The nominations of new bishops by Leo XIV are worthy of note. They belong to the category of "post-conflict" ecclesiastics.
— They are not the old-style progressives, waving banners, unkempt and uncouth, delighting in scandalizing the Catholic bourgeoisie with an aesthetic of the "poor priest" erected as a moral performance. — Neither are they the architects of a doctrinal, liturgical, or ascetic restoration. — They are something else: ecclesiastical administrators of mild manners, at ease with cultural realities, institutionally reliable, skillful with the "media," and sufficiently malleable to break with nothing, but rather to shift the axis of the Church without the need to declare it.
This marks a new way of advancing for the Revolution, certainly more dangerous and more grave than the clamorous progressivism of the 1980s, for it advances without contradiction and operates changes without admitting that they are changes. Mutation ceases to be presented as a combat and becomes the norm. Therein lies its strength.
Filippo Iannone, appointed to the Dicastery for Bishops, heads the body that assists the Pope in the nomination of bishops throughout the world. He is perhaps the most striking example of the technocratic profile. He is not a man of profound theology, nor is he affiliated with any spiritual school. He will not preach heterodoxy, but will promote men who are "balanced," "oriented toward dialogue," and "non-divisive"; thus, within a decade, the global episcopal body will be refashioned with supple, docile profiles, doctrinally open—which is to say, in reality, closed to the Truth.
Josef Grünwidl, appointed to Vienna, is the most audacious when it comes to exploring the depths of heterodoxy. He has warned against "neo-integralism" and an "exclusivist" Christianity. He is not a revolutionary by principle, but a man of doctrinal decompression, vigilant against any overly categorical affirmation of Catholic identity that might appear too exclusive or too sure of itself. This type of bishop can be more corrosive than a frontal rupture, for he does not present himself as an enemy of tradition, but as a reasonable moderate who relegates it to the corner of those who are suspectly rigid.
Stanislav Přibyl, in Prague, offers a Central European version of this same model. His public discourse insists on the overcoming of polarizations, the building of bridges, listening, dialogue, learning the synodal process, and the dissolving of "social bubbles." Parallel to this, he evokes the Deposit of Faith and the New Evangelization, which allows him to present himself as a balanced man, and not as an avowed progressive. Here precisely is the knot of the problem: it is no longer necessary to verbally deny the Deposit of Faith to empty it of its normative substance in practice. It suffices to envelop it in a constant rhetoric of reconciliation, listening, and accompaniment, where every sharp definition is suspected of creating divisions. Herein lies the danger: Revealed Truth is not denied, but functionally subordinated to the superior ideal of ecclesial coexistence.
Ronald A. Hicks. From his first interview after his appointment to New York, he employed the language now characteristic of this current: attentive listening to the faithful, the desire to avoid divisions, support for those in suffering, priority given to healing, and a governance centered upon mission. One finds nowhere the intransigent progressivism of certain American prelates of the early post-Vatican II era, but indeed the same evolution toward a "therapeutic," inclusive, and appeased episcopate.
These men do not resemble wolves; they appear inoffensive. They do not display the aggressiveness of the progressivism of the 1980s, but at heart, they share the same mistrust toward a defined, virile Catholicism, founded upon the Cross and hierarchical. They simply express it differently now. They no longer ridicule tradition; they relativize it. They no longer attack it so frontally, but manipulate it by minimizing its impact. They no longer engage in provocations; they establish a climate where that which is strong, clear, and serious becomes marginal.
The letter of Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernandez stems from exactly the same spirit and the same practice: "We do not agree on doctrine, but we shall continue to meet to know each other better and, above all, we shall take care to live together in good accord."
Certainly, excommunication will fall upon the new bishops, but as the Society of Saint Pius X will have taken care to choose them according to the criteria above, Rome will go no further, and the Society of Saint Pius X will continue its "moderno-compatible" path.
Letter of Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernandez
February 18, 2026 – Principal Excerpts
On the part of the Society, a doctrinal discussion was—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if one does not succeed in reaching an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow for better mutual knowledge, for the refining and deepening of one's own arguments, and for a better grasp of the spirit and intentions that animate the positions of one's interlocutor, especially his real love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
Such was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion in a serene and peaceful moment, without the pressure or threat of an eventual excommunication which would have rendered the dialogue somewhat less free—which, unfortunately, is occurring today.
Thus, in the shared observation that we cannot find an agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point upon which we can meet is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.
We can agree on one point: none of us wishes to reopen wounds. I shall not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I emphasize only that, in the present situation, the only truly practicable way is that of charity.
During the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated "listening" and the understanding of particular, complex, and exceptional situations foreign to ordinary frameworks. You have also desired a use of the law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without claiming to resolve everything by juridical automatisms and pre-established schemes. The Society asks nothing else of you in the present moment—and above all, she does not ask it for herself: she asks it for those souls of whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, she has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.
Finally, there is another point upon which we are also in agreement, and which must encourage us: the time that separates us from July 1st is a time of prayer. It is a moment where we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray in particular for you to the Holy Ghost and—do not take it as a provocation—His most holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all graces.
I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have accorded me, and for the interest you will deign to take in the present matter.
Topic: Fr. Pivert on new bishops appointed by Rome (Read 219 times)