The heart cannot be measured, but if one pays even the slightest attention, its beat can be felt. Every time the hymn ‘Alma misionera’ begins, Leone is moved; he watches the crowd moving to the rhythm of the music and sings along, smiling with rapture and amazement. So much for the end of history and the death of God (as Friedrich Nietzsche meant to say).

For years it has been claimed, almost as if it were dogma, that Latin America had been overrun by sectarian hordes. Advertising, money, television, radio, and gurus in suits. Aggressive proselytising, from one end of the continent to the other, from the favelas to the affluent neighbourhoods of the megacities. The Catholics, poor souls, dwindling in number, divided, with their hierarchies often accused of having entrenched themselves in their own circles and of no longer understanding the common sentiment. Administrators rather than shepherds, let alone among the somewhat disoriented flock. Then, suddenly, in Buenos Aires, two and a half million people turned up in the square for the Pope’s Mass. And just as many gathered outside the Basilica of Our Lady of Luján. ‘A historic moment’, ran the full-page headline in La Nación. More than those who welcomed John Paul II forty years ago. More than Rome sees at its large mass gatherings, including World Youth Days. This took place in Buenos Aires, in an Argentina that had long described itself as rather cold at the mere mention of priests, as secularised as – and perhaps even more so than – many other countries in the region. Now it too has succumbed to the inevitability of secularisation, which is often indistinguishable from the indifference towards religion that pervades elsewhere. In Uruguay, for example, the first stop on the long and much-anticipated journey of Leo XIV, the Yankee from Chicago who holds in his heart that strip of land he left behind last: Peru. The thoroughly American Pope, who votes with unashamed pride in the Illinois mid-term elections but who has not altered a single stop on the itinerary of his ‘expedition’ to South America, even though he had a lobe of his lung removed just a month ago.

It was in Uruguay that the Pope put his finger on the sore spot: the lack of interest in what faith represents and means today. He said this there because it is the homeland of proud and long-standing anti-clericals, but it was a message valid anywhere in the world, including Europe. It was during the vigil with young people at the Centenario Stadium in Montevideo. “Being with you this evening allows me to share a reflection on something that many Christian communities are experiencing today: the advance of secularisation and an increasingly widespread religious indifference. In many places, the faith is no longer passed on as naturally as it was by previous generations, and the number of people who go through much of their lives without a regular relationship with the Church, or with religious practice, is growing.” We are beginning to discover, the Pope said, “what it means to be a minority. But, even in these circumstances, there are those who persevere: parents who pray with their children, teachers who seek to live out and bear witness to the faith, young people who have discovered Christ and wish to follow him even when they feel alone; there are communities that continue to gather and priests who travel great distances to bring the sacraments to the faithful. Thinking of all this, a small biblical town kept coming to mind: Bethlehem’. And what does Bethlehem have to do with it? Well, Jesus was born there, and yet ‘it remained small. Nothing had changed in terms of its size or its political importance. Perhaps – and these are Leone’s words again – Bethlehem can teach us something about this reality: when there are few of us, when our strength wanes, or when we realise that our social presence is no longer the same, there is a risk of beginning to judge our situation by very human standards. The Gospel invites us to look at things differently. God chose Bethlehem, and this choice alone is enough to ensure that we do not equate smallness with insignificance’. Small, then, but far from insignificant. Indeed, as Ratzinger said, far more convinced of who they are and what they represent: creative minorities.

During his South American tour, Leone spoke at length in official addresses, homilies and off-the-cuff remarks. The media have devoted considerable coverage to his remarks directed at current leaders, in particular Javier Milei, who was publicly chastised for being a free-market advocate, paying little heed to the poor and – needless to say – a friend of Trump’s. It is clear that the Pope did not sing the praises of his host’s policies, but ultimately: he did nothing different from what Popes typically do when speaking in such circumstances. In September, he gave the same treatment to Emmanuel Macron at the Élysée Palace; in June, his address to the Cortes in Madrid caused a stir. The criticism is not directed at the individual: the Pope upholds the values of the Gospel whilst keeping an eye on the reality of this world. And, to quote him, if this is engaging in politics, then he has engaged in politics. Beyond that, however, Leo XIV’s speeches have also conveyed much more.

There is a common thread running through all of Robert Prevost’s writings: a return to the fundamentals of the faith and the need for genuine evangelisation. This is not a list of precepts, programmes or actions to be implemented after having been neatly written out at a desk. The example of the saints, in whom “one discerns an extraordinary unity between a passion for the Gospel and a commitment to building a nation rooted in brotherhood and solidarity”. Like Father Brochero, “a true lover of the Lord, who found in prayer the strength of his life”. Going out into the streets following the example of the saints, rediscovering the unshakeable value of small domestic churches, where faith is passed on in a simple and genuine way. “Dear parents and grandparents, young people need to see you praying, drawing near to the sacraments, treating your wives with respect, asking for forgiveness and living honestly even when this requires sacrifice. A child learns a great deal by seeing that his father knows how to kneel before God without feeling any less of a man for it,” he said.

Leone is experiencing this journey as a carefree homecoming, without too many worries. Such worries are for others – those who must anticipate and observe, analyse and study: Argentina could have turned into a sort of pilgrimage in the footsteps of Francis, who had never returned there since his election in the winter of 2013. A continuous tribute, even through the repetition of words and gestures. Yet that did not happen. Leone did indeed remember his predecessor every day, but he did not turn him into a saintly figure to be paraded or shown off to the people. He did not idealise Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a figure who is both beloved and, at the same time, a source of considerable inconvenience in that country; to confirm this, one need only look at the statements made over the years by influential figures in local politics. For Bergoglio was certainly no meek hermit who viewed matters from on high, but rather intervened with impetus and force, without worrying too much about the consequences. Leone was not afraid even to re-contextualise phrases that have become immortal, such as the todos, todos, todos shouted at World Youth Day in Lisbon. The Mother Church, welcoming to all, no matter what questions or baggage, sins or scars they may carry. No questions asked; one does not judge but embraces. During the Vigil with young people (moments that have now become iconic), Leo said that Francis uttered those words “with that insistence so characteristic of him, as if he wished to ensure that no one was left without hearing them. I would like to draw inspiration from those words to speak of what it means to live as disciples of Jesus: all towards Christ, all with Christ, all like Christ”. The form is the same; the substance changes.

Leone is not a man of rupture; this has been said many times before. The aim he has set himself is to mend torn fabric and widen the Church’s tent to welcome anyone willing to enter it: “The diverse sensibilities present within the Church, the strong convictions that animate each person, are a source of richness if they remain anchored to the certainty of unity as a gift received and a task to be undertaken,” he said in Luján. He does not break with tradition but rather recalibrates it. Between Masses and official visits, he has quoted Saint John Paul II countless times; the latter is increasingly becoming a point of reference and a model. He urged the Peruvian young people to bear in mind the words of Benedict XVI, whom he also quoted upon landing in Chiclayo: “The harmony between charity and truth calls us to put our faith into practice, spreading, with renewed joy, the fragrant scent of holiness. Let us remember that, without truth, love slips into mere sentimentality, and truth without love becomes rigid and cold”. He draws on his predecessor’s insights, making them his own whilst clarifying them. Francis, he said in Córdoba, “stated with particular clarity: ‘The Church is not a shop, it is not a humanitarian agency, the Church is not an NGO; the Church is sent to bring Christ and his Gospel to everyone […]. If, hypothetically, it were ever to happen that the Church did not bring Jesus, that would be a dead Church!’. How great, then, is our vocation! To be bearers of Christ’s presence, to make an encounter with Him possible through the Word, the sacraments and a closeness that helps others to recognise His presence in their lives. The people entrusted to your care wish to receive from you what the Church has treasured for them for centuries”.

On the eve of this trip, no one would ever have imagined that three million Peruvians would jubilantly accompany the Pope from the airport to the nunciature. No one could have imagined that in distracted Argentina, mired in perpetual financial crises and bloody political struggles, millions of Catholics of all ages would take part in vigils and Masses. Few regarded Uruguay as a country where, albeit as a minority and facing opposition, the faith thrives. Leo XIV is not the man who liberates from the caudillos; he does not see himself in the role of Simón Bolívar. “Long live Christ!”, he shouted from a window in Córdoba. He is the protagonist, the centre, the name most frequently mentioned by the Pope on this tour. “What enthusiasm! What joy! It is because we all know Christ. Applause for Jesus!”, he said as he emerged from Buenos Aires Cathedral. “The world awaits us and the mission has only just begun. That is why I invite you to commit yourselves to sharing the living hope, which is Jesus Christ, and to letting the Gospel ‘overflow’ into our villages, towns and cities, so that we may proclaim the glory of the Lord to all,” he added in Chiclayo. A journey which, ultimately, perfectly embodies – in words and deeds – the first message of his pontificate: “To fade into the background so that Christ may remain, to make oneself small so that He may be known and glorified, to give of oneself completely so that no one may miss the opportunity to know and love Him”. Not a slogan, but a programme.

One eye on the crucifix and the other fixed on the camera lens. Those who manage this continue their religious life without any particular distress

Before chef-priests and influencer-priests, the unwitting trailblazer for the cassock in 16:9 format was Sister Cristina. Her victory on the talent show The Voice, under the artistic guidance of rap icon and cannabis advocate J-ax, quickly made headlines around the world. So much so that the video of her first performance, in which she sang Alicia Keys’ ‘No One’, was the fourth most-viewed video on YouTube worldwide in 2014. The vocal range of the twenty-five-year-old nun was enough to make half the pop scene green with envy; the four judges were blown away, whilst other Ursulines went wild with joy behind the scenes. Sister Cristina’s rise through the television ranks (including appearances on private channels and singing competitions) culminated in a lucrative contract with Universal and global success. This was followed by a gold disc, guest appearances on American television and, in Italy, a stint as a contestant on Ballando. However, the habit began to feel increasingly restrictive, prompting her to bid farewell to the Ursulines, adopt the name on her health card (Cristina Scuccia) and take part in Isola dei famosi alongside, among others, the Jalisse. Even without her vows, former Sister Cristina continues to make a splash: members of the clergy stand out on screen, especially when they are not praying. And so the camera keeps rolling.

The unwitting pioneer of the 16:9 habit was Sister Cristina, thanks to the talent show ‘The Voice’. From there, she ended up on ‘Isola dei famosi’

Not that it was off the air before, of course. On Tv2000, a television channel controlled by the Italian Bishops’ Conference, priests and nuns appear regularly. One of them, the Cistercian monk Don Domenico de Stradis, co-presented a cookery programme entitled ‘Quel che passa il convento’ for fourteen years. The programme fits squarely into the culinary programme format, with a mock kitchen set up in a television studio, numerous guests taking turns at the worktop, and the inclusion of “products for commercial purposes”. For the cameras, dishes based on ancient convent recipe books are cooked, all seasoned with brief spiritual reflections from the monk-gardener. The programme, which ended in 2024, was one of the channel’s longest-running and most popular shows, so much so that, together with “La Santa Messa”, it helped Tv2000 close out the spring of 2017 with a 12.3 per cent increase in audience share compared to the same period the previous year, ranking on a par with Italia 1. But for every programme that ends, even stronger ones emerge, on a channel that has even gone international. And this time, not in a studio. “Le ricette del convento” has been airing on the Food Network – Warner Bros. Discovery Italia’s culinary channel – since 2022 and already boasts nine series, over 60 episodes and even two bestselling cookbooks. The show is set in the austere kitchen of the Benedictine abbey of San Martino delle Scale in Sicily. At the hob are Father Salvatore and the elderly theologian Father Anselmo, who uses every carrot he slices as an opportunity to recount a personal anecdote or a story about his monastery. Both tinker with ingredients and large pots whilst wearing their cassocks, without even rolling up their sleeves. This has raised some concerns amongst social media users about the hygiene conditions in which the two monks cook, watched over by a statuette of Padre Pio placed in the corner of the room. In a monastery, however, substance is what counts; the important thing is that the dish adheres strictly to the ancient recipe book (here too) kept secret for centuries in the monastery’s drawers and only now made available online and in bookshops. No brands are in plain sight, no shots of sponsors; the oil is in an unmarked bottle. A third monk enters the scene. It is Father Riccardo, a theology student and the abbey’s ‘golden voice’: he doesn’t cook, he simply eats. As soon as the dish is ready, in every episode he emerges from the back of the kitchen singing ‘Add a place at the table, there’s one more friend’ – his battle cry – then tucks in and savours the fruits of others’ labour. On his second appearance, however, he strikes up a Latin chant, which Father Anselmo hastens to explain, detailing the occasions on which it is sung within the abbey. But not before reminding the audience that this and other recipes can be found in the book, shown in the foreground.

The initiative features “Le ricette del convento” and “La cucina delle monache”. Rather than a television studio, the setting is the austere kitchens of ancient Italian monasteries.

The Food Network, however, gets everyone cooking. Even those who usually sell cookware rather than using it, such as Giorgio Mastrota (‘Casa Mastrota’ is now in its second series), or fictional characters like the Weasley twins invented by J.K. Rowling – namely the British actors James and Oliver Phelps (‘Harry Potter: The Cake Wizards’). So why limit ourselves to monks? Over six series, “La cucina delle monache” (with just one book to its name, for now) has given four nuns the chance to take on the Sicilian male competition from Umbria, more precisely from the ancient Benedictine Monastery of Sant’Anna. Mother Noemi, the abbess, was once a promising basketball player, “but she chose to be an athlete of the Lord” (as she is introduced in the programme). Then there is Sister Debora, an architect and culinary expert; Sister Miriam, who, after four degrees, “discovered the true meaning of life only in the word of the Lord”; and finally the novice, Sister Eleonora, a psychology graduate. Here too, the ancient Benedictine recipe books are dusted off, but the presentation seems slightly more understated and at times subdued compared to the men’s version. No one enters the scene singing in Latin, but on the other hand, there are a few rolled-up sleeves for cooking.

On the Discovery channels, however, the convent is a recurring setting: not just a kitchen, but also a place of re-education. In this respect, the docu-reality show “Ti spedisco in convento” is nothing more than the clerical response to Rai 2’s “Collegio”. But here there are no fake teachers played by actors; instead, there are five real nuns who put young women – accustomed to excess, social media, parties and a frenetic pace of life – to the test with rules, prayers and monastic routines. No mobile phones, no extreme hairstyles, no consumerism. And whilst the original English version, “Bad Habits, Holy Orders”, on Channel 5 lasted for just one series, in Italy Discovery+ (and later Real Time) aired no fewer than three. A huge success underpinned, of course, not only by the results achieved on the small screen, but also on the very small screen. With official clips, memes and various parodies on social media, the programme racked up millions of interactions, including likes, views and comments. In the second series, the scene in which 20-year-old Nanda Alfi from Gallarate – sent to the convent – stripped naked in front of Sister Carolina, shouting “I’ll show you my boobs”, was picked up by newspapers and gossip sites, becoming one of the most talked-about and shared moments of the reality show. It is no coincidence that Alfi—already active on Instagram, TikTok and OnlyFans—was one of the most “social” contestants in the cast, whom she subsequently decided to leave amid controversy. Her mantra, however, remained in that convent, almost as if to represent the mindset of a sizeable proportion of young people: “One hundred thousand followers are more useful than a degree”. Behind the scenes, some observed a certain weariness amongst the nuns, almost as if they would have preferred to be doing something else rather than embarking on that television adventure, which was as curious as it was nerve-wracking. “Once filming was over, they told us they’d never expected so much commotion and noise inside their convent,” says someone who worked alongside them on set, speaking to Il Foglio. “They told us they’d agreed to do the programme because it suited them at the time, particularly in terms of visibility. But from the way they spoke about it, it seemed that, when all was said and done, it hadn’t been worth the effort.”

“Ti spedisco in convento”: five real nuns who put young women – accustomed to excess, social media, parties and a hectic lifestyle – to the test with rules and prayers

“Ti spedisco in convento” was not merely a television experiment but a treasure trove of clips, jokes and shocking moments designed to be shared, edited and re-edited. A reality show created for television, but experienced primarily on social media, where the clergy (both Italian and international) are no longer afraid to show their faces. It is no coincidence that in 2025, the Vatican launched the first ‘Jubilee of Catholic Influencers’, transforming likes, reels and stories into tools for mission work and calling on creators to ‘mend the nets’ of the digital world and the community. With a keen eye for the potential of social media, the Archbishop of Genoa, Marco Tasca, persuaded Father Roberto Fiscer (who has over 800,000 followers on TikTok and nearly 300,000 on Instagram) to leave the Church of the Santissima Annunziata del Chiappeto in Borgoratti and devote himself exclusively to communication and evangelisation through social media and new communication tools. A 50-year-old former DJ, Fiscer fills his followers’ feeds with passages from the Gospel, comedy sketches filmed at the altar, AI-generated posts and Catholic-inspired reworkings of the latest trends. He even taught one of these to Pope Leo XIV. The video in which Don Fiscer teaches Prevost to do the ‘6-7’ – a wildly viral, nonsensical dance move involving moving the hands up and down in alternation, as if bouncing two invisible balls – has gone viral around the world. Following that video, the Vicar of Christ on earth has replicated that gesture on other public occasions. This, too, it seems, is evangelisation. A mission that, until a few months ago, was also shared by the late Father Alberto Ravagnani, now in the spotlight on Rai 1’s Ballando con le stelle. This time, it was Milly Carlucci who had the foresight, recognising in the former priest the fuel needed to ignite the controversy and outrage required to make the programme – now in its twenty-first series – go viral. Ravagnani, who, now defrocked, flexes his muscles to his 300,000 Instagram followers (“Ho fatto pace con la mia carne, e sto da Dio”) left the priesthood shortly after the publication of his book, La scelta, which was later adapted into a stage play. The video in which he announced that he would no longer wear a priest’s collar has been viewed over two million times. But online, there are also those who, whilst dressing in secular clothes all day, don a nun’s habit solely and exclusively for the camera.

For those unaware that ‘VitaDaSuore’ is a social media project entirely fabricated by a film production company, Sister Paola and Sister Felicetta might seem like two harmless nuns with a passion for sport and panzerotti. They cook them in Ponte Sisto, Rome, whilst sitting by the phone with a microphone attached to their aprons. Following a major collaboration with a popular chain of motorway service stations, the nuns have recorded a song in collaboration with Jo Squillo. A singer-songwriter and television presenter who made her artistic debut in the 1980s with punk rock. Alongside her first hit, ‘Skizzo Skizzo’, came the track ‘Violentami’, in which she urges her partner to take advantage of her ‘on the metro’. Today, almost like a modern-day Claudia Koll, she can be found singing “Siamo figli di Maria” accompanied by two ‘nuns’ who aren’t actually nuns. Rather, they are two talented actresses starring in a major, viral transmedia marketing campaign that has catapulted two characters from “Tutte insieme all’Abbazia” – a film produced by the same production company as “VitaDaSuore” – onto social media. Given the social media success of the two nuns, developing a sequel would be the most logical step. After a run on Amazon Prime, the film arrived on Rai Play in January 2026, before landing on mainstream television (Rai 2) this summer. So we’re back where we started: on the small screen. Although they’ve been appearing on television for years, the public still seems unable to get used to seeing priests and nuns in front of the cameras – something they manage with increasing ease, programme after programme. One of them will be offered the chance to host the Sanremo Festival. They’ll turn it down because of difficulties in fitting it in with their other commitments, including Mass.

19 November 1523. Giulio de’ Medici was elected as Clement VII. The indecision of this Pope, who sought the approval of the two great rivals – Francis I of France and Charles V, King of Spain and later also Emperor – shifting his allegiance from one to the other depending on their successes and failures, proved disastrous. In May 1527, the imperial troops, who were enemies at that time, invaded Rome, and Clement managed to take refuge via the ‘passetto’ in Castel Sant’Angelo, thanks to the bravery of the Swiss Guard, who lost around three-quarters of their men on that occasion. The mercenary militias of the German Landsknechts, who had not yet been paid, sacked the city in search of plunder, behaving even more ruthlessly than usual, partly because their actions were fuelled by the Protestant soldiers’ religious hatred for the city of the Catholic Pope. Thousands were killed; Pope Clement was captured and held prisoner for six months. The devastating Sack of Rome also took on symbolic significance for many contemporaries, who saw it as a sign of God’s punitive judgement upon the city, which was now being likened to the biblical Babylon. When Clement VII died a few years later, after reconciling with Charles V—whom he had crowned emperor in Bologna in 1530—almost a third of Europe had turned away from the Catholic Church in favour of the new Lutheran Reformation, and even Henry VIII’s England had already embarked on the path of schism.

Election campaigns inspired by religious values, whether the Presbyterian values of former seminarian James Talarico in Texas or the Islamic values of Abdul El Sayed in Michigan. Not to mention the most incredible of the Democrats’ recaptures: Kansas, which had not had a Democratic senator for almost a century. This was a mission successfully accomplished by Adam Hamilton, leader of America’s largest Methodist congregation, who travelled from one end of the state to the other saying that even Jesus, if he could, would have voted for him.

The New York Times Magazine, observing what was unfolding, wondered whether the Democrats might be able to “regain the Christian moral high ground”. The magazine noted that a dozen pastors and seminarians had sought nomination within the Democratic Party, and in seven cases the gamble had paid off. On the Republican side, there were only three. Commonweal, a liberal Catholic magazine, wrote that we are talking about ten candidates out of nine hundred in total: “Such a small sample cannot justify the idea that we are facing an epoch-making turning point”. Yet the most prominent of the ten won. What happened? Certainly, the candidates put forward by the Grand Old Party played their part, especially those endorsed and backed by Donald Trump: in Texas, Ken Paxton had been placed under investigation by his own party and – as Commonweal wrote – was “one of the worst candidates in these mid-term elections and anything but a model of personal virtue, political ethics or Christian morality”. The same magazine is also sceptical about Hamilton’s victory: whilst it is true that Kansas, a Republican stronghold, has recently been shifting slowly to the left, one must take into account the weakness of his opponent and the fact that this was probably a “pragmatic distancing from Trump and Trumpism”. So, the magazine asks, on whose side does “Christian moral authority” lie? Certainly not on the side of Vance and the “border czar”, Tom Homan. In any case, ‘the point is not simply to reclaim Christian moral leadership – which risks remaining an abstraction – but to dismantle the Trump administration’s deportation programme, tackle massive economic inequalities, expand access to healthcare, restore funding for humanitarian initiatives, end illegal wars, and investigate the illicit enrichment of Trump and his family: and the list could go on’. The Week, too, links the victories of the “religious left” to antipathy towards the incumbent president: “Politicians on the Christian left have been trying to break through for a long time, but have mostly been stifled in the primaries before they came close to reaching the national stage. The picture has now changed: in just a few years, thanks to ‘corruption and incompetence’, Trump – who previously ‘enjoyed the support of many Christians’ – ‘has achieved what would otherwise have taken generations: he has opened the door for the religious left to make incredible inroads’.” Jim Rigby, the minister of the Presbyterian church where Talarico grew up, said that “a revival is underway. It is not so much a matter of one religion pitted against another, but rather the affirmation of an idea: everyone matters”.

A resurgence that has thrown the hardline MAGA Republicans into disarray, whose most frequently used refrain during the election campaign to undermine their opponents was ‘he’s not a true Christian’ (a slogan directed at the Texan who ultimately won) and “she’s not a real pastor” (against MP Lindsay James, a candidate in Iowa, who managed to snatch the seat from the rival party). This seems rather meagre, even in terms of “narrative”, to aim for a flip of Congress in 2028, let alone the battle to win the White House.

Rod Dreher, a hyper-conservative Christian and former friend of J.D. Vance, could not believe what he had heard: “My God. My God. The pettiness and hatred that dwell in this man’s heart. He is literally a character from Dante’s Inferno. Despite having received so much from life, he hates his enemies more than he fears God,” he wrote on X. Edward Feser, a traditionalist Catholic philosopher, added to the criticism: “It is truly a very grim affair. It is not only at odds with the teaching of Christ, who warned: ‘For if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses’. This stance falls even below the moral conception of pagan philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote: ‘The magnanimous man [...] harbours no grudge, for it is unworthy of a magnanimous man to remember the wrongs suffered at the hands of others, especially insults; rather, it is in his nature to overlook them’. I feel great sorrow for Trump, who does not seem to realise how dangerous this bitterness could be for his immortal soul. He needs our prayers’. Dreher added that a truth emerged from the responses, one that was finally acknowledged: Donald Trump is the president of the post-religious right. Ten years ago – it was 1 March 2016, at the start of the primaries that would take the tycoon to the White House that November – Ross Douthat tweeted: “If you don’t like the religious right, wait until you meet the post-religious right”. A concept he would revisit several times, in articles and interviews. His argument was clear: the Christian tradition is not the bane of conservatism; on the contrary, it acts as a moral check on what might happen if that obstacle were not there. 

Meanwhile, it prevents love for one’s own little circle (however small or large it may be) from automatically giving rise to hatred towards others, in a primitive logic that divides the world into friends and enemies, with no middle ground. Religion, moreover, also has the merit of tempering the excesses of an overly vigorous conception of maintaining social order, always reminding us that individual freedom must be guaranteed above all else. With the collapse of these certainties and the disintegration of the glue that held America together (religion), the void has been filled by a nationalism devoid of traditional religious ethics. Joshua Mitchell, a lecturer in political theory, anticipated this in Il Foglio years ago: if, in the 1960s, Americans ‘wanted to be Christians, they had to stop being tribal. They could no longer, to use today’s language, invoke their “identities” and be content with doing just that. Precisely because they were Christians, equality was important’. Today, little or nothing remains of this, and Douthat had realised this precisely by observing the rise of Trump, who at the time was regarded as one of the many figures from political satire who occasionally announce their intention to stand for election. ‘Take heed,’ he wrote: ‘if the religious right collapses, what comes next will be no better. Quite the contrary. It will be a right devoid of inhibitions and “lofty” principles. A political discourse based on race and identity, closed communities and order will take hold.’ The prophecy has been partially fulfilled, because the new right has certainly retained its religious references, particularly amongst the evangelical base. Kirk’s funeral is a perfect example of this, with its extra-large crucifixes and rosaries brandished like rifles with bayonets. But it is all style; behind it lies a lack of theological foundation and an ethical core. Which seems to have re-emerged in the opposing camp, amongst victorious Methodist leaders in Kansas and former Presbyterian seminarians conquering Texas.

“Those who exercise it,” the Pope continued, “also have a duty to act with prudence, to recognise the limits of the power entrusted to them and to direct their decisions towards the good of the whole community.” A clear statement, just as clear as the one he made a month and a half ago at the Élysée Palace, in the presence of Emmanuel Macron: “I wish to express to you once again my gratitude for this meeting which, to echo the words spoken by Your Excellency to the bishops of France in 2018, highlights how ‘a Church that claims to take no interest in temporal matters would not be fully fulfilling its vocation; and a President of the Republic who claims to take no interest in the Church and in Catholics would be failing in his duty’Given everything Leone would go on to say during the various stages of his French tour – ranging from the right to life to a misunderstood concept of laïcité – to the extent that a journalist on the plane asked the Pope whether he thought he might have breached the sacred dogma of the separation of state and religion, the aim of this solemn rebuke was clear. Leone’s reply was unequivocal: “When the Church speaks of the defence of life or of matters of social doctrine, it is not engaging in politics, but rather applying the Gospel to people’s lives… if that is engaging in politics, then I have done so.”

Robert Prevost also spoke about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the rocket that struck the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Gaza a year ago. On that occasion, at the end of a summer Angelus at Castel Gandolfo, he condemned “the attack by the Israeli army”. He also responded to barbs from Donald Trump, who described him on social media as weak and terrible, as well as a lover of crime and a supporter of the Ayatollahs’ cause. He reaffirmed his support for last week’s midterm elections, speaking of his “pride” in being able to call himself an American. Leo XIV speaks little, it is true, by the standards to which we had become accustomed in the Church’s recent history. But when he speaks, he is unequivocal. In his addresses to civil authorities, he has always been so. Even in Spain, at the Cortes, last June. Without paying too much heed to diplomatic correctness. His hosts listen, understand and smile, as they can do nothing else. Meanwhile, the message gets across. It was the same in Uruguay, the most secularised and atheistic country in the whole of Latin America: there, the Pope spoke of life, family and faith. A clear path.

11 November 1417. Martin V, the Roman cardinal deacon Oddone Colonna, was elected during the Council of Constance, which had been convened three years earlier to put an end to the ‘Western Schism’ that had been ongoing for forty years. The election took place according to unusual procedures established for the occasion: the electors were the twenty-two cardinals present and six representatives from each of the five ‘nations’ participating in the council. A two-thirds majority of the votes from each individual nation was required, as well as from the cardinals. Voting was not conducted by secret ballot, as each elector had to identify their ballot paper and also confirm their choice verbally. Despite the complicated system of the six required majorities, within three days Oddone Colonna was elected; he was immediately ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop. The new Pope took charge of the council, which he brought to a close within a few months after issuing a series of regulations that only partially met expectations for reform; he then devoted himself with great determination to the Papal States, which had fallen into serious disarray during the very long schism.

During his hospitalisation, the journey was far from a foregone conclusion. Secretary of State Pietro Parolin had said that it was necessary to await the doctors’ advice. Meanwhile, from the Gemelli Hospital, Leo XIV telephoned Putin to request a humanitarian truce for Oleshky, and eight days after the operation he was back in the popemobile in St Peter’s Square. As Matteo Matzuzzi reported two days ago in Il Foglio, the Pope has even resumed flying: on the return flight from France, the press conference on abuse angered the former president of the German Bishops’ Conference, Georg Bätzing.

According to Leone’s lifelong friends, interviewed by the New York Times, the idea of postponing the trip never even crossed his mind. The Vatican assures us that there will be no special arrangements, apart from medical assistance on board, but in Lima the archdiocese has organised the popemobile tours so that he does not have to stand for long periods, and at least in one location he will be able to take the lift instead of the stairs. The Vatican’s Foreign Minister, Archbishop Paul Gallagher, told journalists that the illness has dispelled the temptation to view Leone as a ‘super Pope’: he has fallen ill like so many others, and is a mere mortal like the rest of us.

The three stages

His last trip before falling ill had been to France at the end of September: four days spent in Paris, Lourdes and Metz, which, according to Matzuzzi, left their mark on Leone’s young pontificate. In the country with the strictest secularism, the Pope had found a Catholic France that seemed to have vanished: eighty thousand young people singing the Salve Regina at the Saint-Denis stadium, two hundred thousand more worshippers than the six hundred thousand expected at Mass in the Place de la Concorde, priests hearing confessions whilst sitting on the pavements, and even Macron, who at the last minute had chosen to attend Mass in Metz. On his return to Rome, the Pope summed it all up in two words, referring to the French: “They are searching for something.” And it is with this same hope that he now arrives in Uruguay, the most secular country in Latin America, long regarded as a foretaste of what might happen to Catholicism across the rest of the continent, where participation in the life of the Church is in decline. In addition to Montevideo, he will visit Florida, at the shrine of Our Lady of the Thirty-Three, the country’s patron saint, and Paysandú.

On Sunday 8 November, Leone will arrive in Argentina, the homeland of his predecessor, Francis, who never returned there whilst he was Pope. Waiting for him in Buenos Aires is Javier Milei, whose views on unregulated artificial intelligence are diametrically opposed to those of the Pope.

On Wednesday 11th, the longest and most personal leg of the journey will begin in Peru, the country where Robert Prevost has spent half his life as a priest, where he served as Bishop of Chiclayo and of which he is a citizen. In addition to Lima and Chiclayo, he will travel to Cusco and Pucallpa to meet missionaries and representatives of the Amazonian peoples. There is also a delicate meeting scheduled: with President Keiko Fujimori, daughter of Alberto, the president convicted of human rights violations, against whose abuses the then Father Prevost had protested.

The two pro-Trump presidents (and Trump)

Milei and Fujimori are two of Trump’s allies, and the visit comes in the week following the US President’s defeat in the mid-term elections. The Pope took part in those elections: Leo XIV is the first Pontiff in history to have voted, by post, as an American citizen. His relationship with Trump is not the best: in the spring, the president described him as “weak” and ungrateful, given that, in his view, “it is thanks to me that he became Pope”. On 4 November, before setting off, Leone received another right-wing Latin American president, Chile’s José Antonio Kast, at the Vatican. But for the faithful awaiting him, in Lima as in the Amazon, the trip will above all be something else: the return of a Pope to the places where he served as a missionary, and proof that, four weeks after his operation, the Pope is well.

The musician (whose real name is Robert Allen Zimmerman) will be performing today at the Palazzo dello Sport as part of the autumn leg of the Rough and Rowdy Ways Tour, a series of concerts that also includes stops in Milan and Bologna – venues also known for their ban on filming with smartphones. Leone XIV paid tribute to Dylan in the foreword to a book on disarmament published earlier this year – ‘Disarmati e Disarmante. Peace is a Gift’ – quoting from the anti-war song ‘Go Away, You Bomb’, written by Dylan in 1963 at the height of the Cold War: “I hate you because man made you, and man owns you, and man controls you.”

When Dylan met John Paul II

This is not the first time Dylan has met a Pope. It had already happened in 1997, when he performed alongside other artists at the 23rd National Eucharistic Congress in Bologna, in front of John Paul II and 300,000 young people. After playing three of his greatest hits, including ‘Knocking on Heaven’s Door’, Dylan removed his cowboy hat, climbed the steps to the papal stage and exchanged a handshake and a few words with Wojtyla, as reported by Vatican News. In his address to the young people, the Pontiff explicitly quoted the lyrics of ‘Blowing in the Wind’: “You ask me: how many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?”. A question to which the Polish Pope replied: “Just one. There is only one path for man, and that is the path of Jesus Christ”.

Nor is this the first time that Leone XIV has received a musician. Last July, in fact, he met another icon of American rock: Patti Smith.

The bishop then lists everything that has been discussed and put into practice in Germany, arguing that from the process developed there “it has become clear that it is not enough to prosecute perpetrators, provide training on prevention and improve procedural regulations. All of this is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We must also change the structures within which power is exercised, responsibility is assumed and decisions are taken. Sacred authority must not allow people to evade scrutiny. Ecclesial leadership requires binding accountability, transparent decision-making processes and effective – and, as far as possible, independent – oversight mechanisms. This is not an abstract demand. It must be reflected in our own actions’. But what had Leo XIV said? Quite simply, without giving credence to the many scoundrels brandishing nooses and handcuffs, he observed that many of the victims he met in Lourdes “spoke of systemic abuse. Personally, I prefer to express it differently, even though I have spoken of certain organisations within the Church which, at times, so to speak, as a system, have acted abusively. But I believe it is important to make this distinction. Sexual abuse is, first and foremost, a human problem. When it occurs within the Church, it actually takes on another dimension, because people’s lives of faith are deeply wounded and sometimes even destroyed”. Former President Bätzing did not take kindly to this: “I consider the assertion that sexual abuse is primarily a human problem to be insufficient and, in terms of its possible consequences, extremely problematic. Sexual abuse is a serious crime. It destroys trust, wounds people’s dignity and can leave a lasting mark on their lives. Where church leaders have covered up or remained silent about such acts, or prevented them from being investigated, they bear a grave responsibility of their own. Within the Church, there is a further dimension: the abuse of spiritual authority and religious trust can profoundly damage, or even destroy, a person’s faith. Pope Leo has explicitly addressed this particular wound and the Church’s responsibility towards those affected. I acknowledge this. Precisely for this reason, I hope he will offer an equally unequivocal acknowledgement of the systemic causes of sexualised violence. I do not wish to imply that the Pope rejects scientific knowledge on principle. But his statements leave a crucial question unanswered: does he recognise that not only individual people and organisations, but also specific structures within the Catholic Church have facilitated the abuse and its cover-up? This question is of fundamental importance. For if we do not clearly name the causes, we will not even be able to overcome them consistently.” Hence, the call to action: “The Roman Curia and the governing structures of the universal Church must also be held to account on whether power is exercised transparently, accountability is verified and oversight is effectively guaranteed. As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, I still see far too little of the radical cultural change we need.”

It must be acknowledged that “the Catholic Church has caused immeasurable suffering through sexual abuse and its decades-long cover-up, and has lost a great deal of trust. This trust cannot be regained through mere statements. What is needed is credible action, a willingness to engage in self-criticism, and consistent change to the conditions that have facilitated the abuse. If the Church were to downplay or deny the systemic causes of sexualised violence, it would be a serious setback. It would cause further harm to those affected and jeopardise the credibility of the process of coming to terms with the issue.” Precisely for this reason, writes the former president of the German Bishops’ Conference, “I consider a clarification from Pope Leo to be urgently necessary. The recognition of systemic causes is not unique to the German ecclesial debate. It is a consequence of scientific knowledge and the experiences of those who have suffered grave harm within our Church. We owe it to these people not to sugar-coat anything, not to play down anything and not to sweep any uncomfortable truths under the carpet. A Church that wishes to proclaim the Gospel credibly must be prepared to critically examine its own structures as well. It must not place its own institutional interests above human dignity. And it must accept that spiritual authority never exempts one from accountability and scrutiny.” The bishop chose the timing of his attack carefully: the Pope will be called upon to respond in a few days’ time, when questioned by the journalists travelling with him as he moves between Uruguay, Argentina and Peru. An unexpected and unsolicited ‘November surprise’.

Then there is Pope Francis, who has a habit of describing himself as non-Catholic, or proclaiming that his God is not Catholic – in contrast to what Pius XII reminded Clare Booth Luce during his fervent anti-communist campaign: ‘Madam, I too am a Catholic’. This very bourgeois discretion regarding conversion is a decisive factor, a fine measure of seriousness, more so than the heartfelt and palpable communion in the name of transcendence, more so than the heartfelt solidarity or brotherhood in Christ. At the moment of encountering Christ or God the Father who sent him, someone should proclaim in a universal—that is, Catholic—manner the way, the truth and the life, would remember that the Church founded by Him consists not only of good intentions and charity but of rock-solid discipline, a framework of ideas, narratives, philosophies and dogmas, and a clergy that embodies the apostolic tradition through its hierarchical structure—including that very Catholic figure, the Pope, and, if you will, the Petrine and Pauline Rome.

Social centres and NGOs are, at least in their intentions, striving for a good cause, but the Church is not a social centre, nor is it an NGO, and it is questionable whether good works in themselves lead to salvation without faith and the complex, time-honoured teachings of Scripture, regardless of whether one exercises free examination of conscience or not (Luther strongly objected to this and is now widely re-evaluated). In any case, no one here is a theologian; the issue has only an intellectual and moral dimension. 

Discovering the transcendent through the stars or the vastness of the sea, as in Luca’s case, is a wonderful experience, bordering on the New Age, and one that everyone should try. The recreational and leisurely use we make of the sea cannot compete with such realisations or revelations. Yet even the sea of the transcendent may have its own logic, indeed its own history, its own disciplined humanistic function, and its own personal and collective ethics; and taking this into account may be a good thing. In this regard, a modicum of intellectual respect for the founders of churches – including autocephalous schisms, Orthodoxy and Protestantism – for consecrated priests with their charisms, and for the ecclesiastical practice of the people of God, including priests and pastors, is helpful; for, according to the last Ecumenical Council, this would in its entirety constitute the Christ-like body of the Church. Workers’ autonomy and the revolutionary practice of the Venetians have provided a horizon; but to force the whole of Christianity into that same revolutionary horizon – as Casarini does when speaking to the press – is perhaps a bit too much.

“I have always respected the justice system and those who work within it, and I always will. However, the most painful aspect for me is that the entire investigation was characterised by real-time media coverage of parts of the investigators’ work, even when it was subject to strict investigative secrecy. It even went so far as to publish the content of telephone calls relating to my priestly and episcopal ministry. Subsequently, after my case was fully dismissed (a decision requested by the investigating body itself and endorsed without reservation by the judge for preliminary investigations on the grounds that the allegations were unfounded), the media witch-hunt to which I was subjected did not cease.”

It was impossible to carry on. Hence, his resignation. Pope Francis accepted it but did not assign any further duties to the bishop, who was sixty-four at the time. Early retirement without explanation. A story very similar to that of Monsignor Michel Aupetit, Archbishop of Paris, who was forced to resign following a journalistic investigation that turned out to be pure nonsense. ‘Sacrificed on the altar of gossip,’ said Francis.

Pope Leo XIV took it upon himself on Saturday to heal the wound. Monsignor Francesco Cavina has in fact been appointed Apostolic Visitor with special status for the Parish of Medjugorje, for an indefinite period and ad nutum Sanctae Sedis. This is anything but a token appointment: he has been sent to oversee the most ‘controversial’ Marian shrine on the planet, with the never-ending clash between the Franciscans who defend the apparitions and the diocese which has always been sceptical (to put it mildly). A real tough nut to crack.

Truth, stripped of its divine foundation, becomes suspect, and the public conscience slips into a religious indifference that is as barren as it is dangerous. The rejection of truth – that is, of God – opens the door to a multitude of confusions. Opinions clash, ideologies proliferate, contradictions multiply, each reflecting the disordered desires and particular interests of those who espouse them. By severing the link with the divine source, man destroys himself spiritually and ends up reduced to a machine or an animal. Man’s idolatry inevitably leads to his own decline. By setting himself against God, he loses the dignity which the Creator had bestowed upon him. The principles of modern anthropocentrism, deeply rooted in the very foundations of contemporary civilisation, taint all its manifestations. It would be futile to seek to reform institutions or remedy a society whose very foundations are corrupt. It is not, first and foremost, the structures, nor merely the customs, that need to be corrected, but the souls, the minds and the consciences.

Salvation will come from an inner change, from a radical conversion, from a renewal of fundamental principles. In this battle, the Church cannot remain silent. Its primary mission is to call the world to conversion. Only a return to Jesus Christ can restore our true humanity. As the psalmist teaches: “Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labour in vain. Unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain” (Ps 127:1).

The modern edifice built without God is destined to collapse. This world, which has sought to emancipate itself from the Creator, cannot survive unless it returns to Him. Spiritual death befalls those who turn away from God; life is reborn only through a humble and sincere return. The principles that have corrupted modernity stand in direct opposition to those of the Christian order. One cannot remedy disorder without pointing to the true order. Many Catholics, clear-sighted and troubled, feel with sorrow the profound crisis shaking the Church: the loss of a sense of sin, the weakening of priestly and marital commitment, indifference towards doctrine, the neglect of the liturgical treasure, and contempt for the tradition that has produced so many saints.

Added to this internal crisis is the external aggression of hostile ideologies: atheistic communism, Nazism, gender ideology and transhumanism. The West is going through a cultural dark age unprecedented in human history.

God has now been excluded from the public consciousness, relegated to the realm of private opinion, with no real impact on social life. Moral liberalism and religious indifference are undermining the very foundations of society. And yet, God continues to intervene. His love is stronger than sin. He brings about a new order, superior to the old order destroyed by human pride. This is why He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Every act of Christ possesses infinite value, capable not only of securing forgiveness, but also of more than fully making amends for the disorder brought about by sin. And this divine act is at the same time fully human, offered on behalf of all humanity.

A glass half full, in short, considering that the overall picture is far from rosy: the body that formally appoints bishops in China – and is responsible for identifying candidates for the episcopate – is the Patriotic Association, which is a direct offshoot of the Communist Party and does not recognise the Pope’s authority over the selection of bishops. The bishops identified and appointed are therefore men of proven loyalty to the regime, which – to emphasise how little it cares about the Vatican’s views – had no qualms about appointing two bishops during the 2025 papal vacancy. Whilst the Pope was dead. Two years earlier, there was the sensational case of the Bishop of Shanghai, China’s main diocese. In July, the Vatican Press Office announced that the Pope had appointed Monsignor Giuseppe Shen Bin to that see, transferring him from the see of Haimen. It was unfortunate that the prelate had already been installed in Shanghai for three months, that is, since the authorities had unilaterally decided to send him there. Spokesperson Matteo Bruni explained that the Vatican had only been informed a few days earlier. In short: Beijing ordered and Rome ratified the appointment of a prominent bishop – the president of the Chinese Catholic Bishops’ Conference – whom the Holy See does not recognise: because “it is governed by statutes containing elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine”, as stated in Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Chinese Catholics, written nineteen years ago. The fact that the Pope subsequently decided to remedy the situation for the ‘greater good’ of the Church in Shanghai makes little difference. It was clear confirmation of the spirit of the Agreement: the Pope has the final say on the Party’s decisions, and if he disagrees or fails to respond, the Party presses ahead regardless. Shen Bin went so far as to say in an interview with the diocesan magazine that the principle of ‘Sinicisation’ “is a red line that we must not cross”.

This, too, illustrates how the agreement is completely lopsided for one simple reason which, for obvious reasons on the other side of the Tiber, cannot be openly acknowledged: Xi Jinping could not care less about an agreement with the Catholic Church. One need only recall how the news of the death of Pope Francis – who always spoke highly of the Chinese people and expressed respect for their institutional bodies – was treated in Beijing: a few lines published very belatedly. Archbishop Gallagher acknowledged that criticism of the Agreement was to be expected ‘from day one’, given certain people’s ‘view of China’s history and the current government of mainland China’. Whether the reference was to Cardinal Joseph Zen – who is Chinese and knows the Chinese Communists well – or to the then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – who urged Rome to abandon the agreement – remains unclear. It should be noted, however, that several human rights organisations have also complained that the agreement does nothing to improve the daily lives of local Catholics. As demonstrated in recent months by an extensive investigation by the French newspaper La Croix, in several Chinese regions minors are forbidden from entering churches during liturgical celebrations which, when permitted, take place at dawn in order to prevent large numbers of people from attending. Preferably with the windows blacked out (heaven forbid anyone might take a peek and be struck by what they see) and without singing.

This is one of the issues on which Taiwan (whose only embassy in Europe is, in fact, the one to the Holy See) is pressing most strongly: “Look at Hong Kong, look at Tibet, look at the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. There is no religious freedom in China,” a senior government official told Il Foglio a couple of weeks ago. The fear that Rome might opt for Beijing by abandoning Taipei, however, is currently a remote possibility. Gallagher himself drew a distinction between pastoral and diplomatic relations, making it clear that the issue of official relations with Communist China is not on the agenda. “The idea is to have a sort of cultural presence in Beijing, but there would be a price to pay which, at the moment, we are not prepared to pay.” What that price might be is unknown. Taiwan, perhaps?

Amidst all this discussion, there is one silent spectator: what does Leo XIV think? There is only one statement on the subject, dating back more than a year now and contained in Elise Ann Allen’s interview-based book. The Pope said at the time that he wished to examine the issue in greater depth, continuing for the time being along the path already charted, whilst listening to all sides, including those who have suffered – “the significant group of Chinese Catholics” restricted “in freely practising their faith”, a situation described by Prevost as “very difficult”. Archbishop Gallagher said that ‘probably’ China does not currently represent a ‘specific priority’ for the Pope, who wishes instead to focus on ‘the entire universal Church’ rather than on ‘particular areas’. It is unlikely that Leo XIV will revise the Holy See’s current approach in the short term: there is nothing to suggest he would, and diplomatic considerations advise against it. Until the negotiations for renewal in two years’ time, renouncing the path taken would mean giving Beijing the opportunity to denounce the Agreement and the irresponsibility of the other party, with consequences that are easy to imagine for the faithful. It is equally true, however, that in this early phase of his pontificate, the Augustinian Pontiff – as well as having consented, for the time being prudently, to the reorganisation of the local dioceses, abolishing some long-established ones and creating new ones more closely aligned with administrative boundaries, as per China’s peremptory demand – has appointed proportionally far more bishops than his predecessor did, who was, indeed, publicly enthusiastic about the agreement with Beijing. Leo XIV has in fact appointed seven bishops since the day of his election. Francis, from 2018 onwards, had appointed around ten. They are all young bishops, destined to lead their dioceses for decades. The latest, significant case is that of the new bishop of the diocese of Haimen, consecrated in mid-October: Bishop Ignatius Ding Zuyao is forty years old and is the youngest bishop in the Catholic Church. He was consecrated by his predecessor in that see, Bishop Joseph Shen Bin of Shanghai. Asia News noted that “if one looks at the dates of birth of the bishops appointed in China in 2026, as many as four out of five were born after 1980. By way of comparison: when this figure is set against the appointments made by the Catholic Church as a whole, it is evident that, worldwide, there are barely twenty bishops out of over 5,400 who were born after 1980”.

Meanwhile, next Thursday, a conference will be held at the Pontifical Urbaniana University to mark the centenary of the consecration of the first six Chinese bishops by Pius XI. Two bishops will also be attending: the Bishop of Beijing, Monsignor Giuseppe Li Shan, ordained in 2007 under the apostolic mandate of Benedict XVI and elected president of the Patriotic Association in 2022; and the aforementioned Bishop of Haimen, the young Ignatius Ding Zuyao, who has recently been appointed. Cardinals Pietro Parolin, Luis Antonio Tagle and Stephen Chow Sau-Yan, Bishop of Hong Kong, will also be present.

2 November 1389. Boniface IX, Pietro Tomacelli of Naples, was elected, whilst the ‘Western Schism’ had been ongoing for more than ten years; this had arisen at the time of the popes’ definitive return to Rome from Avignon following the election of an antipope. Boniface too faced opposition from two antipopes. He did not have much political experience; however, endowed with a strong personality and a practical mind, he was able to re-establish papal authority in many regions of Europe. In Rome, he reorganised the municipal government, effectively bringing an end to the free commune by placing it under the control of the Senator’s office. He then had parts of the defensive structure of Castel Sant’Angelo rebuilt and reinforced; these had been seriously damaged fifteen years earlier during a popular uprising against the French garrison stationed there.

Further south, the situation is no better: in Mozambique, where since 2017 an Islamist insurgency (complete with flags reminiscent of the Caliphate of the late Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) has swept through the province of Cabo Delgado, at least a thousand Christians have been killed. All this amidst “beheadings, kidnappings, and the destruction of churches and homes”. This is nothing new, just as the tragedy that Nicaragua continues to endure – with persecution by the Sandinista government – is nothing new. What is less well known, at least in the West, is the situation in Iran. The report by Aid to the Church in Need provides a detailed account of how religious freedom is understood in the Republic of the Ayatollahs: “Arrests of Christians rose considerably in 2025, with 254 cases reported – roughly double the figure for 2024. This increase has been accompanied by increasingly severe court sentences, as well as further punitive measures, including exclusion from education, employment and healthcare. Despite the release of a limited number of people detained on religious grounds, the overall picture points to a gradual tightening of restrictions on religious freedom, characterised by increased surveillance, a rise in legal proceedings and the adoption of punitive measures for behaviour deemed incompatible with the laws of the Islamic Republic”. It is important to understand the situation, given that “although some communities, including the Roman Catholic community and certain Orthodox and Protestant denominations, are officially recognised and authorised to hold their own religious services, their members are subject to harassment and intimidation, including a ban on reading or distributing the Bible in Farsi”. It is a country where “conversion from Islam remains illegal, and people accused of apostasy or related activities face arrest, detention and imprisonment, often on the basis of charges of ‘threatening national security’ interpreted very broadly. Evangelical Christians are frequently associated with ‘foreign intelligence services’, according to a narrative that portrays an entire religious community as a security threat, thereby severely increasing their vulnerability”. The influence of religious nationalism is also on the rise, gaining ever greater strength across Asia. One need only consider that in India, in 2025, there were more than seven hundred incidents of anti-Christian violence. A key factor is the growing number of laws prohibiting religious conversion, which are used to target minorities, including Christians. During the period covered by the report, there were increasing numbers of religious services being disrupted, acts of vandalism against churches and physical assaults.

That said, Leo XIV falls silent. He makes no mention of Russia and Ukraine, despite having been at the centre of a significant diplomatic initiative just a few days ago (even though the credit for the truce in Oleshky was subsequently claimed by the American First Lady, Melania Trump). None of this was mentioned in the message. Not a single word on the crisis in the Middle East, neither from a political nor a religious perspective. Nothing on mass-casualty terrorism, nothing on Africa. Rather than a speech on the 1986 Day of Prayer, the text prepared for the Pope seemed more like a greeting. Given the parade of dignitaries and eminent figures gathered there – professors and experts in the fields of dialogue and culture – it is likely that some were impressed. The Pontiff quoted his encyclical when he said, referring to the first meeting in 1986, that ‘it was, at that time, the era of the Cold War, a very different scenario from today’s.’ After 1989, quite a few people argued that globalisation would ensure stable peace for the world. Unfortunately, as I wrote in Magnifica humanitas, ‘we have placed almost blind trust in the markets’ ability to produce well-being, democracy and stability, whilst in reality globalisation has not automatically generated unity and peace, but has provoked fundamentalist, identitarian and nationalistic reactions’”. The discourse remains firmly grounded in reality, with various citations from documents, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when it states that “the accumulation of weapons seems to many to be a paradoxical way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see in it the most effective means of ensuring peace amongst nations”. This is why, Leone emphasised, “precisely in these times of a culture of power, there is a need to foster the spirit of Assisi, which is a rejection of the religious legitimisation of war, a spirit of mediation and dialogue, contemplative experience and creative action for a future of peace. Yes, because peace must once again become the common ideal of all peoples, the guiding star of all our choices, the criterion that exposes injustice, the shared horizon of all peoples’. What we must do is ‘rebuild peace everywhere, not prepare for further wars! War can never be waged in the name of God! For us believers, ‘fighting in the name of religion actually means striking at religion itself’. There is no such thing as a holy war: only peace is holy!”.

In the Pope’s brief text, he highlights the way to achieve peace: through prayer. There is no mention of political agreements or in-depth analyses of the balance of power in one global arena or another. No, “prayer may seem weak in the face of the powers of the world, but it is the humble strength of believers”. Prayer “is a school of dialogue with God, with people and with all creatures. Let us think of St Francis, on whose eight-hundredth anniversary of his death we have recently commemorated. The world needs dialogue. The Assisi Journey commits religious leaders to fostering a climate of dialogue amongst the faithful and within society, so that the language of arrogance may be replaced by that of peace, negotiation and understanding. This will gradually steer humanity away from the spiral of violence”. It remains to be seen who will be able to put Leone’s appeal into practice. 

The facts: on 22 October, the White House released a video showing twelve bishops praying for and with Trump in the Oval Office. All hell broke loose: much of the American Catholic press, which leans towards the Democrats, immediately criticised the bishops, questioning whether it was really appropriate, twelve days before the election, to take part in that scene. The White House did not hesitate before releasing the video: the opportunity was too good to miss. Are you telling us we have no regard for the Pope in Rome? That Catholics are against us? Here are twelve bishops – twelve, like the apostles – who are here praying with us. He immediately listed those present: full names, positions and cities of origin. Among them was the Archbishop of Denver, Monsignor James Golka, who has a distinctive feature: as well as leading a prominent diocese, he is one of the key appointments in the United States made by Leo XIV, having been appointed there last February. The fact that he is a ‘Leonian’ bishop was held against him, so much so that the day after the publication of the controversial video, Monsignor Golka sprinkled ashes on his head as if it were an early Lent: “I understand that many people have interpreted the video as a show of support; that was by no means my intention,” he told the Denver Catholic, adding that he was deeply saddened to see “that people have been hurt and that there are those who are deliberately exploiting this moment to fuel divisions”. The archbishop, as if he were standing before a panel of Iranian legal experts, had to provide every possible justification: he was there for other commitments; he was due to meet officials from the White House Office of Religious Affairs to discuss immigration, abortion, and religious and educational freedom. And then, yes, the greeting to the President. The Bishop of Milwaukee offered his “public apology”, explaining that he knew nothing about photographs or video recordings. He was there solely to discuss and pray. Bishop William Joensen of Des Moines, Iowa, on the other hand, engaged in some soul-searching: “I wish I had been more prudent and less naive”. But who set this trap? According to another of the bishops present, Bishop Scott Bullock of Rapid City – who nevertheless recalled how St Paul, in his Letter to Timothy, says it is good to pray for those in authority – the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was not unaware of the event but had in no way been involved in planning it. At least that is how Chieko Noguchi, director of the Conference’s Office of Public Affairs, clarified the matter. Behind it all is the Heritage Foundation, which, through its ‘Project 2025’, aims to revolutionise the federal government and strengthen executive power: ‘It now has the image of a blessing bestowed by Catholic bishops, something it could never have imagined acquiring, even with unlimited financial resources,’ observed the National Catholic Reporter. After the prayer, Donald Trump described the twelve as “extraordinary people”, as if to say: see, the Catholics who matter aren’t against me? The leadership of the Bishops’ Conference was neither present nor did they comment. In recent months, and particularly following the President’s attacks on the Pope (whom he described as “weak on crime and terrible on foreign policy”), the rift between the White House and the Bishops’ Conference has widened. Immigration and the war against Iran are the areas where their positions are poles apart. The serious problem for Trump, beyond the bishops’ dissent, is that even among the Catholic electorate, disillusionment with him prevails. This is no minor matter for the President, who returned to the White House partly thanks to their vote.