). In this sense, if life ceases to be recognized as a fundamental value, what future can our societies have? Can a community that casts into the shadows the unborn child, the elderly, the sick, those who suffer in silence, or those who depend entirely on the care of others be called fully just? The defense of human life is neither a partisan issue nor a confessional interest: it is a goal of civilization. Every human life must be recognized and safeguarded from conception to its natural end, in every circumstance of its existence. When this certainty is obscured, the most vulnerable are the first victims, and the law loses its deepest meaning: to serve and protect every person. For this reason, the moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to accompany, protect and love those lives that are most fragile.

If life ceases to be recognized as a fundamental value, what future can our societies have?

The common good is, in a certain sense, the “social expression of the dignity recognized in every person” (Magnifica Humanitas, 59). It does not consist in the mere sum of particular interests, but rather in “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment” (Gaudium et Spes, 26). When the common good ceases to be a shared horizon, public action runs the risk of fragmenting into partial interests, incapable of safeguarding what belongs to all.

In this context, the family — the primary human reality and the natural foundation of the community — takes on particular importance. In the home, generations intertwine and a living memory is passed on, giving inner continuity to society. Where the family is upheld, the spiritual and social stability of nations is also strengthened. The family will always be the first school of humanity, where one learns, before anywhere else, the basic grammar of living together: welcoming life, caring for others, forgiving, serving and belonging.

Educational institutions also play a decisive role in this task. In them, new generations can learn to seek and love the truth, to reflect on the meaning of life and the dignity of every person. For this reason, many parents who wish for their children to learn to relate to others, to think critically, and to acquire solid values place great hope in these institutions, seeing them as valuable allies in their children’s education. This collaboration must always respect the “primary and inalienable right” of parents to “choose the kind of education and formation for their children, in a manner consistent with their moral, cultural and religious convictions” (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 143; cf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 18.4).

The affirmation of human dignity cannot remain abstract when so many people are forced to leave everything behind in search of peace, security, and a future. The tragic drama of migration also challenges the conscience of nations and the ethical foundation of the international order today. Numerous men, women, and children are forced, by often dramatic circumstances, to leave their communities and leave behind loved ones, histories, and ties. This reality goes beyond any purely demographic or economic analysis: it constitutes an eminently moral and legal issue. Wherever people are discriminated against because of their national, ethnic, religious or linguistic origin, or because of their economic or social status, the universal principle of the equal dignity of all human beings is seriously violated.

The situation of migrants and refugees calls for a response that focuses on people, addresses the root causes that force them to leave, and goes beyond the mere management of migration flows. This gives rise to a twofold demand for social justice: to offer safe and legal pathways, a respectful welcome and real opportunities for integration; and, at the same time, to promote the right to remain in one’s own land, working to ensure that no one has to leave their home due to a lack of peace, security or decent living conditions, including economic inequalities and the effects of the climate crisis (cf. Magnifica Humanitas, 81).

In recent years, increasingly dangerous routes have highlighted the extremely high cost of this reality, so often hidden or ignored. Many people remain prey to traffickers and smugglers who take advantage of their desperation. It is necessary to strengthen prevention, rescue and assistance for victims, especially within the framework of regional and multilateral cooperation.

No nation can face a challenge of this magnitude on its own. Therefore, a coordinated, supportive, and effective response is indispensable, one capable of guaranteeing protection, welcome, and real opportunities for integration to those who migrate. When the institutional response is accessible, just and coordinated, borders cease to be places of abandonment and can become spaces for the responsible protection of human dignity.

Ladies and gentlemen:

The world is undergoing a profound spiritual and cultural crisis, which manifests in multiple forms of violence, polarization and mutual distrust. In this context, peace emerges as a political aspiration and, even more so, as a true moral imperative. It calls for public discourse that respects those who think differently, institutions dedicated to fostering dialogue, a historical memory that seeks truth and reconciliation and a social life capable of sustaining civic friendship and mutual respect amid disagreement.

On the international level, peace demands diplomatic courage, ethical responsibility and a vision for the future grounded in respect for the identity of every people and in the obligation of States to resolve their disputes through the peaceful means offered by international law. Every war constitutes, ultimately, a painful defeat of the capacity to negotiate and also of that common human consciousness that recognizes bonds of justice among nations. Weapons may impose a temporary silence; but they can never build a genuine and lasting peace.

It is therefore a cause for concern that, in various parts of the world — and in Europe as well — rearmament is once again being presented as an almost inevitable response to the fragility of the international situation. True security, however, stems from justice, patient dialogue, respect for international law, and a policy capable of placing the lives of peoples above the interests that profit from war. The development of new technologies and artificial intelligence in the military sphere also demands rigorous ethical oversight, so that decisions regarding life and death are never left to automated systems nor removed from the moral responsibility of the human person (cf. Address at the University of La Sapienza, 14 May 2026).

The international community is called to rediscover the indispensable value of dialogue as a patient path toward just and lasting agreements, founded on respect for treaties, on the transparency of diplomatic action and on the sincere will to prioritize peace over the use of force. From this spring confidence and hope.

As the motto of the European Union, In varietate concordia, reminds us, true unity does not standardize, but rather unites in diversity, making cultures, sensibilities, and traditions an opportunity for mutual enrichment.

Likewise, within societies themselves, it is urgent to build a culture of reciprocity. Political pluralism should not degenerate into the constant disparagement of one’s adversary. In a mature society, even conflict can become a path to peace, when differences are softened by listening and directed toward recognizing the needs, aspirations and capabilities of all.

But peace is not merely a political or institutional reality. It is also the fruit of conscience, where resentment, indifference, and hatred give way to reconciliation. For this reason, it is also established and protected through language. Words can open paths or close them; they can illuminate reality or distort it to the point of making encounter impossible. Those who hold public office therefore have a special obligation to be mindful of their words in order to disarm language (cf. Message for Lent 2026, 13 February 2026). Firmness does not require contempt; disagreement does not entail humiliation.

From this respect for others also arises the duty to safeguard the space where their convictions, their conscience, and their relationship with God mature. Attention to this inner realm allows for a better understanding of a decisive issue for every truly democratic society: freedom of thought, conscience and religion, a fundamental right that protects the most intimate sphere of the person. The freedom upon which the contemporary state is built, if it is authentic, recognizes the religious dimension of the human person, respects it and protects it legally; and it ensures that faith is not a reason for which a person has to forfeit his or her contribution to society.

Without confusing the legal sphere with the moral one, it is also worth recalling that freedom must be understood in its fullness. Being free does not simply mean being free from coercion or having many choices; it means being able to recognize the good and commit to it responsibly. For this reason, every truly free society also requires a proper limitation of public power, so that the freedom of individuals, communities and associations is not unduly restricted (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, 1). From this perspective, the legitimate autonomy of the temporal order must never see itself as hostile to religion. Faith does not seek to impose itself through privileges or coercion; yet neither can it be silenced as if it were irrelevant to public life.

In this context, the sacramental seal of confession holds special importance for the Catholic Church. It is part of the broader sphere of religious freedom, which guarantees believing communities their own space for life, organization and internal discipline (cf. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, The Helsinki Final Act, 1 August 1975, Principle VII). To protect it legally, as is done in a similar way in some professions, means preserving a sacred space of inner freedom, where the believer can open his or her soul to God without fear of external pressures, as international norms also recognize (cf. International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 73.3).

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Allow me to pause for a moment to reflect on some of the images that adorn this Chamber. In this Chamber, natural light streams in through the skylight that crowns the room. That light coming from above may remind us that politics, too, must acknowledge a force that precedes and transcends it.

Likewise, the paintings on the upper part of the main wall, depicting the reception of the Gospel and the Decalogue, remind us of something essential. Without confusing the political order with the religious one, these symbols invite us to recognize that modern freedom has also been shaped by a long education of conscience, deeply marked by the Christian tradition. In that inner school, people learned that law must serve the good, that justice sets limits on force, that power requires legitimacy, that the poor belong fully to the community, that the foreigner must be welcomed in accordance with his dignity, and that human life can never be treated as a commodity.

A law does not attain its true greatness merely by having been formally enacted; it attains it when, in addition to being valid in form, it can stand before the dignity of the person and pass that test without shame.

I invite you, then, to lift your gaze to the world around you, not to turn away from reality, but to remember that every decision by public authorities affects real people, especially those who have less power to make their voices heard. The expanse of one’s vision consists precisely in looking more deeply at what is at stake in every public decision. This is why, alongside technical solutions and legal reforms, a moral renewal is also needed.

Spain has much to offer on this journey. It possesses a language that bridges continents; a cultural, legal and spiritual tradition that has successfully fostered a dialogue between faith and reason, law and conscience, unity and plurality. This historical experience also reminds us of the value of harmony and of the patient effort to build a peaceful and just society.

May this noble nation never lose sight of its roots nor the courage to look to the future. May Spain continue to be a land of encounter, of culture, of solidarity and of hope. And may its public life always know how to unite the firmness of convictions with the nobility of dialogue and the greatness of service.

May God grant peace to all nations of the earth, harmony to families and serenity to consciences. And may days of prosperity, justice and lasting peace descend upon the Kingdom of Spain, marked by the apostolic footprint of Saint James and by the maternal presence of Our Lady of the Pillar. Thank you very much.

*The official translation is from the Vatican Website.

The post Pope Leo XIV’s Address to the Spanish Parliament [Full English Translation] appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

Most Filipinos instinctively prioritize small victories over big societal change, but what if our obsession with “little things” is actually holding us back from genuine progress? Surprisingly, the roots of our collective identity, shaped by history, religion, and politics, reveal deeper truths about what it means to be Filipino today.

In this engaging conversation, expert Russel and Lennon unpack the complex relationship between the Church, State, and Filipino culture. They explore the controversial yet often misunderstood doctrine of separation of Church and State, tracing its origins from medieval Europe to its implementation in the Philippines. You'll discover how historical misunderstandings and cultural nuances shape our notions of morality, authority, and freedom.

We break down concrete insights, including:

• How the “Two Swords” theory influences modern Filipino governance and religion.
• The true meaning behind the “separation of church and state” — as a safeguard for spiritual independence, not a division of people from God.
• The implications of canon law versus constitutional law in shaping our political and religious landscape.
• How priests, lay leaders, and politicians navigate their roles amidst evolving boundaries.
• The dangerous tendency of polarizing our society through selective interpretations of religious and political neutrality.

This episode emphasizes why understanding the roots of our culture, and the real purpose of the separation doctrine, can unlock genuine national unity. Without this clarity, we risk fueling division, fanaticism, and moral panic. But with knowledge, Filipinos can foster a society that balances faith, politics, and cultural pride without sacrificing either.

Perfect for Filipinos craving a nuanced perspective on faith and governance, or anyone curious about why our society struggles with polarization despite legal frameworks. If you're eager to see behind the stereotypes and discover the core values that truly define us, this conversation is essential listening.

Featuring insights inspired by centuries of Church history and legal evolution, and a call to mature civic and spiritual responsibility, this episode challenges you to reflect on your role in shaping Filipino identity.

Are we truly separate, or simply misunderstood? Tune in and find out.

—

And, if this episode spoke to your heart—or hit you in the “tama”—share it with a friend, post about it using the hashtag #tuumt, and tag us on socials.

Follow us on:

Facebook, Threads, & Instagram: @tamangusapanpodcast

Email your story or question: tamangusapanpodcast@gmail.com

The post Usapang Separation of Church and State appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

One year on, the Supreme Pontiff is quietly repairing divisions and wounds–a move that media outlets do not like since they are accustomed to being pampered with headlines and misquotable quotes, but is also not liked by some loud traditionalists who can only sit quiet if the Pope kisses their feet.

So, in honor of these 12 months of the Pope’s reign, let us reflect upon the quiet changes and careful steps of the 266th Successor of Saint Peter (267th Pope).

Genuine humility

A few days before the Conclave, a Peruvian archbishop stayed with us in the community for a few days. We asked him who he thinks will be elected. Like a prophecy, he said, “I am confident that it will be Prevost. He’s American, but he served many years in Peru”. The same archbishop was co-consecrator in the episcopal consecration of then Bishop Robert Prevost.

For many traditional Catholics such as myself (as opposed to “traditionalists” who view Tradition akin to an ideology), the moment when the Pope goes out in the loggia for the very first time was a pivotal moment. Some might think of it as insignificant, but the question of whether he will follow the “new tradition” of Pope Francis of not wearing the mozzetta or will he follow in humility centuries of tradition is a big question.

I have to be honest, just like one priest said in private, “The moment I saw him with the mozzetta, I loved him already.”

The question at hand here is not just the “fashion sense” of the Popes, rather the way humility is being presented and practiced. The media had obsessed itself with the comparison of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI because of their choice of dress, accusing the latter of pomp and without saying it directly, insinuates that the great theologian of the modern world is anti-poor or “backward” while Pope Francis was the “people’s Pope” just because he did not wear the mozzetta.

But, that is not the point.

Pope Francis’ choice of how he presented himself (the way he dressed, the way spoke, the way he governed) reflects his own understanding of the Petrine ministry as a personal ministry characterized by his witty language and popular charisma.

On the other hand, Pope Leo XIV’s choice of wearing the mozzetta, reviving the coat of arms in the fascia, and other small acts of “returning” to normal also reflects his understanding of the Petrine ministry as a ministry of the Church not characterized by his own personality but rather enriched by it.

Both are humble acts. The “revival” of these small traditions is not a “betrayal” of Francis' pontificate as some disenfranchised journalists and pseudo-theologians would say. Rather, it is a testament to Pope Leo XIV’s consciousness of his Office as something he received from the Church in the service of the Lord rather than a personal style.

Quiet strides, giant leaps

While some traditional Catholics were joyful of these actions, some more radical, or at least the more skeptical ones, traditionalists are saying that the Pope is not doing enough. I can understand some who are genuinely just traumatized by years of apparent disgust and marginalization shown to them by the “new Roman establishment”. But, one should also take care not to fall into the temptation of cryptosedevacantism, that is, when you say you are in communion with the Pope because you acknowledge him, but treat him as the anti-Christ. 

We are still in the first year of this pontificate, so expecting things to just magically change overnight is actually problematic. The Church is not democratic state where the politician must enact his policies immediately just so he does not disenfranchise his voters. No. The Church is Mater et Magistra, Mother and Teacher who contemplates and discerns first every action and decision.

This is best seen in how the Pope is dealing with things. He discerns and then acts quietly, little by little.

Maybe we have been too accustomed to Pope Francis’ spontaneity or maybe some  “traditionalists” may unconsciously have become modernists in the sense that they want things immediately, but that is not how Pope Leo XIV works.

Yes, it would be good if tomorrow morning Traditiones custodes is lifted since it caused, and is still causing, deep wounds in the Church. Yes, it would be good and courageous if next week the entire German episcopacy is excommunicated because of their obstinacy in forcing their own political agenda in the doctrine of the Church. Yes, it would be ideal if all the “Old guards” are dismissed tomorrow and replaced by competent and orthodox bishops.

But, that will not be Catholic. That is Marxist, almost dictatorial “reform.” We've already seen it already how changing things without discernment and doing things rapidly has damaged the Church. In fact, we are still suffering from its after-shocks.

The Catholic way is a reform of the reform that is organic, pedagogical, systematic, discerned. We can already see it in the Pope’s small actions mostly not reported in the news.

For example, the Curia and the College of Cardinals are once again entrusted with the assistance of the Pope in matters of governance of the Church. The cartel of the “C9” cardinals is now a forgotten mafia. There are changes in the different Roman Dicasteries, albeit only in the plantilla level and not yet in the prefectural level, and in the Pontifical Household.

For my traditional friends, give the Holy Father time and remember that in the Catholic world time is precious and as such moves solemnly unlike in the modern world.

The challenge of AI for humanity

As we celebrate the First Anniversary of the Pontificate of Pope Leo XIV, we are also waiting for the publication of his first encyclical rumored to be titled Magnifica humanitas (Magnificent humanity) and to be published this coming 15th of May 2026.

This will be very important since the first encyclical of a Pope can be said to be a sort of “pontifical agenda” of the pontificate. The Pope had already published Apostolic exhortations and other juridical and pastoral letters, but this Encyclical Letter is important as we can see here Pope Leo XIV’s “project for the Church.”

It is said to focus on theological anthropology, that is the place of man as Imago Dei, via-à-vis the challenges that Artificial Intelligence pose and will continue to pose to humanity. In this regard, commentators are comparing it already to how monumental Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum was as the Church’s response to the social challenge of the time which is the threat of Communism and Capitalism.

In preparation to this Encyclical, the Roman Dicasteries of the Doctrine of the Faith and of Culture and Education published in 2025, under the pontificate of Pope Francis, the Doctrinal note Antiqua et nova (Note about  the relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence). More recently, the International Theological Commission published on 4 March 2026, the document Quo vadis, humanitas? (Christian anthropology vis-à-vis the future challenges to humanity).

We are all aware of the philosophical and ethical challenges of AI and also its supposed benefits to humanity. We’ve even recorded an episode and published our own “AI responsibility” article here.

It is, therefore, important to see how the Church, shepherded by the Pope, will lead us in this new page in human history’s book.

A Shepherd, not a Politician

As the world saw a very public spat between the Pope and the US President (mostly attacks from the President) after the US/Israel-Iran War of 2026, the Pope said a fundamental reality that reflects the understanding of the Petrine ministry: “I am not a politician, I speak of the Gospel.”

"I am not a politician, I speak of the Gospel"

The sad reality is that without wanting to himself, Pope Francis was used by political and mediatic forces for their own agenda. That is not something new. Since becoming politically independent as the Western Roman Empire fell and the barbaric kingdoms of Europe emerged, the Holy See has become both the spiritual seat of Christianity and another political player in the chessboard of Europe.

However, this changed when the Kingdom of Italy invaded Rome in 1870 and the Lateran Treaty was signed between the Holy See and the Kingdom in 1929. The Pope, while still technically a Sovereign Prince who exercises temporal power, is now free of the shackles of temporal politics.

This, however, should not be interpreted as if the Church should no longer comment on socio-political affairs. In fact, it makes her comments more potent as she now stands not as a player with vested interest, but a Mother that guides her children.

We remember here the theory of the Two Swords. Now that the Pope is no longer another politician in the chessboard, the Spiritual Sword of the Church can now be wielded better to guide the conscience of those who wield the Temporal Sword of Kings. 

This is why we should be on guard from ideological appropriation of the Pope and the Church. Both the Left and the Right know that “having the Pope on their side” is a political plus. That is why Pope Leo’s affirmation that he is not a politician is important. He is neither conservative nor liberal, he is a successor of the Apostles whose mission is simply to proclaim the Gospel to all nations (cf. Mk 16:15).

A hope for the future

We are still in the first year of this pontificate. Many things will happen. The Pope will have to face many challenges along the way.

The wounds of division and politicization in the Church are still fresh and hurting. Some Catholics are still drinking the manna of hatred of the Other (the “traditionalist”, the “liberal-modernist”, the “conservative” and other such simple categorizations). 

We may be tempted by the modern desire for instant changes and as such criticize Pope Leo XIV’s apparent “slowness”.

The World will be facing more and more challenges from wars, political greed, ideological machinations, technological dilemmas.

As Catholics, we have to pray steadfastly for the Pope so he may guide us in these trying times. And, very important: we must not lose hope that even if times are bleak, the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church and will never fail us.

The post On the First Anniversary of the Pontificate appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

I agree with Russel on this. However, I also think that it is still necessary to help modern man to clarify the Pope's position, especially when even Catholics of good faith are now questioning him and warning the Supreme Pontiff that he should “take care of doing theology”.

So, yeah you got it. This will be a piece to tell you why the Pope is right and why this might be Trump’s greatest blunder.

How it all started

Telling you the whole US-Vatican relations, especially the current one, is a job for other pundits and sites. So let us just focus on the immediate cause of this very public spat.

On the 26th of February 2026, the United States of America and the State of Israel attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran. Public communications by the White House stated various justifications: a deterrence from possible Iranian nuclear aggression, a support for the people of Iran who rose up against the tyrannic regime and was put down violently earlier in the year, to secure the region of the Middle East by changing the regime that sponsors terrorism in the area, etc.

The Pope, as Pontifex Maximus, the builder of bridges, called for dialogue rather than arms. 

The early days of the war was a tactical victory for the US-Israeli coalition after the death of the Supreme Leader of Iran. However, as the war dragged on and Israel opened another front in Lebanon, tensions began to rise.

The pivotal moment is when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps began blockading the Strait of Hormuz, a vital sea route where most of the Gulf States’ oil trade passes through. 

This puts pressure on the global economy and even if the US itself is not so much affected by it as it is also an oil producer, the mounting pressure might have prompted the Trump Administration to force either a faster complete victory or an agreement. 

A series of statements

On Palm Sunday, 29th of March 2026, the Holy Father asserted in his homily that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war”. 

A few days later, some media outlet reported a supposed meeting in the White House with the Apostolic Nuncio to the US in which, allegedly, an official threatened the Nuncio of a situation “just like when France’s military might have obliged the Pope to reside in Avignon”. This report was refuted both by the White House and Cardinal Pierre, the Nuncio.

As negotiations failed, on the 5th of April 2026, Easter Sunday of the Resurrection of the Lord, while the Pope’s message was: “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace!”, US President Donald Trump threatened to attack Iranian bridges and power plants and on the next day he warned that “a whole civilization will die”. 

On the 7th of April, the Pope, without naming the US President, said that threatening the end of an entire people is “unacceptable”. "There are certainly issues ⁠here of international law, but even more than that, it is a ​moral question for the good of the people," Pope Leo XIV said.

This seem to have irritated Mr. Trump that he lashed out in his Truth Social platform that Pope Leo XIV is “weak on crime” and “terrible on foreign policy” and doubling down on it the next few days saying that the Pope condones Iranian nuclear threat and he could not have been elected Pope if not for Mr. Trump being the President. 

The Pope, when asked by the Press about this statement, said that he is not a politician so he is not interested in debate, but he will continue to proclaim the Gospel. Later the same week, he condemned “tyrants who use the Christian message to justify wars”.

Why the Successor of Saint Peter is right

At the heart of this debate is the Just War Doctrine. I will be writing about this topic in more detail in a separate article next week, but if you want to, I highly recommend our two episodes about this topic which you can find here and here.

With that said, the questions, therefore, are as follows: (1) whether or not the Pope is justified in his criticism of the war; (2) whether or not the Pope has the right to condemn those who wage war; and, (3) is the War in Iran justified?

The third one I think should be discussed in detail in the next article that I’ve said above, so let us just focus on the first two.

Is the Pope justified in his criticism of the war?

The evangelical section of the Republican Party was quick to criticize the Pope’s remark that God rejects the prayers of those who wage war as contrary to biblical truth. The traditional catholic section of the same party criticized the Vicar of Christ for not knowing the Just War Doctrine. Therefore, let us ask: is it indeed biblical? And, what about Just Wars?

For the first one, the typical biblical example used is that of the wars that God ordained in the Old Testament like that of Joshua or of David. What this misses is that Old Testament wars cannot be equated with wars done in Anno Domini, that is, in a world after the Paschal Mystery of Christ. 

While it is true that God has “commanded” wars in Ancient Israel, we should not interpret it in itself. For the Christian, the OT can only be interpreted in light of Christ. Just as it is not right to use Moses and the Exodus to justify marxist/liberation theology, it is also not right to justify wars with OT wars.

The Church teaches progressive revelation, that is, that God reveals himself to us since the beginning in the Garden of Eden but using a divine pedagogy in which he gradually reveals himself to us meeting us within our historical context until revealing himself fully in Jesus Christ. Therefore, OT wars should be viewed through the lens of divine pedagogy: it was the only way people could understand God’s message in their time. 

In fact, if one reviews these “Holy Wars”, the insistence is not on the justification of violence, but rather on the need to trust in God’s might that he himself will resolve the conflict even if everything seems to say the contrary (that is why David was punished after counting his soldiers and Isaiah warned against allying with Egypt or Assyria but rather to only trust God).

In most cases, God’s intervention means that arms were not even lifted just like when Joshua conquered Jericho with its famous walls with only shouts and horns (cf. Jos 6).

Furthermore, the People cannot enjoy the “fruits” of these wars that is why there is almost always an insistence on burning and destroying everything.

Therefore, OT “Holy Wars” insist on obedience to the Divine command rather than a justification of violence. Origen insists that what we see here is a spiritual allegory in which the physical violence that seems to be prescribed in the OT is actually a “shadow” of the spiritual battle against evil and sin.

God, therefore, never prescribed a war. God is the “Lord, the Giver of Life” and even in the OT, he is recognized to be the only one who can give life and take it back. By affirming that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war”, the Pope is affirming this biblical truth and condemns those who wage war for their own profit.

What about Just Wars? 

The Just War Tradition comes from the biblical reflection of the Church Fathers like, notably, Saint Augustine, on the reality of war and the times that it seems to be inevitable. 

As I’ve said before, we will discuss this in more detail in the next article. But for now suffice it to say that a Christian ruler can and should wage war when it is the last thing he could do to protect the Good. 

Saint Augustine affirms in the City of God:

“They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”

For Augustine, war is justified when it is done in defense of the Good just like a judge does not commit crime when he sends a criminal to prison. This, however, should not be taken as a justification for all State-sponsored violence. Again, it is the last resort.

Saint Thomas Aquinas further develops this by essentially tying Just War with defensive war.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church requires restraint on the use of excessive violence (i.e. things that could end an entire civilization) and that there should exist an objective evil that has caused great harm already.

Therefore, a war waged preemptively because of a perceived threat that has yet to happen cannot be justified.

What about the Crusades?

The rad-trad will now ask: how about the Crusades? Surely, they were wars of aggression, right? Well, to oversimplify it: no, they are not. The Crusades are Just Wars because they are essentially defensive in origin. 

Most of the lands the crusaders fought for were Christian lands before the Arab conquest. In fact, during the Crusades most people living in those lands, especially in the rural areas while also maintaining a significant minority in the cities, were Christians. 

Türkiye, for example, had a very sizable Orthodox Christian population until the beginning of the 20th century. It was only after World War I and the subsequent nationalist surge when most Orthodox population (mostly of Greek descent) emigrated thus leaving the country with a very tiny Christian population.

Furthermore, the express desire of Pope Urban II (the first Pope to call a Crusade) is the protection of the pilgrims and the Holy Sites in Jerusalem.

Therefore, it is wrong to say that Pope Leo XIV is not considering Just War Theory and its historical precedents. Rather, just like Saint Augustine to whose Order the Holy Father pertains as a priest, Pope Leo XIV is prudent in his understanding of this doctrine not as a free license to kill, but as a very rare card given to a very rare situation of justice.

And so, it is consistent with both the Gospel and the Tradition of the Church to condemn those who wage war and use the Christian message to justify it because wars are not something a Christian ruler actively seeks for, but a begrudging reality he has to assume to protect the Good.

Bonus: The Vice President’s Warning to the Pope 

As I’ve said before, we will delve deeper on whether or not the War in Iran is justified or not will be discussed in the next article. So let me end this reflection with what I find as a funny remark by US Vice President JD Vance given on the 15th of April 2026.

The Vice President, a Catholic (and I am sure a very convinced Catholic as his conversion was recent), was asked about the very public spat of Mr. Trump and the Pope. His response can be somewhat summarized as: the Pope should concern himself on moral matters and just as politicians should be careful on their political takes, the Pope also should be careful of his theological takes.

Again, we should not make light of the VP’s faith. He has expressed it so many times before in a very sincere manner. And being a convert does not make him less Catholic as some liberal beige cradle Catholic would like to assume. No. But, his answer is also oblivious to Catholic theology.

First, wars are always a moral matter even if it crosses paths with political affairs. The same is true with other political matters like abortion, divorce, euthanasia, etc. They are still moral matters.

Second, the mission of the Church goes beyond morality. In fact, we only comment on morality not because it is our primary concern but because the truth of Christ demands coherence in life.

Third, the Pope is not a politician. Though papal infallibility does not cover interviews, homilies, or remarks, a Catholic should always take to mind that when the Holy Father speaks on morality and theology, he speaks not as a political demagogue, but as the Vicar of Christ.

Trump’s Greatest Miscalculation

I agree with Bishop Robert Barron’s comment on this matter. While we should be thankful to the Trump Administration because they were very approachable to Catholics (unlike Biden, who was Catholic himself, yet his Administration and partymates were hell-bent in attacking religious communities, spying on TLM faithful, and imposing anti-Catholic and immoral agenda like abortion), we should also admit that Mr. Trump is wrong here.

The danger of our time is the worship of idols. Just like when the Philippines had its tatay, MAGA Catholics in the US run the danger of falling into idolatry because of extreme loyalty to a political figure. One can be a supporter but still awake enough to criticize the one he supports when he objectively commits an error. 

Blind loyalty is idolatry. So those who say, “I am Catholic but Leo is not my Pope” should be reminded that they are not. What they are essentially saying is schism bordering idolatry.

Lastly, I think Mr. Trump would be remiss to continue this debacle. It might not be in his character to admit error, but persisting in attacking the Holy Father only alienates the goodwill Catholics have with him. 

Analysts have said that it might be because of the anti-Catholic tradition of the US, especially that of the Old Guard of the Republican Party, who sees that attacking the Pope is electorally beneficial or that bewilderment that an American can be more loyal to his faith than to his country (or at least its leaders) that Mr. Trump and his allies continue to attack the Vicar of Christ. 

But, this is suicidal. The US is already seeing a quiet revival of the Catholic faith among the young. There is a strong Catholic support to Mr. Trump especially when he went against the anti-Catholic candidates of the Democratic Party (the traditional Catholic preferred party of the US). Alienating this base only weakens his position.

The Caesars had threatened and imprisoned popes. Napoleon threatened the end of the Church. Cromwell hunted down “papists”. Stalin tried to kill Christianity. They are all dead and their empires now a memory. The Barque of Peter still sails.

The post Trump’s Pope Leo Problem appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.

Should we "celebrate" Lent? Or is it to be "observed"? Oo, it seems weird arguing about semantics, pero words do carry how we live the experience. In this episode, Fr. Lennon and Russel discusses the way to do Lent: a marathon! Takbuhin natin ang Kwaresma. How? Join na sa usapan to find out.

—

And, if this episode spoke to your heart—or hit you in the “tama”—share it with a friend, post about it using the hashtag #tuumt, and tag us on socials.

Follow us on:

Facebook, Threads, & Instagram: @tamangusapanpodcast

Email your story or question: tamangusapanpodcast@gmail.com

The post Usapang Kwaresma: The Lenten Marathon appeared first on Tamang Usapan Podcast.