There is a peculiar temptation which appears whenever serious allegations are made against senior churchmen. It presents itself as loyalty. It speaks the language of reverence, obedience and concern for the good name of the Church. Yet what it frequently demands is something quite different: that Catholics avert their eyes from facts which are uncomfortable, minimise questions which ought to be answered, distrust the person who raises them, or treat scrutiny of an ecclesiastical office-holder as though it were an attack upon the Church herself.
Gene Thomas Gomulka calls this phenomenon “spiritual denial”. Writing on 6 September, the former priest, United States Navy chaplain, seminary instructor and long-standing advocate for victims of clerical sexual abuse compares it with the psychological reaction of a wife who attacks the friend who tells her that her husband is unfaithful rather than confronting the possibility that the husband has betrayed her. Catholics confronted with disturbing allegations concerning priests, bishops, cardinals or popes can, he argues, turn upon those presenting them because acknowledging their possible truth appears to threaten something larger: confidence in the Church herself.¹
Gomulka is not a new voice to readers of Nuntiatoria. In July 2025, Hands Off the Crozier: Clericalism, Silence, and the Scandal of Inaction Under Pope Leo XIV cited his criticism while considering the new pontificate’s developing record on episcopal accountability.² A month later, Lavender in the Sanctuary: Vocations, Vice, and the Need for Truth examined testimony he had assembled concerning seminary misconduct, compromised formation and alleged reprisals against those who reported wrongdoing. Nuntiatoria did not simply adopt every conclusion attached to that material: it distinguished inclination from conduct and insisted that the institutional evil requiring exposure was predation, coercion, duplicity and the protection of wrongdoing.³ In October, following Leo XIV’s meeting with clerical-abuse survivors, we returned to Gomulka’s open letter urging the new Pope to make episcopal accountability and universal safeguarding discipline credible in practice.⁴
His latest intervention therefore enters an argument already familiar to these pages. Yet “spiritual denial”, useful though Gomulka’s phrase may be, describes the symptom more readily than the disease. The deeper problem is ecclesiological. Catholics sometimes behave as though admitting grave failure by a priest, bishop or Pope would concede something against the divine constitution of the Church. That assumption is not traditional Catholic doctrine. It is a distortion of it.
The Church is holy because Christ is holy; because He founded her, dwells within her, entrusted to her His doctrine and Sacraments, and preserves her for the supernatural end for which she exists. Her holiness has never meant that every member of her visible society is personally holy, still less that everyone exercising authority within her is immune from cowardice, negligence, corruption or sin. Judas was an Apostle. Peter denied Christ. The New Testament itself records scandal, division, hypocrisy and disciplinary failure within the first Christian communities. None of these things made the Church cease to be the Church.
St Augustine made precisely this point against those who imagined that the presence of wicked Christians destroyed the integrity of the Church. Commenting upon the wheat and the tares, he warned that evil and good would remain mixed until the harvest and added with characteristic realism that the tares were not confined to the laity: they might be found “even in these high seats”. The existence of bad men within ecclesiastical communion did not abolish the Church or justify schism; neither did communion with the Church require pretending that the bad were good.⁵ That Augustinian realism is a far safer foundation for faith than the fragile assumption that ecclesiastical office confers practical impeccability.
St Thomas Aquinas gives the moral corollary. Scandal, properly understood, is conduct lacking rectitude which becomes an occasion of another’s spiritual fall. Its particular horror in ecclesiastical life lies in the fact that sacred authority is itself capable of becoming the occasion by which another is injured or led into evil.⁶ The priest who abuses the confidence created by his office does not merely commit a private sexual offence while coincidentally wearing a collar. He corrupts a relationship in which spiritual trust, sacramental authority and pastoral vulnerability have supplied the very conditions for the betrayal.
This is why Our Lord’s warning concerning those who scandalise His “little ones” is so severe. The offence is greater, not smaller, when the offender is somebody whose office ought to make him a protector. To recognise this does not demean Holy Orders. It takes Holy Orders seriously enough to understand why their betrayal is so terrible.
Nuntiatoria had returned to this very question only days before Gomulka published his latest article. When Priesthood Becomes a Job: Burnout, Modernism and the Destruction of Priestly Identity arose from the resignation of HE ✠Karl-Heinz Wiesemann as Bishop of Speyer. Wiesemann resigned for health reasons after years of recurrent depressive illness and the accumulated burden of episcopal office. He was also unusually candid about one particular element of that history: the immediate trigger for his earlier admission to a psychosomatic clinic had been the concrete work of confronting and processing cases of sexual abuse in the Diocese of Speyer. He described the wider revelation of abuse in the Church as part of the enormous burden he had carried during his episcopate.⁷
Nuntiatoria did not reduce Wiesemann’s resignation to the abuse crisis. His case served as the starting point for a broader examination of clerical exhaustion and the transformation of priestly identity when the priest or bishop is expected to become administrator, counsellor, safeguarding officer, manager, fundraiser, committee chairman and institutional troubleshooter while the sacrificial and supernatural character of the priesthood recedes from view. But Wiesemann’s reference to abuse raised a distinct moral question: what ought confronting such cases to do to a bishop?
That question was taken up explicitly by HE ✠Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, during his Live Q&A broadcast on Thursday 3 September 2026 through the Old Roman TV YouTube channel, @OldRomanTV. His Excellency ✠Jerome was answering a question arising from When Priesthood Becomes a Job, and his comments on abuse were therefore made directly in the context of Wiesemann’s resignation. He reflected upon the devastation suffered by victims, but also upon what the discovery of abuse by a priest means for the sacred office which the offender has betrayed. Clergy ordinarily enter people’s lives at moments of unusual vulnerability—in sickness, bereavement, Confession, distress, family crisis and the search for God. When pastoral authority is converted into an instrument of exploitation, the victim is injured through a trust which ought to have made him or her safer.⁸
His Excellency’s discussion then turned naturally to episcopal responsibility. The bishop is the pastor of pastors. He may not himself have committed the offence, but he bears a real responsibility for the priests whom he appoints, the warnings which reach him, the restrictions he imposes, the investigations he orders and the protection afforded to those entrusted to their ministry. The relevant moral question is therefore not exhausted by asking whether a bishop personally abused anybody. It extends to what he knew, what reasonably ought to have been known, what he did when concerns reached him, and whether his exercise of authority protected the vulnerable or allowed foreseeable danger to continue.⁸
This is why Wiesemann’s acknowledgement should not be misunderstood as placing a bishop’s psychological burden on the same moral plane as the suffering of those abused. It does almost the reverse. A conscientious bishop ought to be profoundly disturbed when he encounters the devastation caused by priests placed in positions of sacred trust, particularly when he must ask whether an ecclesiastical structure failed to prevent further harm. What would be more alarming would be an episcopate able to encounter such things without feeling the weight of responsibility at all.
The abuse crisis has repeatedly demonstrated the consequences of that absence of responsibility. The historical practice of moving dangerous or credibly accused clergy from one assignment to another, concealing complaints, intimidating victims or treating institutional reputation as the supreme good did not protect the Church. It allowed crimes to multiply while associating the Church herself with their concealment. Yet justice must remain justice. An allegation is not a conviction; the accused possesses rights; canonical penalties require law and evidence; and even a guilty cleric remains a soul for whom Christ died. The Church must protect potential victims, cooperate properly with civil justice, remove offenders from circumstances in which they can endanger others, punish where punishment is due and still remember that Christian justice is ordered towards truth, repentance and ultimately salvation rather than vengeance.
The temptation towards denial appears when Catholics confuse that difficult moral order with a much simpler proposition: because Christ will not abandon His Church, her governors cannot seriously betray their duties. The first proposition is Catholic doctrine; the second simply does not follow from it. Yet once the two have been fused, evidence of ecclesiastical wrongdoing becomes psychologically and spiritually threatening. Criticism of a bishop appears to become criticism of the episcopate; scrutiny of papal government appears to become rejection of the papacy; exposure of institutional failure appears to become an argument against indefectibility.
The opposite reaction makes precisely the same theological mistake. Some discover grave failures among churchmen and conclude that the Church herself must therefore have failed, that a bad Pope cannot be Pope, or that corruption in Rome nullifies the divine promises. Institutional denial and ecclesiological despair seem opposed, but both rest upon the same false identification of the divine office with the personal performance of its occupant.
Scripture itself forbids this confusion. At Antioch, St Paul “withstood” St Peter “to the face, because he was to be blamed”. The Douay-Rheims annotation is admirably Catholic: this correction was no argument against Peter’s supremacy, because an inferior may, in appropriate circumstances, admonish a superior.⁹ Recognition of authority and criticism of its exercise are therefore not mutually exclusive categories invented by modern traditionalists. They appear together in the apostolic record.
That distinction has informed Nuntiatoria’s continuing treatment of recognise-and-resist Catholicism. Our recent examination of Francisco Suárez rejected the false alternative according to which a Catholic must either accept every act of a recognised Pope or conclude that the See has somehow become vacant. The older theology is more disciplined. Papal authority is real; subjects do not acquire jurisdiction over the Pope; obedience is genuinely owed; but an abuse of authority can in exceptional and manifest circumstances be resisted without denying the office itself.¹⁰ Recognition is not canonisation, resistance is not deposition, and neither obedience nor reverence requires a Catholic to call evil good.
The same discipline is indispensable when dealing with allegations of clerical abuse. An accusation cannot become proof merely because its subject is unpopular. But neither can ecclesiastical status become evidence of innocence. A diocese’s statement that correct procedures were followed is itself a factual proposition capable of examination. If serious discrepancies arise between the institutional account and the documentary or testimonial record, asking for verification is not rebellion against the Church. It is precisely what justice requires.
This distinction remains central to the unresolved controversy concerning then HE ✠Robert Prevost’s handling, as Bishop of Chiclayo, of allegations reported by women who said that they had been abused as minors by diocesan priests. Nuntiatoria’s most detailed treatment of the matter, If the Investigation Happened, Where Are the Acts? Ricardo Coronado, Pope Leo XIV and the Unresolved Chiclayo Record, deliberately rejected both conviction by allegation and exoneration by assertion. The Diocese of Chiclayo says that Prevost received the complaints, imposed precautionary measures, initiated the required preliminary investigation and transmitted a dossier to Rome. The complainants have disputed whether a recognisable canonical investigation occurred and have asked for the juridical acts which should establish it.¹¹
There is evidence which complicates simplistic accusations against Prevost. Ana María Quispe has said that her initial contact with him was sympathetic, that he told her he believed her, apologised in the name of the Church and encouraged recourse to the civil authorities. That matters. It is inconsistent with the crudest presentation of Prevost simply dismissing the women at the door. But it does not answer the separate canonical question: whether that reception was followed by the juridically recognisable investigation which the diocese later said had taken place.
That question remains capable of resolution. A preliminary canonical investigation is not identical with an informal pastoral meeting. It produces a documentary trail: decrees, authenticated acts, an investigative mandate where applicable, collected evidence, a conclusion of the inquiry and the material transmitted to the competent Roman authority. Legitimate confidentiality does not require public dissemination of victims’ testimony or sensitive personal records. It does not prevent an independent canonical audit from establishing whether the expected acts exist and whether the diocesan chronology is correct.
If those acts exist as described, independent verification would answer one of the gravest accusations against Prevost far more effectively than denunciation of his critics. If they do not exist, or if what was sent to Rome was materially different from the canonical investigation subsequently described, that too must be acknowledged. The correct position is not difficult to state: the evidence presently available does not establish that Leo XIV covered up abuse in Chiclayo; neither does his election as Pope make the unresolved documentary question disappear.
This is where Gomulka’s latest argument needs both to be heard and to be disciplined. His identification of the instinct to attack the bearer of unwelcome evidence is persuasive, particularly after decades in which victims and whistleblowers were too often treated as enemies of the Church. Yet his article sometimes moves from allegation to conclusion too quickly. Statements that Leo “covered up” abuse, or categorical assertions about the personal conduct of Francis, require evidential standards no less rigorous because the underlying subject is grave.¹
A complainant must not be required to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt before anybody will investigate it. Equally, an investigator or journalist must not treat the allegation itself as proof. Otherwise one form of injustice is replaced with another. Catholic journalism must be especially careful here because every exaggeration which can later be disproved supplies institutions with another opportunity to evade the evidence which cannot.
The recent Rupnik controversy supplies a useful example of the distinction. Nuntiatoria defended HE ✠Jean-Marc Micas’s decision to veil Marko Ivan Rupnik’s mosaics at Lourdes because the bishop judged their continued dominant display pastorally harmful in a sanctuary to which wounded people come seeking consolation and healing.¹² That decision need not be represented as a canonical verdict upon allegations which remain subject to judicial process. Rome has itself insisted that the proceeding must reach its conclusion according to law.¹³ A bishop may nevertheless make a proportionate pastoral decision in response to grave circumstances without pretending that he has thereby rendered the final penal judgment.
This distinction between precaution and conviction is indispensable. The alternative to institutional denial is not mob justice. It is a Catholic order in which prudential protection, due process, legitimate presumption of innocence, pastoral responsibility and the search for truth operate together rather than being artificially set against one another.
The same discipline is necessary when examining HE ✠Jorge, Cardinal Bergoglio’s conduct in relation to the convicted Argentine priest Fr Julio César Grassi. Nuntiatoria’s accompanying investigation, The Dossier Against the Victim: Bergoglio, Grassi and the Counter-Investigation the Church Commissioned, has now examined the documentary evidence more closely than our earlier references to the affair. The central fact is no longer seriously contestable because the commissioned jurist records it himself: while president of the Argentine Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Bergoglio commissioned Marcelo Sancinetti in 2010 to produce what became a five-volume study of the Grassi case. Sancinetti’s own curriculum vitae identifies Bergoglio as the person who commissioned the work, while his professional bibliography records five volumes produced between 2010 and 2013.¹⁴
That fact requires precision rather than embellishment. Grassi and Bergoglio were not diocesan colleagues: Grassi belonged to the Diocese of Morón while Bergoglio was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The evidence located by Nuntiatoria does not establish that the two men were personal friends before the scandal, that they had previously collaborated closely, or that Bergoglio personally directed the later distribution of Sancinetti’s work to judges. Nor has the frequently repeated figure of US$300,000 allegedly paid for the study been established by the primary evidence we have examined. Those qualifications matter because the demonstrable facts are serious enough without adding claims which cannot presently be proved.
What is demonstrable is that, after Grassi’s conviction, an episcopal conference under Bergoglio’s presidency commissioned an immense counter-investigation which argued strongly for Grassi’s innocence and subjected the testimony of his accusers to hostile credibility analysis. Reporting in Argentina established that copies reached judges considering the litigation, while Judge Carlos Mahiques later described what he understood as an attempt to exert “subtle pressure” upon the judiciary. Whether Bergoglio personally intended such judicial pressure remains unresolved; the evidence presently establishes the commissioning of the study far more securely than it establishes his responsibility for every subsequent use made of it.¹⁵
That unresolved distinction is exactly why serious reporting matters. One does not need to claim that Bergoglio secretly directed a conspiracy against the courts in order to ask why episcopal resources were committed after conviction to producing thousands of pages seeking to overturn the credibility of a victim and vindicate a famous priest. The institutional decision itself requires explanation. So does the evident asymmetry between the resources mobilised for the convicted cleric and the experience of those whose testimony had secured that conviction.
The point is not to substitute Gomulka’s certainty for institutional certainty. It is to refuse both. Where the evidence establishes something, say so. Where it establishes only an allegation, call it an allegation. Where the documentary record contradicts an official account, identify the contradiction. Where a question remains genuinely unresolved, do not manufacture an answer merely because one faction demands it.
Pope Francis himself articulated much of this principle in his public teaching. In 2018 he acknowledged that abuse had too often been accompanied by failures to act, by the silencing of victims and by distorted forms of ecclesiastical power.¹⁶ That admission remains true regardless of the judgment eventually reached about his own handling of individual cases. Clericalism is not merely something clergy inflict upon the laity. Lay Catholics participate in clericalism when the collar becomes a reason not to ask questions, when episcopal office is treated as a substitute for evidence, or when the perceived reputation of the Church is allowed to outrank justice owed to a wounded person.
Traditional Catholics are not immune from that temptation. Precisely because we insist—rightly—upon the ontological and sacramental character of the priesthood, we must not allow reverence for Holy Orders to become sentimental idealisation of every man who receives them. The sacramental character does not make a priest morally impeccable; it makes the betrayal of priestly office more terrible. The same distinction applies, with the necessary theological differences, to episcopal and papal office.
Vatican I was exact in defining papal infallibility. It did not define that every papal judgment is prudent, every administrative decision just, every appointment wise, every private opinion true or every act of government divinely guaranteed against moral failure. Pastor Aeternus defined the charism according to specified conditions when the Roman Pontiff, exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.¹⁷ To inflate that dogma into a general guarantee of personal or governmental reliability does not defend Vatican I; it attributes to the Council something it deliberately did not define.
Nuntiatoria has therefore insisted elsewhere that the Church is not the Mystical Body of the Pope; she is the Mystical Body of Christ.¹⁸ The Roman Pontiff is the visible principle of unity and possesses supreme jurisdiction according to the divine constitution of the Church, but he is neither the source of revelation nor the source of the Church’s supernatural life. The Petrine office exists to guard, confirm and govern within the deposit received from Christ. That is why acknowledging that a Pope may exercise poor judgment, appoint bad men, tolerate disorder, govern inadequately or personally sin does not weaken Catholic doctrine about the papacy.
The alternative produces a much more dangerous spiritual fragility. If Catholics are taught, explicitly or implicitly, that admitting serious failure by bishops or popes threatens the Church’s indefectibility, every documented scandal becomes a potential crisis of faith. Institutional denial may therefore preserve confidence for a little while, but only by making the eventual reckoning more destructive. The Catholic who discovers that something concealed really happened has then been led to believe not merely that a churchman failed, but that Catholicism required him not to fail.
Catholicism requires no such thing. Augustine’s Church of wheat and tares, Paul’s correction of Peter, Thomas’s doctrine of scandal and Vatican I’s carefully delimited definition of infallibility all teach a more robust faith. The Church can contain wicked men without becoming wicked in her divine constitution. An office can remain legitimate while its holder acts wrongly. A superior can possess true authority and still require respectful correction. A scandal can be admitted without the supernatural promises of Christ collapsing with it.
The abuse crisis ought therefore to have taught Catholics a permanent lesson: no ecclesiastical office excuses a credible allegation from proper investigation, and no allegation excuses the investigator from proving what he claims. The rights of the victim and the rights of the accused do not compete because justice is indivisible. The whistleblower has rights; the bishop has rights; the priest has rights; the faithful have a right not to be manipulated by institutional public relations or by sensationalist accusation.
Where alleged conduct may constitute a civil crime, ecclesiastical procedures must never become a refuge from lawful civil scrutiny. Equally, the Church need not suspend all safeguarding action until the conclusion of a criminal trial. Precautionary canonical measures may be necessary while a civil investigation continues, and a civil decision not to prosecute does not automatically settle every canonical or pastoral question. The jurisdictions have different purposes and may employ different legal categories or evidential thresholds. What the Church must never do is use that distinction to evade responsibility.
Gomulka’s own history with former Navy chaplain John Thomas Matthew Lee illustrates why early warnings matter. Gomulka says that he reported Lee’s misconduct before Lee’s later criminal prosecutions. The independently established record is sufficiently grave: after an earlier military conviction and registration as a sex offender, Lee was sentenced in federal court in 2017 to thirty years’ imprisonment for producing and distributing child pornography, followed by lifetime supervised release.¹⁹ The significance of such chronology is not that every earlier allegation automatically predicts every later crime. It is that institutions which repeatedly treat warnings as isolated embarrassments rather than information demanding examination will continue to rediscover dangers they were previously given an opportunity to confront.
The first institutional question when a credible warning arrives must therefore cease to be what publicity will do to the Church and become what truth requires the Church to do. Catholic journalism should adopt precisely the same standard. Gomulka is entitled to challenge media institutions which appear unwilling to investigate uncomfortable allegations, but the strongest answer is not a comparison with Pravda. It is evidence. Show what was known. Show what was omitted. Identify the conflicting statements. Produce the decrees which ought to exist. Establish the chronology. Distinguish the witness from the hearsay witness, the fact from the inference, the institutional decision from the speculation about motive.
That has also been the proper lesson of Nuntiatoria’s engagement with Gomulka himself. We have cited him when he supplied testimony or raised questions deserving examination; we have corrected or qualified his conclusions when the evidence required it; and we have returned repeatedly to his demand for episcopal accountability because that demand cannot be dismissed merely because some of his formulations are stronger than the public evidence warrants. Catholic journalism is neither the canonisation of sources nor their excommunication. It is the disciplined pursuit of what can actually be known.
This is also why recognise-and-resist remains the more coherent ecclesiological response to scandal than either papal positivism or sedevacantist simplification. Recognition acknowledges the authority Christ has constituted in His Church; resistance, in the exceptional circumstances contemplated by the older theologians, concerns the wrongful exercise of authority rather than private usurpation of jurisdiction over the office-holder. Nuntiatoria has previously described the principle in simple terms: bad popes do not disprove the papacy, bad bishops do not abolish the episcopate, and institutional corruption does not invalidate the divine constitution of the Church.²⁰
Applied to safeguarding, that principle becomes urgently practical. The Catholic who asks whether a bishop properly investigated an allegation does not thereby deny the episcopate. The Catholic who asks what documents substantiate an official account does not reject ecclesiastical authority. The Catholic who examines the conduct of a man who subsequently became Pope does not place himself above the papacy. He distinguishes the office from the contingent acts of its holder precisely because Catholic theology requires that distinction.
Nor does fidelity to victims permit the opposite abuse. Those who make accusations must tell the truth as rigorously as those whom they accuse. They must distinguish knowledge from suspicion, evidence from inference, corroboration from repetition and proof from conviction. A righteous cause does not sanctify an inaccurate statement. Indeed, exaggeration can become its own injustice while supplying institutions with the very excuse they need to avoid answering the strongest evidence.
The Church therefore requires neither denial nor credulity. She requires pastors who will investigate, journalists who will verify, canonical processes which can withstand scrutiny, civil cooperation where crimes are alleged, protection for those at risk, justice for those wronged, due process for those accused, and Catholics mature enough to discover wrongdoing by churchmen without imagining that Christ’s promises have thereby failed.
Wiesemann’s painful acknowledgement, His Excellency ✠Jerome’s reflection upon episcopal responsibility, Gomulka’s repeated challenges, the unresolved documentary questions in Chiclayo, the continuing Rupnik proceedings and the evidence surrounding Bergoglio’s intervention in the Grassi case all converge upon that same demand. Holy Mother Church does not need to be protected from the truth. Her divine constitution does not depend upon the innocence of every man who governs in her name.
What would betray her is something else: the suggestion that fidelity requires us to look away.
Christ did not found His Church upon public relations. He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” The final question raised by every abuse scandal is therefore not whether Catholics love the Church enough to defend her reputation, but whether we love her enough to refuse to defend her with a lie.
¹ Gene Thomas Gomulka, “Catholics Engage in Spiritual Denial: Will Abuse Victims Ever See Justice?”, John 18:37, 6 September 2026.
² Nuntiatoria, “Hands Off the Crozier: Clericalism, Silence, and the Scandal of Inaction Under Pope Leo XIV”, 27 July 2025.
³ Nuntiatoria, “Lavender in the Sanctuary: Vocations, Vice, and the Need for Truth”, 22 August 2025; Gene Thomas Gomulka, “Why Men Become Priests”, John 18:37, 17 August 2025.
⁴ Nuntiatoria, “Historic Meeting, Unanswered Questions: Pope Leo XIV and the Survivors of Clerical Abuse”, 22 October 2025.
⁵ St Augustine, Sermon 23 on the New Testament; see also Letter 43 on tolerating the wicked within the unity of the Church without sharing in their deeds.
⁶ St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 43, “Scandal”.
⁷ Nuntiatoria, Nuntiatoria CXXI: Quaerite Primum Regnum Dei, including “When Priesthood Becomes a Job: Burnout, Modernism and the Destruction of Priestly Identity”, 28 August 2026; Catholic Culture, “Citing recurrent depression, German bishop resigns at 66”, 20 August 2026.
⁸ HE ✠Jerome Lloyd, “Live Q&A”, Old Roman TV (@OldRomanTV), Thursday 3 September 2026, discussion beginning with the Nuntiatoria article When Priesthood Becomes a Job.
⁹ Galatians 2:11–14, Douay-Rheims Bible, including the annotation to verse 11 concerning the correction of a superior.
¹⁰ Nuntiatoria, “The False Choice: Obey Everything or Vacate the See: What Suárez Actually Says About Resisting a Pope”, 21 August 2026.
¹¹ Nuntiatoria, “If the Investigation Happened, Where Are the Acts? Ricardo Coronado, Pope Leo XIV and the Unresolved Chiclayo Record”, 4 July 2026.
¹² Nuntiatoria, Nuntiatoria CXXI: Quaerite Primum Regnum Dei, including “Lourdes Draws the Veil: Rupnik, Scandal and the Supreme Law of Souls”, 28 August 2026.
¹³ Vatican News, “Matteo Bruni: Reports regarding Rupnik entirely unfounded, assessment still underway”, 22 July 2026.
¹⁴ Marcelo A. Sancinetti, professional bibliography recording Estudios sobre el caso Grassi and Bergoglio’s commission; Sancinetti, Curriculum vitae, recording the five-volume opinion commissioned in 2010 by Cardinal Jorge M. Bergoglio as president of the Argentine Episcopal Conference.
¹⁵ Federico Fahsbender, “Los libros secretos que el Papa Francisco encargó para defender al padre Grassi”, Infobae, 23 October 2022; CIPER Chile, “Un caso de pedofilia en Argentina salpica al papa Francisco”, reporting Judge Carlos Mahiques’s comments to Cash Investigation.
¹⁶ Francis, “Letter to the People of God”, 20 August 2018; Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, 21 December 2018.
¹⁷ First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 18 July 1870, ch. IV.
¹⁸ Nuntiatoria, “The Law That Binds Peter”, 14 July 2026.
¹⁹ United States Department of Justice, “Former Catholic Priest Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison for Production and Distribution of Child Pornography”, 8 February 2017.
²⁰ Nuntiatoria, “Receive, Do Not Invent: Old Romans Unscripted Confronts the Crisis of Catholic Transmission”, 21 August 2026.
Leave a Reply