Bishop Varden commentary on Rome Amoris Laetitia conference

Bishop Varden comments on his time at the Amoris Laetitia conference & possibility of Holy Communion for divorced/re-married: 

“A principal pastoral concern in such situations is to recall the bigger picture, letting sufferers discover the potentially productive sense of their troubles, which may serve to lessen selfishness and purify love. Marriage, no less than monastic life, is a school of conversion.

Concerning ‘irregular’ relationships, I find our Catholic communities normally embrace these maturely and well. It can be liberating for persons in such situations to be in a setting where their ‘irregularity’ is acknowledged, not relativised; and where they are yet embraced with Christian friendship, enabled to contribute to the community.

I think of the example of many faithful people I know who, Sunday after Sunday, come up for a blessing at the time of Communion, knowing they cannot accede to the sacrament, yet entrusting themselves to God’s mercy at work in the Church.

Their example of fidelity does much to build up the Christian community. It testifies to the vital realism of the sacrament and to the virtue of hope. Sacramental exile sustained over time can prepare a joyful homecoming.

Christ gave us his rigorous commandments to educate us and to liberate us from ourselves, ‘that we might live no longer for ourselves but for him who died and rose again for us’ (Fourth Eucharistic Prayer). His intention is to make us grow in stature into new, divinised life.

That life must always be the aim we propose to people, not merely human affirmation — though we all need a bit of that as well.”

@MLJHaynes

@

Now at the Vatican: Catholics Not Welcome

But anti-Catholics who attack the faith and desecrate sacred spaces are welcome …

These people say they are Catholic but don’t follow the teachings of the church. They publicly dissent. With vulgarity and blasphemy. Which contradicts the definition “Catholic”. They are welcome in Saint Peter’s.

These pilgrims however, who profess the Faith and obey it, which is what being “Catholic” means, have been banned from Saint Peter’s.

@EdwardPentin:

“Traditional Catholic pilgrims of the Ad Petri Sedem pilgrimage have been blocked this morning from entering St Peter’s Basilica to pray at the tomb of St Peter. The Vatican stopped the procession at the obelisk in St Peter’s Square, the border of Italian jurisdiction, according to @messainlatino. 

“The Vatican has also prohibited a Pontifical Mass to be celebrated this afternoon in the Basilica of St Mary Major. Instead it will be a Prelatial Low Mass and can last no more than one hour @messainlatino. Bishop Athanasius Schneider will be the celebrant.”

More reporting by @MLJHaynes:

“Some theories are circulating online about the Latin Mass pilgrimage, spread by people unconnected with it.

“Some clarity below — “Organisers asked for permission for the Vatican Mass, via a letter delivered directly to Pope Leo by Bishop Schneider in December. The pilgrimage is in its 15th year, and is always held on the same date. “Organisers received no answer about the Mass until August, when the Secretariat of State replied to say they could not have Mass in the Vatican. Pilgrimage organisers then announced publicly that no Mass would take place in the Vatican. “Instead, pilgrims would process into the Vatican at 1pm on the Saturday, and then go to St Mary Major for a 3pm Mass. Permission for the procession into the Vatican was granted in April 2026. “Weeks after this, in September, St Peter’s announced an event taking place at 3:30pm at the Altar of the Chair (used by the pilgrimage last year for Mass). “Then this week – just yesterday I am told – organisers received another letter from the Secretariat of State informing them they could not even process into the Vatican as planned, and as permitted since April. Basilica events are not the prerogative of the Secretariat but of the Archpriest & the Fabric of St Peter’s: hence why the Secretariat of State’s involvement is so strange. “On Saturday, pilgrims walked through the streets up to the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square – accompanied by Italian state police – where they were stopped by the Vatican as this was the limit of the Italian police’s jurisdiction. “Then they were informed that their usage of St Mary Major’s had changed: they could only be inside for an hour. “Thus meaning that the planned and authorised pontifical solemn Mass would have to be a low Mass. “Also St Mary Major’s informed pilgrimage that no official photos could be taken.”

Additional commentary from Mark Lambert @sitsio:

“So much for synodality, listening and walking together!

“Following Diane Montagna's @dianemontagna  remarkable address at the Catholic Identity Conference, this latest development is particularly revealing. Last year, Cardinal Burke celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass in St Peter's Basilica. This year, not only has permission for the Mass been refused, but pilgrims have reportedly been prohibited from entering the Basilica together in procession to pray at the tomb of St Peter. Think about the extraordinary symbolism of that, Catholics making a pilgrimage to Rome, expressing their communion with the successor of Peter, are apparently being prevented from approaching the Apostle's tomb as an organised group. Diane raised an uncomfortable question: Pope Leo speaks repeatedly of unity and has explicitly encouraged generous accommodation of Catholics attached to the older liturgy. Yet the restrictive machinery inherited from the previous pontificate continues to operate. This particular decision reportedly came from the Secretariat of State, not Cardinal Roche's dicastery, and we should not presume to know whether Leo personally authorised it, but surely that makes the question more pressing, not less?

“If the Pope's desire is genuinely reconciliation, who is responsible for decisions that appear calculated to achieve precisely the opposite? The Church cannot credibly preach inclusion whilst treating faithful Catholics attached to her own liturgical inheritance as a problem to be managed. At some point, the language of unity must find expression in actual pastoral generosity.”

What is happening to the TLM on Leo’s watch?

Mark Lambert @sitsio:

I would strongly encourage Catholics, particularly those interested in the direction of Pope Leo XIV's pontificate, to listen carefully to this remarkable address by Vatican journalist Diane Montagna @dianemontagna at the Catholic Identity Conference in Pittsburgh.

There are some genuinely explosive revelations here, but what interests me most is the emerging contradiction between Leo's apparent openness to liturgical reconciliation and the continuing determination of Cardinal Arthur Roche to suppress the Traditional Latin Mass. Diane reminds us that the Vatican's own assessment of the bishops' survey preceding Traditionis Custodes was substantially more favourable towards the ancient liturgy than Francis's subsequent justification suggested. She also reports that restrictions continue to be imposed, sometimes apparently with the explicit intention of eliminating the Traditional Mass altogether. Yet Leo has called for generous accommodation of Catholics attached to the older liturgy, has received prominent traditionalist figures, and, according to Montagna's sources, understands that something needs to change.

So why hasn't it?

Here we reach the most fascinating and troubling part of her analysis. Leo inherited a Curia populated by men deeply invested in the policies of his predecessor. Roche continues to pursue his restrictive agenda, apparently without papal intervention. Is Leo receiving the full picture? Is he reluctant to confront those around him? Or is his own understanding of liturgical unity closer to theirs than his public remarks suggest? We simply don't know, and it would be unfair to pretend otherwise. But Diane makes an important observation: Leo has already demonstrated his willingness to reverse Francis's decisions elsewhere. He is not powerless, nor is he necessarily bound by his predecessor's policies.

I was particularly struck by Cardinal Sarah's suggestion that Traditionis Custodes need not even be formally repealed. A change of attitude in Rome, allowing bishops genuinely to exercise their pastoral judgement, could gradually restore liturgical peace.

There is also a deeper theological question here. As Benedict XVI understood, fidelity to Vatican II does not require treating every subsequent liturgical reform as beyond criticism. The Church cannot reasonably insist that what nourished generations of saints has somehow become a threat to Catholic unity. I don't believe the answer is to retreat into permanent suspicion of Rome, still less to abandon communion with the successor of Peter. But neither should Catholics be expected to mistake enforced liturgical uniformity for genuine ecclesial unity.

Diane's speech leaves us with a question that increasingly defines this pontificate: Will Leo's admirable language of reconciliation become a reality in the life of the Church, or will the machinery he inherited continue to frustrate it?

This is well worth watching in full.

Video: https://youtu.be/Gljgeo-sa5Q

BREAKING: Trump signs bill to reopen Social Security, Medicare opt-ins for priests, clergy

 By Tyler Arnold for EWTN News

October 21, 2026

              Image: CNA

President Donald Trump signed into law a measure that allows clergy — including Catholic priests and bishops — to opt back in to Social Security and Medicare if they had previously opted out of the program.

Under the tax code, clergy may opt out of Social Security and Medicare taxes for ministerial work but cannot receive the benefits if they do. A person who opts out typically cannot reverse that decision, but the law, supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), opens a two-year window for members of clergy to opt back in if they have changed their minds.

The law, signed on Oct. 20, allows clergy members to opt back in during the 2029 or 2030 tax years, but they must still meet the standard contribution requirements to receive benefits. The House of Representatives passed the bill 350-5 on April 27, and the Senate cleared it by unanimous consent on Sept. 30.

According to a news release from the House Ways and Means Committee, about 2,000 people take the opt-out. This is the third time Congress offered a temporary window for clergy to reverse their opt-outs, with the last time being 1999.

“America’s pastors and faith leaders spend their lives caring for others,” Rep. Jason Smith, R-Missouri, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement.

“Many chose to opt out of Social Security when they were young and just starting their ministry,” he said. “A single, sometimes ill-advised, decision made decades ago should not stand between them and a secure retirement.”

Support from Catholic bishops

When reached for comment, the USCCB referred EWTN News to an April 14 letter supportive of the bill, signed by Archbishop Shelton Fabre, chair of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Archbishop Ronald Hicks, chair of the USCCB Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life, and Vocations.

More: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/10/21/trump-signs-bill-to-reopen-ssocial-security-medicare-opt-ins-for-priests-clergy/

Canonists Warn Synod’s Canon Law Proposals Blur Lines of Church Authority

 Critics say the commission’s recommendations on lay governance, tribunals and infallibility contradict Vatican II; the nonbinding report would require Pope Leo’s approval.

EDWARD PENTIN OCT 13

Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the Circolo di San Pietro at the Vatican on Oct. 12, 2026. A Synod commission’s proposed changes to canon law, which have drawn criticism from canonists, would require papal approval to take effect. (Photo: Matteo Pernaselci / Vatican Media)

VATICAN CITY — Several canon lawyers have criticized the final report of a Synod on Synodality commission on canon law, describing several proposed changes as a departure from Catholic doctrine and contrary to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

The commission, whose report was published Sept. 30 by the General Secretariat of the Synod, sought to identify how the theological and ecclesiological insights emerging from the 2021-2024 Synod on Synodality could be translated into canonical norms.

According to Dominican priest and canonist Father Pius Pietrzyk, the commission report contains “maybe two decent ideas,” but otherwise ranges from “silly cosmetic changes to a betrayal of the Second Vatican Council and two millennia of ecclesiology.”

Legislative proposals include amendments to 34 canons, including those governing the capacity of lay people to exercise offices, responsibilities and ministries in the Church. Others relate to canons governing councils and bishops’ conferences and propose changes to participatory bodies with the aim of strengthening participation and mission.

Infallibility and the Sensus Fidelium

A key area of contention is the report’s proposal to preface canon 749 on the doctrine of papal infallibility with a reference to the sensus fidelium, or the universal consensus of the People of God.

Borrowing language from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, the proposed addition states that “the entire body of the Christian faithful, having received the anointing from the Spirit, cannot err in matters of faith, and it manifests this characteristic through the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people when, from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful, its universal consent in matters of faith and morals is demonstrated.”

Continue reading the rest of this article at www.ncregister.com

On “cultivating an ecclesiology in which fidelity to Tradition becomes a justification for habitual resistance to the living authority of the Church.”

“St John Henry Newman understood something that seems increasingly forgotten in certain traditionalist circles: fidelity to the Church cannot be separated from communion with the successor of Peter. This does not mean that every papal judgement is correct, that every disciplinary decision is wise, or that Catholics must abandon their reason and conscience. Newman himself was far too sophisticated a theologian to believe any such thing. But there is a profound difference between questioning a pope's prudential decisions and cultivating an ecclesiology in which fidelity to Tradition becomes a justification for habitual resistance to the living authority of the Church. The papacy is not an optional feature of Catholicism, to be accepted only when its occupant meets our expectations.

“Newman reminds us that we do not remain Catholic because we trust the personal judgement of every pope. We remain Catholic because we trust Christ, who established His Church upon Peter and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. The test of our fidelity to the papacy is not how readily we defend a pope with whom we agree, but whether we remain faithful when we disagree.”

- Mark Lambert @sitsio

About Roman appointments

“Every generation of Catholics discovers, often painfully, that the men who govern the Church are not always worthy of their office. Perhaps this is why Jesus chose St. Peter?

“Belloc's famous observation about the Church's astonishing capacity for mismanagement is funny because it exposes an uncomfortable truth. Given two thousand years of corruption, incompetence, scandal and betrayal, how is the Catholic Church still standing?

“Empires have risen and vanished. Institutions far better administered have disappeared. Yet the Church endures, despite the damage inflicted by those entrusted with her care. This is no defence of bad shepherds. Our Lord's warning about millstones was deadly serious. Nor does fidelity demand that we pretend every papal judgement is wise or every bishop beyond criticism. But we make a profound theological mistake when we confuse the failures of the Church's human administration with the integrity of her divine constitution.

“The Church does not endure because her leaders are good. She endures because Christ is faithful. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He never promised that her bishops would always be impressive.

“Criticise what deserves criticism. Defend what must be defended. But never allow disappointment with the men who govern the Church to become an excuse for abandoning communion with her. Christ did not ask us to trust in the perfection of His shepherds. He asked us to remain faithful to His Church.”

Mark Lambert @sitsio