Laudetur Jesus Christus. May the Lord grant us peace.
I have tried in every way to keep to myself all the suffering I have carried for several months. And when a person loves, she must speak to the beloved and explain to him that what he does wounds her deeply, so as not to create problems in the relationship they have. Here it is: in this video — which will be very strong, because it is one of my characteristics — I am a person who speaks with great impetuosity.
As I have said, Saint Catherine of Siena — I am not Saint Catherine of Siena, perhaps — but Saint Catherine of Siena used very harsh tones with bishops, with priests, with the Pope. She was truly cutting in language and in attitudes, because when one loves and sees that the one one loves commits enormous errors — and these enormous errors can first create scandal, but could truly lead to ruin, to a defeat of the word of God and of the Catholic Church — one seeks to make one's beloved understand that he is truly exceeding all limits.
In my view, in the Pope's message, in the message of Leon XIV, on the occasion of the installation of the archbishop of Canterbury, Mrs. Sarah Mullaly, in my view here the Holy Father has surpassed himself. The letter opens addressed to the "most reverend and most honorable Mrs. Sarah Mullaly".
And that alone would already merit much commentary, but I do not make them. In this letter we will address the salient points, including a quotation from the joint declaration which, I remind you, was pronounced at a meeting in Rome between Paul VI and the Anglicans on March 24, 1966. And another quotation.
So the letter of the Holy Father to this bishop begins thus: "Most reverend and most honorable, asking the Lord to strengthen her with the gift of wisdom, I pray that she may be guided by the Holy Spirit in the service of her communities and that she may draw inspiration from the example of Mary, Mother of God." I will comment on the content later, but there I must just give you a spoiler: the lady is pro-abortion. This woman, Anglican bishop, is pro-abortion. She invokes the Mother of God, the ever-virgin, the co-redemptress, the tabernacle of Christ.
The same Holy Father cites the joint declaration of March 24, 1966 which I mentioned, where the development of fraternal relations with the Anglicans — with Paul VI who met the archbishop Michael Ramsey in Rome — and where Leon XIV affirms that this new page of respectful opening has borne much fruit.
Yes, we have seen it in recent decades: our Church is now more Protestant than Catholic and continues to be so. The Holy Father continues in the letter: "Moreover, the unity that Christians seek is never an end in itself, but is aimed at the proclamation of Christ, so that, according to the prayer of the Lord Jesus himself, the world may believe."
Holy Father, it does not seem to me that the Anglicans have the same Catholic vision of our Lord Jesus Christ. May God bless him. I do not believe it at all. Then Leon XIV quotes Pope Francis who affirmed: "It would be a scandal if because of divisions we did not realize our common vocation to make Christ known." I repeat myself then: which Christ? Holy Father, that of the Protestants or that which comes from the Catholic faith and the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, which comes directly from the succession of Peter?
The Pope's letter continues further: "Dear sister, I willingly make my own these words, the words of Pope Francis, for it is only through the witness of a reconciled, fraternal and united Christian community that the proclamation of the Gospel will resound more clearly."
I would like to point out to you that in the same Anglican Church, given that the lady said she is more "pro-choice" than "pro-life" concerning abortion — thus favorable to choice in abortion matters — well, the Anglicans are themselves divided because of these positions expressed by Sarah Mullaly, which are pro-abortion and favorable to the LGBT+ agenda.
For these reasons the Anglican Primate of Nigeria, for example, has denounced Mullaly and her appointment, saying that it is devastating and a rejection of biblical teaching. Sometimes we have an Anglican who seems wiser than our Holy Father.
Let us analyze the gravity of the content of this letter. We have already said that Sarah Mullaly is pro-abortion and favorable to homosexual marriages. We wonder, Holy Father, how a woman of this type could draw inspiration and example from the Most Holy Virgin Mary? This invocation, Holy Father, is particularly scandalous: the ever-virgin, the spouse of God, the virginal tabernacle of the Son of God, addressed to one pro-abortion favorable to homosexual marriage and female priesthood. How can one address the same congratulations and initiate proximity of dialogue between the Anglicans and the Catholic Church?
Why omit that, after citing Paul VI and Pope Francis, for the Catholic Church Anglican ordinations are considered null and devoid of apostolic effects? Indeed, in "Apostolicae Curae" [historical reference on the validity of Anglican ordinations], one speaks of formal and intentional defects; consequence: interruption of apostolic succession. Now "Apostolicae Curae" has never been abrogated.
However open one may be to ecumenism, as John Paul II was, Holy Father, how can you write that we must reconcile ourselves and unite the proclamation of the Gospel? Which Gospel? These are two different Gospels. Do you want to bring the Church back to Protestantism? Why not mention that the ordination of women is contrary to the will of Christ? That the Catholic Church alone transmits the word of Christ?
And all this in less than a year of your pontificate. We had great confidence in you and I still hope that you will understand the gravity of so many things you have implemented in the last eight months. Already last January, at Vespers of the 25th week for the unity of Christians, you said: "Let us commit ourselves to further developing synodal and ecumenical practices…" So why, Holy Father, do you want to dialogue with everyone but remain silent towards those who have the right to keep Catholic tradition alive? I cite for example the Saint Pius X Fraternity. I do not belong to the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but I recognize certain legitimate demands of theirs: they do not want to create something against you, Holy Father, but someone has created something that goes against you and against the Church, and you approve of it.
To the bishops elected by the Catholic Patriotic Association desired by the Chinese Communist Party — you said nothing; you did not raise your voice: "Who permitted you this?" Instead, you say yes to the Anglicans, yes to Mullaly favorable to abortion and homosexuality, which I remind you is, according to Christian doctrine, a sin that cries out for vengeance before God. You are superior to me, so if I remind you of it you should also remind yourself, Holy Father: the four sins that cry out for vengeance before God are voluntary murder, the unnatural impure sin, the oppression of the poor and the deprivation of workers' wages.
These Chinese bishops are appointed without papal approval, they have wife and children, and no cardinal [Fernandez?] has protested or threatened excommunication as has been done with the Saint Pius X Fraternity. Why, Holy Father? Why this double standard? I beg you, give me answers; I tell you sincerely: repent, come to your senses as Saint Peter did after denying Christ. It seems to me there is a form very close to the denial of Christ in what is happening in the Church.
If Christ said that heaven and earth will pass away but his words will not pass away, we cannot say that Christ's Gospel is outdated. We cannot say that we need to "refresh" the Gospel. I am nothing, Holy Father: I began reading the Gospel at 13 years old, but each day I open it seems to me something new. Your words to the Anglican bishop are a grave act that provokes even more indignation and confusion, that contradicts the deposit of faith, that confuses the faithful and that goes hand in hand with your previous gesture of a few months ago, because one minimizes and begins to preach a different Gospel, a word of God falsified and contemptible in relation to the passion and death of Christ for us.
Tell me now, Holy Father, in all honesty: can I call all this anathema? Why seal, as you want to do, without having given — here it is clearly explained that you did not care — without having helped the confused faithful, seal the encyclical "Amoris Laetitia", Holy Father? You have convened for next October, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the publication of said encyclical, all the presidents of the episcopal conferences of the world to discern the steps to be taken in the light of this encyclical, to proclaim the Gospel to families influenced by so many changes. That is what you say yourself, by sharing what the local Churches are implementing.
In my region, the local Churches face many situations: there are more homosexuals, transsexuals, divorced and remarried who are absolutely unconcerned about being in sin, who go to church and commune like "normal" faithful — if we can still call them that — but perhaps we are no longer even normal. I remain silent, Father, I remain silent.
I also recall that Pope Francis affirmed the need to develop new pastoral paths for these people, to accompany, discern and integrate. "Integrate" is a very, very grave word. Here I have underlined it: to overcome a reductive conception of the norm. So the word of God would become reductive? That is what Pope Francis thought. That is what you think: that what God the Father established as law is reductive, that the word of God no longer counts and must be changed. It is outdated, it is old.
How, in your view, will we fill the churches if we do not fill them with abominations? But beware: there comes to mind the word of God: "When the abomination enters the temple…" — heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will not pass away, Holy Father. What idols are we selling ourselves to, Father? At what price? We are close to Holy Week and the thirty pieces of silver of Judas come to mind.
May God bless you.
