For many years, really up until a decade ago, I believed that good Catholics must, in practice, be single issue voters. I also believed there were “five non-negotiable issues,” and that voting for a candidate who supported any of them was a sin. All of this was presented to me as Church teaching.

But it isn’t.

In reality, the Church teaches against single issue voting:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good” (CDF doctrinal note, The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 2002).

And the list of “non-negotiable issues” is much longer than five (and isn’t nearly as partisan). Pope John Paul II offered this not-exclusive list in Veritatis Splendor:

• any kind of homicide

• genocide

• abortion

• euthanasia

• voluntary suicide

• mutilation

• physical and mental torture

• attempts to coerce the spirit

• subhuman living conditions

• arbitrary imprisonment

• deportation

• slavery

• prostitution

• trafficking in women and children

• degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons

Further, the Church acknowledges that someone’s well formed conscience can lead them to voting for a candidate despite their support for some intrinsic evil, especially when there are other grave issues on the line and/or all candidates support intrinsic evils. This is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document on voting:

“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, 35-36).

All of that to say, for many years I was coerced into believing (look above, that’s on John Paul II’s list of non-negotiables) that I must vote for the Republican candidate and that voting for a Democrat was a sin. It was only through reading the Church’s actual social teaching around ten years ago that my conscience was freed and able to be formed more holistically by the Gospel.

One of my goals in sharing my thoughts about this here is to help you experience that freedom as well.

As I understand and experience the world in 2026 (”reading the signs of the times”) while also being attentive to what the popes are telling me are important, there are three issues being discussed by candidates that I’m weighing heavily as I vote, specifically in some of the federal positions up for grabs this election year. Those issues are:

• Ending the Iran War

• Abolishing ICE and dramatically reforming immigration enforcement

• Implementing universal healthcare

In all of these issues, while politics is the art of the possible, I, rightly or wrongly, remain an idealist. And in the primary, I tend to lean into that idealism more.

Subscribe now

Here’s a long, but far from complete, list of passages from Pope Leo, Pope Francis, and other church document that have helped to shape my conscience on these issues.

-War in Iran-

Pope Leo, June 6, 2026

I believe this has already been made very clear: in Iran, the criteria for a just war are not present.

Pope Leo, Magnifica Humanitas 192

Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.

Pope Franci, Fratelli Tutti 261

Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil. Let us not remain mired in theoretical discussions, but touch the wounded flesh of the victims. Let us look once more at all those civilians whose killing was considered “collateral damage”. Let us ask the victims themselves. Let us think of the refugees and displaced, those who suffered the effects of atomic radiation or chemical attacks, the mothers who lost their children, and the boys and girls maimed or deprived of their childhood. Let us hear the true stories of these victims of violence, look at reality through their eyes, and listen with an open heart to the stories they tell. In this way, we will be able to grasp the abyss of evil at the heart of war. Nor will it trouble us to be deemed naive for choosing peace.

Pope Leo, January 2026

I would like to draw particular attention to the importance of international humanitarian law. Compliance with this cannot depend on mere circumstances and military or strategic interests. Humanitarian law, in addition to guaranteeing a minimum of humanity during the ravages of war, is a commitment that States have made. Such law must always prevail over the ambitions of belligerents, in order to mitigate the devastating effects of war, also with a view to reconstruction. We cannot ignore that the destruction of hospitals, energy infrastructure, homes and places essential to daily life constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The Holy See firmly reiterates its condemnation of any form of involvement of civilians in military operations. It likewise hopes that the international community will remember that the protection of the principle of the inviolability of human dignity and the sanctity of life always counts for more than any mere national interest.

Pope Francis, March 2022

Why, then, wage war on each other over conflicts that we should resolve by talking to each other as fellow people? Why not rather join our forces and resources to fight together the real battles of civilization: the fight against hunger and thirst; the fight against disease and epidemics; the fight against today’s poverty and slavery? Why? Certain choices are not neutral: to allocate a large part of spending to weapons means taking it away from something else, which means continuing to take it away yet again, from those who lack the basic necessities. And this is a scandal: spending on weapons....We feel it more because it is closer, but there are continuous wars in Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia. This is serious. We need to create the awareness that continuing to spend on weapons sullies the soul, sullies the heart, sullies humanity. What is the use of solemnly committing ourselves all together, on an international level, in campaigns against poverty, against hunger, against the degradation of the planet, if we then fall back into the old vice of war, into the old strategy of the power of armaments, which takes everything and everyone backwards? A war always takes you backwards, always. We walk backwards. We will have to start over again.

-Treatment of Migrants-

Pope Leo, Magnifica Humanitas 81

A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see migrants not simply as a problem to be managed, but as a living image of the People of God on the move. They are people with dignity, resources and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and to ask to become active members of the societies that welcome them. Social justice in this area entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in one’s homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate crisis. When these rights are respected, migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples.

Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti 129-130

Complex challenges arise when our neighbour happens to be an immigrant. Ideally, unnecessary migration ought to be avoided; this entails creating in countries of origin the conditions needed for a dignified life and integral development. Yet until substantial progress is made in achieving this goal, we are obliged to respect the right of all individuals to find a place that meets their basic needs and those of their families, and where they can find personal fulfilment. Our response to the arrival of migrating persons can be summarized by four words: welcome, protect, promote and integrate. For “it is not a case of implementing welfare programmes from the top down, but rather of undertaking a journey together, through these four actions, in order to build cities and countries that, while preserving their respective cultural and religious identity, are open to differences and know how to promote them in the spirit of human fraternity”.

This implies taking certain indispensable steps, especially in response to those who are fleeing grave humanitarian crises. As examples, we may cite: increasing and simplifying the granting of visas; adopting programmes of individual and community sponsorship; opening humanitarian corridors for the most vulnerable refugees; providing suitable and dignified housing; guaranteeing personal security and access to basic services; ensuring adequate consular assistance and the right to retain personal identity documents; equitable access to the justice system; the possibility of opening bank accounts and the guarantee of the minimum needed to survive; freedom of movement and the possibility of employment; protecting minors and ensuring their regular access to education; providing for programmes of temporary guardianship or shelter; guaranteeing religious freedom; promoting integration into society; supporting the reuniting of families; and preparing local communities for the process of integration.

-Universal Healthcare-

Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 11

But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2288

Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 166

The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights. These demands concern above all the commitment to peace, the organization of the State’s powers, a sound juridical system, the protection of the environment, and the provision of essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom.

Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti 109

Some people are born into economically stable families, receive a fine education, grow up well nourished, or naturally possess great talent. They will certainly not need a proactive state; they need only claim their freedom. Yet the same rule clearly does not apply to a disabled person, to someone born in dire poverty, to those lacking a good education and with little access to adequate health care. If a society is governed primarily by the criteria of market freedom and efficiency, there is no place for such persons, and fraternity will remain just another vague ideal.

But many Catholics today feel a sense of homelessness in their own Church. We believe that Catholicism ought to have something urgent and vital to say to us and to the modern world, but it often seems that all that’s being offered are partisan camps. While each camp claims to speak for the Church, they often speak with their own agenda. Rather than the expansive and liberating love of Jesus, what’s experienced is the confines of an ideology. And few sources offer the honest, unhurried, and unfearful engagement that helps a person listen carefully, think deeply, and discern well.

and I know this homeless feeling well and, in our own ways, have experienced the frustration and isolation that comes with it. But something stirred in us when Pope Leo XIV called the whole Church to a re-discernment of Vatican II and what it means to be the Church in the modern world today. That’s the kind of faith conversations we wanted to have and to invite others into.

We started with our Leo Live series that followed Pope Leo’s ongoing catechesis on Vatican II. But we wanted something with more depth and intentionality. So—with Sarah’s academic background in theology and Catholic social teaching and Paul’s catechetical and mental-health expertise—we created The Leo Seminar: a space where people could read Pope Leo’s actual words, in community, without an ideological agenda.

Sarah and I believe that striving for integrity is more important than having the right answers; dialogue and curiosity are more important than ideological purity; unity in diversity is more important than uniformity; “truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared” (Magnifica Humanitas 25); and “realities are greater than ideas” (Evangelii Gaudium231).

The Leo Seminar exists for anyone who wants to step into a process of collective study and discernment instead of consuming “hot takes.” In this seminar, you will spend twelve weeks digging into primary texts, guided discussion, and honestly wrestling with what Pope Leo is actually saying and where he’s leading the Church.

You won’t leave with a verdict handed to you, but you’ll have the opportunity to form your own conclusions in a community of people who take the questions as seriously as you do. People who are willing to undertake this kind of slow and serious formation will be agents of renewal in the Church, more equipped to proclaim the Gospel in the modern world.

About The Leo Seminar

The Leo Seminar is a small group online seminar starting on Friday, September 4 at 12:00 (ET). The group will meet every week for 90 minutes, for 12 consecutive weeks. Sarah and Paul will lead each discussion, and we will have occasional special guests, including Pope Leo’s biographer, Elise Ann Allen!

Who The Leo Seminar for:

• Catechists

• Teachers

• Clergy

• Parents

• Catholics

• Non-Catholics

• Anyone who wants to better understand the mind and teaching of our new pope

What we’ll be reading together:

• Pope Leo XIV: The Biography by Elise Ann Allen

• Evangelii Gaudium by Pope Francis (programmatic document that has set the stage for Leo’s pontificate)

• Magnifica Humanitas (On artificial intelligence)

• Dilexi Te (On love for the poor)

• In Unitate Fidei (On Christian unity)

• Other selected homilies and addresses form Pope Leo

What you’ll get when you enroll:

• A copy of Pope Leo XIV: The Biography by Elise Ann Allen sent directly to your mailing address

• A 60-minute, live, “closed-door” Q&A with the first and only person to be granted an exclusive interview with Pope Leo XIV, Elise Ann Allen

• The Leo Seminar Reader, a digital reading packet designed for ease of use and note taking

• Twelve 90-minute sessions, with in-depth analysis and discussion

• A community to study and discuss with, and opportunities to stay connected after the seminar ends

When we’ll meet:

• Every Friday from September 4 - November 20

• All meetings from 12:00-1:30 p.m. ET

Cost:

• $1,200 (with options to pay in installments via Stripe)

Enroll Now!

About the hosts:

Paul Fahey is a professional counselor, writer, retreat leader, and podcaster. He previously worked as a lay minister and catechist in the Catholic Church. He has an undergraduate degree in Theology and a MA in Clinical Mental Health Counseling. He provides counseling for those who have been spiritually abused and creates resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against abuse.

Paul created the Third Space podcast, the Pope Francis Generation podcast, and co-founded Where Peter Is. He has published articles and resources about spiritual abuse, Catholic social teaching, and pastoral accompaniment.

Paul lives in SW Michigan with his wife and five kids. His favorite saints include Maximilian Kolbe, Dorothy Day, Óscar Romero, Mark Ji Tianxiang, Josephine Bakhita, and the Ulma Family.

Sarah Carter is a writer, teacher, and theologian with a masters degree in Theology and over a decade of experience working in Catholic institutions, including as a policy ghost writer for the Minnesota Catholic Conference (MCC) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Sarah’s work has been focused on an integrated approach to Catholic social teaching and the intellectual formation of both lay and ordained leaders. She has taught several courses and seminars in Catholic theology at both the high school and university level.

Sarah lives in the Twin Cities metro area with her husband and three children. In her spare time she enjoys knitting, exercise, and reading.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have to be knowledgeable about the pope and Catholic theology to enroll in this seminar? No. If you want to read and discuss Pope Leo XIV in community with other people, you are welcome to enroll no matter your level of familiarity with Catholicism or your educational background.

Is this seminar for Catholics only? Again, nope! Anyone interested can enroll. In fact, we’d love to welcome some non-Catholics into the conversation!

What if I don’t like the pope or agree with what he’s saying? We don’t see our role as trying to defend everything the pope has ever said or taught. We’re here to help participants engage honestly with Pope Leo’s teachings and his vision, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. In other words, our goal is for you to know what Leo is saying and where he is guiding the Church–whether he’s right or wrong, we leave to you to judge.

Will you offer discounts? At this time, we cannot offer discounts on The Leo Seminar. Stripe (the payment platform) does offer pay-over-time options. I’m always trying to balance my desire to make my resources available to anyone while also providing for my family. The income from this seminar helps allow me to continue to offer my Spiritual Abuse Workshop at little-to-no cost for those who can’t afford it.

How many spots are available in this seminar? Since we want this to be a small, discussion-based group, we have decided to cap The Leo Seminar at 15 participants.

Enroll Now!

I’m excited to share it with you again!

Also, I just opened up registration for my next round of spiritual abuse workshops. This is an online workshop focused on recognizing, preventing, and responding to spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

This workshop is for:

• Individuals trying to better understand their experiences of spiritual abuse in the Church

• Clergy and lay leaders interested in safeguarding their communities from spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience

• Therapists or spiritual directors working with clients who have been spiritually abused

This workshop will help you:

• Recognize and prevent spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Church

• Know the symptoms of spiritual abuse, religious trauma, and moral injury

• Better understand and respond to abusive systems in the Church

This is a live online workshop that meets in a small group over the course of five weeks, beginning in September.

Visit for here more details: https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/p/spiritual-abuse-workshop-34d

Laura is a homeschooled wife and mother, who hails from Montana. She has a background in sacred music and is a self-published author. Laura operates the MissHappyCatholic youtube channel and co-founded the TradRecovery apostolate in 2023.

LINKS:

TradRecovery
https://www.tradrecovery.com

Spiritual Abuse Workshop
https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/p/spiritual-abuse-workshop-34d

ABOUT THIRD SPACE: Third Space is the podcast for those who see the beauty of Catholicism, as well as the ugliness, who have experienced real harm AND real grace in the Church. Every episode I will have conversations with guests about the good and the bad in the Church—avoiding easy answers or black & white fundamentalism—in order to hold on to all that is true.

SUPPORT THIS SHOW: Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. All of your support directly helps my family and allows me to continue working on projects like this podcast, the newsletter, as well as resources about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

www.catholicthirdspace.com

LIVING SOLIDARITY: Living Solidarity upholds the infinite dignity of every person by addressing the reality of spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Catholic Church. Living Solidarity helps to build a Church of integrity and solidarity by accompanying survivors of spiritual abuse with trauma-informed life coaching; equipping Church leaders and institutions to confront systemic harm; and creating resources grounded in psychological research and the Church’s Social Teaching. Visit livingsolidarity.com to learn more, to connect with Paul, to schedule individual life coaching, or to invite Paul to speak or consult with your community, parish, seminary, or diocese.

ABOUT THE HOST: Paul Fahey is currently a professional counselor, retreat leader, and the host of the Third Space podcast. He provides counseling for those who have been spiritually abused and creates resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against all forms of abuse. He previously worked for eight years as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic parish. Paul Fahey lives in Michigan with his wife, Kristina, and their five kids.

Three passages to highlight:

1. NFP may be a godsend for some couples, but until its limitations are acknowledged, it will continue to harm families and individuals whose sufferings are often trivialized, denied, dismissed, or even romanticized by the church. At a time when the church is prioritizing such synodal values as listening and accompaniment, our religious leaders need to listen to the stories of those who have experienced NFP as damaging…

2. Contrary to the popular claim that NFP “divorce-proofs” your marriage, several women identified NFP as a factor contributing to marital breakdown. For some, this was caused by the erosion of intimacy. For others, Catholic sexual teaching provided an opportunity for a coercive partner to weaponize a woman’s fertility against her. Domestic violence advocates have long observed that pregnancy can be used to keep women isolated and dependent on controlling men—a dynamic recently highlighted in the Netflix docuseries Shiny Happy People. A method of family planning that can only be used if both partners are fully committed to avoiding pregnancy is a method that gives women in toxic marriages no control over their own fertility.

3. The church needs to revisit this issue in a way that more fully recognizes the burdens that NFP places on already burdened families. The problems cannot be reduced to “sin” or “weakness”: There are too many situations where responsible parenthood is a moral necessity, and NFP just doesn’t work. Catholics in those situations need solutions that don’t boil down to “suffer and pray.”

Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis emphasized the principle that "reality is more important than ideas." And just a couple of months ago, Study Group 9 of the Synod released a report with guidance for the Church to discern challenging doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues. The heart of their report is expounding on that principle from Francis. One passage:

“The aim is to discern, with God’s grace and the contribution of all, 'what the Spirit is saying the churches' (Rev. 2:7), listening for what is true and good by attending to questions that not just theoretical but emerge from the reality of lived experience.”

In other words, the Holy Spirit also speaks through the lived experiences of the People of God, and we as a Church need to listen with curiosity, not defensiveness.

Again from Synod Group 9:

“It is not a matter of devising a strategy to hide real difficulties or of forcing the issue to assert a new doctrine: it is a matter of starting from the listening to experiences and fostering pastoral and ecclesial practices of mutual knowledge, collaboration, inclusion, and dialogue among believers. For it is only in this way – in the light of the lived and shared experience of the Gospel within the Christian community – that one can come to discern and promote the 'good' inscribed in experiences and practices.

What is at stake, as is clearly understood, is the overcoming of the theoretical model that derives praxis from a 'pre-package' doctrine, 'applying' general and abstract principles to the concrete and personal situations of life. The task, therefore, is to rediscover a fruitful circularity between theory and praxis, between thought and experience, recognising that theological reflection itself proceeds from the experiences of 'good inscribed in the sensus fidei fidelium.'”

This report is remarkable. Catholics who strive to be faithful to the Church but who have serious questions can find some reassurance that they are not sinful, broken, or ignorant because they have these doubts. Rome is opening up space for these discussions to be had.

NFP Article: https://uscatholic.org/articles/202307/is-catholic-rhetoric-about-nfp-telling-the-full-story/

Report from Study Group 9: https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/process/implementation/10workinggroups/final-reports/sg9/SG-9_Final-Report.pdf

In all of the teaching I’ve done about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church, I’ve contextualized spiritual abuse within the principles and framework of Catholic social doctrine. I do this because I believe the Church’s teaching on things like human dignity, freedom, conscience, subsidiarity, structures of sin, and solidarity can not only show how gravely harmful spiritual abuse is, but also how abuse of power is a systemic problem in the Church that we all can participate in or choose to disrupt. And by framing my presentation on abuse in the Church’s own teaching, I can show that I’m not trying to tear down the Church, but rather trying to help the Church live up to it’s own identity and mission.

In other words, Catholic Social Doctrine provides real tools for conceptualizing and responding to systemic abuse in the Church. So it’s both intellectually and emotionally affirming when the pope takes that exact same approach. In paragraph 89, Pope Leo says:

“Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power.”

Abuse of power isn’t a problem of a few bad apples; it’s a structural problem that requires structural renewal. And what are the steps of that renewal? Leo continues:

“In this regard, listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse, as well as abuses of conscience, is an integral part of a journey toward justice, which includes acknowledging the harm done, just reparation and taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Every power is at the service of communion and mission. All authority is at the service of the People of God.”

1. Listen to survivors of abuse

2. Acknowledge the harm we’ve done

3. Make just reparation

4. Take action to prevent the harm from happening again

These steps that Pope Leo expresses are a reiteration of the final document from the Synod on Synodality, which said:

“The Church needs to listen with special attention and sensitivity to the voices of victims and survivors of sexual, spiritual, economic, power and conscience abuse by members of the clergy or persons with Church appointments. Listening is a fundamental element of the path to healing, repentance, justice and reconciliation...the Church must acknowledge its own shortcomings. It must humbly ask for forgiveness, must care for victims, provide for preventative measures, and strive in the Lord to rebuild mutual trust” (2024 Final Synod Document, 55).

Further, these four steps are deeply connected to the three acts of the penitent in the Sacrament of Reconciliation: contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction.

First, I examine my conscience and, if my heart is open, I experience a “sorrow of the soul” for the harm I’ve caused (CCC 1451).

Then I must acknowledge what I did, out loud, to another person. “Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible” (CCC 1455).

Finally, I must take real-world responsibility for the harm I caused. “Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much” (CCC 1459).

Pope Leo, mirroring these personal acts of the penitent, is calling the Church as a whole, as an institution, as a Body, to listen to survivors of all types of abuse. We must let the stories of our brothers and sisters pierce our hearts and grieve our consciences. Then we (you, me, priests, bishops, every Catholic) must be willing to let go of our self-protection and transparently admit where the Church has caused harm. Finally, we must take (and must demand of our leaders) responsibility to make reparation for that harm however we can and do what is necessary to prevent it from happening again. And we must do this even if that means we sacrifice for it, even if it hurts, even if it costs the Church status, power, or security.

Pope Leo is clear that only when the Church lives with this kind of integrity will we “be able to bear credible witness to society” (MH 89).

If you want to learn more about spiritual abuse, you can join me for an online workshop focused on recognizing, preventing, and responding to spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

I’m a professional counselor who previously worked for eight years as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic parish. I accompany those who have been spiritually abused and create resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against abuse.

This workshop is for:

• Individuals trying to better understand their experiences of spiritual abuse in the Church

• Clergy and lay leaders interested in safeguarding their communities from spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience

• Therapists or spiritual directors working with clients who have been spiritually abused

This workshop will help you:

• Recognize and prevent spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Church

• Know the symptoms of spiritual abuse, religious trauma, and moral injury

• Better understand and respond to abusive systems in the Church
  

Register Here!

Details:

This is five-part live workshop that will be held virtually. I’m running two workshops with day or evening sessions to accommodate different time zones and work schedules.

Groups will have between 5 and 12 participants and space will be filled on a first come, first serve basis. Your space in the workshop will not be held until payment is received

• Group 1 - Wednesdays, 8:00-10:00am (EST) | 9/2, 9/9, 9/23, 9/30, 10/7

• Group 2 - Wednesdays, 7:00-9:00pm (EST) | 9/2, 9/9, 9/23, 9/30, 10/7
  

Register Here!

Price:

This five-week workshop is $400.

Making this workshop available to anyone who can benefit from it is important to me, but it’s also an essential part of my family’s income. I don’t want inability to pay to be obstacle for you to participate. So if you can’t pay the full $400, please pay what you can (even if it’s only $10). And if you can pay more than $400, please consider giving more to offset the cost.

And if you can’t attend this workshop, but you are grateful that resources like this exist, please consider financially supporting it.

How to Pay:

1. Pay $400 with a credit card here: https://buy.stripe.com/fZu8wOaEy48ogpU8XZdIA01

2. Send a custom amount via PayPal (paul@faheycounseling.com) or Venmo (@catholicthirdspace)

Register Here!

I’m looking forward to having you in the workshop!

Through the Scriptures, Tradition, liturgies, and devotions, people can encounter the living Christ and experience his love, healing, and freedom.

But what happens when the women and men in the Church who are tasked with teaching doctrine, preaching God’s word, or presiding over the sacraments, do so with carelessness or coercion? What harm is done when the place of healing becomes a source of harm?

I’m a professional counselor who previously worked for eight years as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic parish. I accompany those who have been spiritually abused and create resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against abuse.

Join me for an online workshop focused on recognizing, preventing, and responding to spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Register Here!

This workshop is for:

• Individuals trying to better understand their experiences of spiritual abuse in the Church

• Clergy and lay leaders interested in safeguarding their communities from spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience

• Therapists or spiritual directors working with clients who have been spiritually abused

This workshop will help you:

• Recognize and prevent spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Church

• Know the symptoms of spiritual abuse, religious trauma, and moral injury

• Better understand and respond to abusive systems in the Church
  

  Register Here!

Details:

This is five-part live workshop that will be held virtually. I’m running two workshops with day or evening sessions to accommodate different time zones and work schedules.

Groups will have between 5 and 12 participants and space will be filled on a first come, first serve basis. Your space in the workshop will not be held until payment is received

• Group 1 - Wednesdays, 8:00-10:00am (EST) | 9/2, 9/9, 9/23, 9/30, 10/7

• Group 2 - Wednesdays, 7:00-9:00pm (EST) | 9/2, 9/9, 9/23, 9/30, 10/7
  

  Register Here!

Price:

This five-week workshop is $400.

Making this workshop available to anyone who can benefit from it is important to me, but it’s also an essential part of my family’s income. I don’t want inability to pay to be obstacle for you to participate. So if you can’t pay the full $400, please pay what you can (even if it’s only $10). And if you can pay more than $400, please consider giving more to offset the cost.

And if you can’t attend this workshop, but you are grateful that resources like this exist, please consider financially supporting it.

How to Pay:

1. Pay $400 with a credit card here: https://buy.stripe.com/fZu8wOaEy48ogpU8XZdIA01

2. Send a custom amount via PayPal (paul@faheycounseling.com) or Venmo (@catholicthirdspace)

Register Here!

I’m looking forward to having you in the workshop!

In Paragraph 176 of that encyclical, the pope said:

“In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery.

In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of ‘infidels.’ [174] It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. [175]

This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized.

This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. [176] It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.”

It’s hard to overstate how significant this paragraph is.

It feels meaningful that it’s the first American pope, himself a descendant of enslaved persons and of people who owned slaves, who is unequivocally apologizing for the Church’s horrific historical complicity in slavery. This stands in contrast to his namesake, Leo XII, who penned a revisionist history when he condemned slavery in 1888. Also, this paragraph is, to my knowledge, the most authoritative magisterial teaching to date that states that doctrine can, and has, developed to the point of apparent reversal. Further, Pope Leo also indicates that the Church delaying development can be profoundly unjust.

And all of this connects to my conversation nearly two years ago with Fr. Chris Kellerman SJ about his book, “All Oppression Shall Cease: A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church.”

In that conversation he presented a brief history of the Church’s involvement with, and teachings about, slavery. Fr. Chris also responded to still repeated misconceptions and revisionist histories about the Church’s participation in the slave trade. Finally, we talked about how this relates to the priest abuse crisis and how confronting the evils in the Church impacts our own faith.

I’m excited to share it with you again!

Also, I apologize for the audio quality of this episode, I didn’t realize I was using the wrong microphone until after the recording was over.

Fr. Chris Kellerman, SJ, is Secretary of Justice and Ecology for the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States in Washington, D.C, where he oversees the U.S. government relations and legislative advocacy operations of the Jesuits. Originally from Arlington, TX, he studied at Texas Tech University, the University of Dallas, and Regis College at the University of Toronto. He is the author of All Oppression Shall Cease: A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church.

LINKS:

All Oppression Shall Cease : A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church

https://orbisbooks.com/products/all-opression-shall-cease-a-history-of-slavery-abolitionism-and-the-catholic-church

Alessandra Harris - The Truth about the Catholic Church & Slavery with Chris Kellerman, SJ

Navigating growth and development in a living tradition

https://wherepeteris.com/navigating-growth-and-development-in-a-living-tradition/

ABOUT THIRD SPACE: Third Space is the podcast for those who see the beauty of Catholicism, as well as the ugliness, who have experienced real harm AND real grace in the Church. Every episode I will have conversations with guests about the good and the bad in the Church—avoiding easy answers or black & white fundamentalism—in order to hold on to all that is true.

SUPPORT THIS SHOW: Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. All of your support directly helps my family and allows me to continue working on projects like this podcast, the newsletter, as well as resources about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

www.catholicthirdspace.com

LIVING SOLIDARITY: Living Solidarity upholds the infinite dignity of every person by addressing the reality of spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Catholic Church. Living Solidarity helps to build a Church of integrity and solidarity by accompanying survivors of spiritual abuse with trauma-informed life coaching; equipping Church leaders and institutions to confront systemic harm; and creating resources grounded in psychological research and the Church’s Social Teaching. Visit livingsolidarity.com to learn more, to connect with Paul, to schedule individual life coaching, or to invite Paul to speak or consult with your community, parish, seminary, or diocese.

ABOUT THE HOST: Paul Fahey is currently a professional counselor, retreat leader, and the host of the Third Space podcast. He provides counseling for those who have been spiritually abused and creates resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against all forms of abuse. He previously worked for eight years as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic parish. Paul Fahey lives in Michigan with his wife, Kristina, and their five kids.

Ever since high school when I attended Steubenville Youth Conferences, some of my most life-changing spiritual experiences were at big conferences. But I haven’t been to one in over six years, and as my readers would suspect, I have a lot more mixed feelings and skepticism about these things than I used to.

Being a vendor is an opportunity to dip a toe back into an environment that has been filled with real grace and transformation, as well as spiritual abuse and betrayal. It’s a reunion of sorts, revisiting a once beloved space, wanting to see how much old friends have changed…and how much I have.

On the second day of the conference, Kristina and I walked a few blocks from the conference to pick up dinner. As we walked through the urban courtyard dotted with people resting on their backpacks in any small spot of shade, David came up to us and, noticing our conference paraphernalia, asked, “Are you guys Christians for real?” David went on to take off his ball cap to show us a long scar on his head and, after sharing that he has cancer and no access to a doctor, pulled up his old t-shirt to reveal a large lump on his side.

David spoke for several minutes about Jesus before asking for money to pay for cancer treatment. He walked with us a few more blocks and, in front of the restaurant where we were picking up dinner, introduced us to Jennifer.

Even more so than David, Jennifer bore the physical consequences of systemic poverty. She was, honestly, uncomfortable to be around. A discomfort that betrayed my own dis-integrity between my beliefs about poverty and my emotional reaction to speaking with and shaking hands with human persons who are poor and unhoused. She told us she wanted a sandwich from Burger King. She told us she hates being homeless.

Eventually we said goodbye and walked back to the large, air-conditioned conference center to quickly eat our overpriced dinner so we could go back to selling Catholic artwork before we closed up shop for the keynote presentation of the evening. Chris gave the talk that evening. Unlike David and Jennifer, you would know who Chris was. You’ve more than likely been to one of his talks or listened to one of his podcasts.

Despite my very mixed feelings about the conference, my discomfort being in a “Rah-Rah Catholicism!” environment, and my annoyance with the previous talk I went to that day—part of me was looking forward to this keynote. Not because of Chris, but because his talk led into Eucharistic Adoration. If you’ve been to a Catholic conference, you know the kind of Adoration I’m talking about. The oversized monstrance, the lights, the praise and worship band, all of it. Again, a space I was very familiar with. An old friend.

That made Chris’s talk feel all the more sad. It started like a right-wing pep rally with barely a mention of Jesus or Scripture. He staked out his definition of masculinity, not primarily by turning to Jesus and the saints as models, but by droning on about how the evil culture is trying to put men down by calling them “toxic” and that women, deep down, really want men to rescue them from their work cubicles. I was angry. And beneath that anger was sadness. This familiar space, which I once found safe and beautiful, has been overgrown with thorns. Or maybe the thorns had always been there and I didn’t have the eyes to see. Either way, it was clear this is a space where my beliefs and experiences no longer fit.

Eventually the music started and a priest processed in with the monstrance. Jesus was here! But of course, He had already been there. In David, Jesus walked with me to dinner. In Jennifer, Jesus spoke with me as I picked up my food. And in Chris, Jesus was there too.

Towards the end of his presentation, Chris moved into talking about how so many people have been harmed by men in their lives, men who were supposed to represent God to them. And at one point he said to this group of 5,000 attendees (and who knows how many people live-streaming), “I don’t think I ever shared this on stage before.” He went on to say that as a child, three different priests “made advances” (his phrasing) on him. Without at all excusing any of the crappy things he said before that, or any of the crappy things he said after, this moment gave his talk (and what he says on his platforms) more of a context. A context shaped by abuse and betrayal from individual men who represented Christ, and from the Church, which is supposed to be the Sacrament of Salvation, not the enabler, protector, and excuser of abuse.

In one of his documents that reoriented my understanding of God and grace, Pope Francis taught:

“Nor can we claim to say where God is not, because God is mysteriously present in the life of every person, in a way that he himself chooses, and we cannot exclude this by our presumed certainties…If we let ourselves be guided by the Spirit rather than our own preconceptions, we can and must try to find the Lord in every human life” (Gaudete et Exsultate 42).

I wrote this reflection while sitting behind the vendor table, and as I was writing, everyone in the hallways went silent and kneeled (myself included) as a priest processed through the halls with the Eucharist on his way to offer Adoration to a breakout group. Whatever grace I’ve been given in order to believe that Jesus is present in this piece of bread on display at a conference—despite the ugliness that’s also on display—is the same grace that convicts me to believe that Jesus is present in David and Jennifer. It’s also the same grace that convicts me to see Jesus in Chris, despite the ways he obscures God’s goodness and causes spiritual harm in the position of authority he has.

I met my Old Friend at this conference. He hadn’t changed, but in the past several years He has changed me a lot. I don’t know if I’ll come back next year. I dipped my toe back in and the water wasn’t very welcoming. But it’s good I met Jesus here this year.

St. Mark was born in China in 1834. He was a physician who served the poor but who himself became seriously sick in his 30s and treated himself with one of the common medicines of that time, opium.

That begin an addiction that lasted for decades. He would frequently go to Confession, but eventually his priest confessor told him that he wasn’t serious enough about quitting so he denied Mark absolution and access to Communion.

Mark lived the rest of his life without access to the sacraments. He died a martyr in 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion, still an addict, still unable to receive the Sacraments.

There are two things I want to highlight from St. Mark’s story.

The first is that even though he lived for decades in what some would call the state of objective and public sin, Christ still gave him grace and made him holy. I recall this passage from Pope Francis:

“Nor can we claim to say where God is not, because God is mysteriously present in the life of every person, in a way that he himself chooses, and we cannot exclude this by our presumed certainties. Even when someone’s life appears completely wrecked, even when we see it devastated by vices or addictions, God is present there. If we let ourselves be guided by the Spirit rather than our own preconceptions, we can and must try to find the Lord in every human life” (Gaudete et Exsultate 42).

St. Mark’s drug use may have been grave matter, but they were not mortal sins. His actions were not separating him from God. On the contrary, he was living so much in union with God that grace transformed him to the point that he was able to freely die a martyr.

Second, I was struck by the pastoral failure of his confessor who denied St. Mark absolution and the Eucharist because he didn’t think that Mark had “firm purpose of amendment.” Now, the priest, didn’t have the advantage of modern psychology and the knowledge that drug addiction is a disease, not a moral failure. The priest’s decision to withhold the sacraments from St. Mark was still objectively unjust and caused real harm.

But God was still able to work. While St. Mark was denied the source and summit of God’s grace, God himself was not bound by His sacraments.

I think that St. Mark’s story is a source of hope for those caught in addictions, habits, and relationships that bind their freedom, who feel like their grave actions are preventing them from a life of real holiness.

He is also a source of hope for those faithful being unjustly governed by their pastors. His story is a reminder that even when religious leaders utterly fail as pastors and leaders that God’s grace can, and does, continue to heal and transform the Church.

You can buy this icon, and check out more great Catholic artwork from Cecilia Lawrence, here: https://www.deviantart.com/theophilia

Read more about St. Mark’s story here:
https://www.osvnews.com/2019/10/24/the-life-of-st-mark-ji-tianxiang-persevering-in-faith-despite-addiction/

• You can read their incredible story here.

• And Blessed Józef was a photographer; you can see photos of their family here.

I want to highlight three areas of their story.

First, the family died as martyrs, but not because of anti-Christian persecution. They were not targets of violence. They could have easily ridden out the Nazi regime unharmed like so many Polish and German Christians. But they put themselves in harms’ way to protect the people who were being villainized, scapegoated, and persecuted by their government.

In the family Bible, they had this passage underlined in red: “A Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion when he saw him: He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. He then lifted him onto his own mount and took him to an inn and looked after him” (Luke 10: 33-34).

Second, the Ulmas were not wealthy. They gave not from their excess, but from their necessity. Their house had one room, with a closet dividing the dining area from the bedrooms. And yet they found room in their home for multiple refugee families. Before their martyrdom, this was a family practiced in abundant generosity.

Third, when they were beatified, it was the first time in the Church’s history where an entire family was beatified together…including their unborn and unbaptized baby. We are within living memory of parish priests refusing to bury unbaptized children in the Catholic cemetery, and now the Church has beatified an unbaptized child. The doctrinal implications of this have yet to be fully unpacked.

I would encourage you to take a moment to read about their life, their love, and their death.

Blessed Wiktoria, Blessed Józef, Blessed Stasia, Blessed Basia, Blessed Władzio, Blessed Franuś, Blessed Antoś, Blessed Marysia, and Blessed Baby Ulma: Pray for us.

*AI was used to edit this post

“Some asked me, ‘What would you like the pope to say to the General Chapter?’ This made me reflect, and I am not sure of the answer, but I found one of Saint Augustine’s sermons that gives me words that might help. Here I quote Saint Augustine: ‘But if travelers rejoice in each other’s company on the way, what joy they will obtain in their home country! On this journey, the witnesses fought and they always advanced in the fight. They never gave up. By going forward, they never got stuck in one place. Those who love always move forward, and the path that we take requires sojourners.’

“This road rejects three types of people: those who stop, those who go back, and those who get off track. With the help of the Lord, our path has been protected from these three negative outcomes. Now walking together, one may go slowly and another may go faster, but both are moving forward. Holy Father, your presence in our midst will help us renew our commitment to move forward with decisiveness and love, thereby strengthening our ability to walk together alongside the whole Church.”

This passage has been on my mind as news of the SSPX schism has been in my newsfeed. In fact, speaking with the press about the SSPX in the weeks before their schism, Pope Leo said they “refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with various points of the Second Vatican Council. If they make that choice, I am sorry, but we must move forward.”

We must move forward.

The road rejects those who go back.

A year and a half ago, I wrote a catechesis about the Church’s teaching on development of doctrine. In light of all this, I want to share a long excerpt from it here in order to make the case that:

1. The core issue with the SSPX is, and has always been, a rejection of the development of doctrine and the authority of the living magisterium, not about liturgical preferences.

2. This core issue, while distilled and explicit in the SSPX, is present in wide swaths of the Church, including in many Catholics who are critical of the SSPX. The only differences are disagreement on when the rupture happened (Pope Francis vs. Vatican II) or on the specific doctrines being developed (the death penalty or matters of sexuality vs. religious freedom and ecumenism). In other words, the road not only rejects those who go back, but also those who stop. As Dei Verbum states, “the Church constantly moves forward” (DV 8).

Combination of continuity and discontinuity

In a 1976 letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Pope St. Paul VI said to the traditionalist prelate, “the concept of ‘tradition’ that you invoke is distorted.” Paul VI explained that Lefebvre understood Tradition as “a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort” which “blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church.” Tradition, according to the pope, “is inseparable from the living magisterium of the Church.” This clarification that Paul VI offered Lefebvre is essential for understanding the doctrinal developments that came from Vatican II. It is also essential for the many Catholics today who believe that the Church’s teaching is unchanging and who, in turn, feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea that Church teaching could change in the future.

Those who believe that doctrine never changes often invoke Pope Benedict XVI’s teaching that we need to reject a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” with Tradition and instead embrace a “hermeneutic of continuity.” The trouble is that this is not what Pope Benedict taught.

The late pontiff’s teaching about contrasting hermeneutics came from a Christmas address he gave to the Roman Curia in 2005. There, he criticized a “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” that sees the post-conciliar Church as disconnected from the prior nineteen centuries of Tradition. Furthermore, this hermeneutic pits the “spirit of the Council” against the “texts of the Council,” prioritizing the former as truly representing the will of the Council.

Pope Benedict contrasted this “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” not with the “hermeneutic of continuity,” but with a “hermeneutic of reform.” In doing so, he references Pope St. John XXIII’s 1962 speech that opened the Second Vatican Council. Quoting John XXIII, Benedict said: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.”

This distinction between the “substance” of doctrine and “the way in which it is presented” is crucial. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, picks up this distinction in a key passage about the development of doctrine: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles developed in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down” (Dei Verbum 8).

Here the Council Fathers draw a distinction between the “realities” of Divine Revelation and the Church’s understanding and expression of those realities. This is key: Pope Benedict—in that same Christmas address—said that “true reform” occurs when there is a “combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels” (emphasis mine). In other words, an authentic understanding of Tradition does not insist on rigid continuity but rather embraces continuity in the unchanging substance of doctrine and allows for discontinuity in the way that substance is understood and expressed. Benedict used the Council’s teaching about religious liberty as an illustration of true reform, going so far as to say that this development was a correction of some historical teachings. By affirming religious liberty, Benedict said the Council “recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church” and was “in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself.”

Benedict acknowledged that there can be “apparent discontinuity” between contemporary magisterial teaching and historical teachings. However, rather than seeing this discontinuity as a rupture or a denial of Tradition, he believes that the discontinuity of understanding and expression ultimately led to a deeper preservation of the substance of Divine Revelation.

Right away, it is clear that the idea that Church teaching never changes is not shared by Pope Benedict or the Council itself. The Church can, and has, corrected some historical decisions of the Magisterium. However, in matters of doctrine, any contradiction or reversal with the past is only a discontinuity of expression, not a discontinuity of substance. That being said, the discontinuity of expression can look like a dramatic change in substance. St. John Henry Newman uses the example of a butterfly to illustrate this point. A butterfly looks entirely different from the caterpillar it used to be, but the dramatic differences do not change the fact that they are, at the deepest level, the same creature. Pope Benedict pointed to the Council’s teaching about religious liberty as an example of this kind of dramatic change, where the Church chose to “define in a new way” how Catholics ought to relate to other religions. The Church’s teachings about slavery, usury, and the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics are all further examples of where the Church teaching today looks, in many ways, like a reversal from what it taught in the past.

This understanding of reform is explicitly reaffirmed by Pope Francis in his response to the dubia submitted by five cardinals, including Cardinal Burke, in the lead-up to the 2023 meeting for the Synod on Synodality. The cardinals questioned the pope about whether Revelation “should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time” or if Revelation “is binding forever, immutable, and therefore not to be contradicted.” If you apply Pope Benedict’s understanding of reform to this question, the answer is obvious: the substance of Revelation is immutable, but the Church’s understanding and expression of Revelation can change. And that is precisely how Francis responded:

“Therefore, while it is true that the Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding. Consequently, she also matures in her understanding of what she has herself affirmed in her Magisterium. Cultural changes and new challenges in history do not modify Revelation but can stimulate us to express certain aspects of its overflowing richness better, which always offers more. It is inevitable that this can lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and indeed, this has been the case throughout history.”

Constantly moving forward

All of this raises the questions: How does the Church’s understanding of Revelation grow? How does doctrine develop and who develops it? Again, Dei Verbum is the key text. In the same section quoted previously, the Dogmatic Constitution affirmed that Tradition develops with and through the whole Church: from the prayers and lives of laypeople, to the study of theologians, and, ultimately, the teaching authority of the pope and bishops in communion with him. In other words, as Pope Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre, Tradition “is inseparable from the living magisterium of the Church.” It is ultimately the Magisterium, and only the Magisterium, that definitively resolves any apparent contradictions because the “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church” (DV 10).

Further, Dei Verbum states that “the Church constantly moves forward” until “the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (DV 8). Rather than seeing what is ancient as the greatest understanding of Revelation, the Council Fathers understood that as time progresses, the Church “moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth.” In a general sense, we have a greater understanding of Revelation now than we did in the 1500s, 1200s, or 400s. Here, the organic images of rivers and trees that St. John Henry Newman used can be helpful. A river is greater and more powerful at its mouth than in the small mountain spring that is its source. Likewise, a mighty oak tree is grander and stronger than a sapling. Pope Francis captures this growth in understanding, even to the point of correcting past teachings, in his response to the dubia:

“On the one hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of the Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition require interpretation in order to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. This is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Exodus 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (Cf. Pope Nicholas V, Bull Dum diversas, 1452).^[1] This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts need interpretation. The same applies to certain considerations in the New Testament regarding women (1 Corinthians 11:3-10; 1 Timothy 2:11-14) and other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that cannot be materially repeated today.”

In other words, the living Magisterium is our interpreter of historical texts, not the other way around. We cannot appropriately use our understanding of past texts to judge the living Magisterium, otherwise, we end up severely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Catholic faith. We cannot genuinely understand historical texts apart from the Church’s current teachings. The living Magisterium, working in dialogue with the faithful, is our only sure guide and interpreter of Scripture, Tradition, and historical documents, sifting through what is of perennial substance and what is the result of cultural conditioning (cf. DV 8). There is also danger in accepting an historic teaching as binding if it has not been repeated in generations because “frequent repetition” of a doctrine is one of the ways for us to know the importance of a magisterial teaching (Lumen Gentium 25).

This danger becomes clear if we try to imagine a catechist telling a new convert to Catholicism that “none of those who are outside of the Catholic Church” including “Jews, heretics, and schismatics” can be saved and all of them are damned to Hell (Council of Florence, 1442 AD); or a pastor telling his congregation that receiving any interest on a loan is gravely evil (Vix Pervenit, 1745 AD) but that slavery “considered in itself and all alone, is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law” (Instruction of the Holy Office, June 20, 1866). Finally, imagine a Catholic school principal writing a bulletin article asserting that Catholic parents are forbidden to send their kids to public school without the permission of their bishop (Divini Illius Magistri, 1929AD). We must avoid reading past magisterial documents the way that fundamentalists read Scripture.

Hermeneutic of traditionalism: relativism and fundamentalism

In light of Pope Benedict’s “contrasting hermeneutics” framework, I would like to identify a third hermeneutic: the hermeneutic of traditionalism. This hermeneutic proposes that contemporary magisterial teachings must be understood and interpreted through the lens of historical teachings. This is a tempting hermeneutic because it appears solid and faithful. However, it is ultimately a type of subjective relativism and religious fundamentalism.

This hermeneutic of traditionalism presumes that individual Catholics have the ability and authority to interpret Tradition, which is what Newman said of Protestants who relied “upon their own personal private judgment” to interpret Scripture. In other words, this position posits that individuals can correctly interpret the Church’s historical teachings and judge whether or not the “living teaching office of the Church” has contradicted Tradition based on that interpretation. This hermeneutic is flawed because it makes the individual member of the faithful, and not the living Magisterium (the pope and the bishops in communion with him), the authentic interpreter of Tradition.

This distorted understanding of Tradition is also a kind of religious fundamentalism. It betrays a desperate need to have unchanging certainty in religious beliefs. Like the Protestant Christians who felt like their entire faith was threatened by the theory of evolution, within this Catholic fundamentalism is the fear that even the slightest deviation from historical teachings threatens the legitimacy of the entire Church.

Further, this hermeneutic of traditionalism is also related to the hermeneutic of discontinuity. Namely, it is defined by the idea that there is a Truth (i.e., Tradition) that can be abstracted from the actual texts of the Magisterium. As with the hermeneutic of discontinuity, the traditionalist hermeneutic holds that for the sake of faithfulness to the Truth, it may be necessary not to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. Ultimately, as Pope Benedict warned in his 2005 address, a hermeneutic of discontinuity “risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church” because it asserts that the texts of the Council and post-conciliar teachings are not entirely faithful to the Truth of the Catholic faith.

[…]

Not just traditionalists

It is important to note that this hermeneutic of traditionalism with its distorted concept of Tradition extends far beyond members of the SSPX or Catholics who describe themselves as “traditionalists.” In fact, many Catholics who attend the reformed liturgy and say they support the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI—many of whom even criticize “Rad Trads” for their excesses—have fallen prey to this false hermeneutic. They do this whenever they presume that any deviation between a teaching of Pope Francis and the teachings of his predecessors is a rupture with the substance of a doctrine and not a true reform with a mix of continuity and discontinuity.

One example of this fundamentalist understanding of Tradition comes from Cardinal Burke and his assertion that Pope Francis’s teaching about the possibility of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is a rupture from prior teachings. In fact, the cardinal expresses a distilled version of the hermeneutic of traditionalism in his 2019 interview with Ross Douthat. In reference to Amoris Laetitia, Burke said, “I haven’t changed. I’m still teaching the same things I always taught and they’re not my ideas. But now suddenly this is perceived as being contrary to the Roman pontiff.” The idea that one could not possibly be in schism because their beliefs have not changed rests on the premise that Church teaching cannot change.

Examples of this hermeneutic of traditionalism can also be seen in the criticism directed at Francis’s prohibition of the death penalty. Like the Second Vatican Council’s teaching about religious freedom, Francis’s magisterial teaching about capital punishment includes a “combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels.” Some of the current pontiff’s teachings are indeed changes from those of his predecessors, but they are not ruptures. Francis is reaching back to deeper truths.

In 2018, the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a “Letter to the Bishops” explaining the pope’s revision to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty which said, “The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine” and “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” (7-8). In Fratelli Tutti, Francis said, “I sometimes wonder why…it took so long for the Church unequivocally to condemn slavery and various forms of violence. Today, with our developed spirituality and theology, we have no excuses” (Fratelli Tutti 86). Then he goes on to cite Scripture, Church Fathers, and past popes to demonstrate that his unequivocal condemnation of the death penalty is a reaching back to the deeper revelation that every human being has infinite dignity (cf. FT 264-265).

[You can read my whole essay here: https://wherepeteris.com/navigating-growth-and-development-in-a-living-tradition/]

*AI was used to edit this post

Also, I wanted to share that I have a new self-paced online course about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church. This course will help you recognize spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church; know the symptoms of spiritual abuse, religious trauma, and moral injury; and better identify spiritually abusive systems. The course includes access to a private online community where you can connect and share resources with others who have gone through this course.

Check out the course here:

https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/p/new-self-paced-online-course-about

This is Part Two of a two-part conversation with Dr. Marcus Mescher. In the first part of the conversation we discussed Liberation Theology, its origins, development, and relationship with the universal Church. We also spent time reflecting on the life and work of the Dominican theologian, Gustavo Gutiérrez. In Part-Two, we dive into the Church’s teaching on the preferential option for the poor, exploring its roots in Scripture as well as its relationship to the Ordo Amoris. From there we discuss the importance of the Church having a “preferential option for survivors” and what living that out could look like on an institutional and personal level. I really loved this conversation and I hope you enjoy it as well.

Dr. Marcus Mescher is associate professor of Christian ethics. He holds a Ph.D. from Boston College and specializes in Catholic social teaching and moral formation. His research and writing concentrate in the following areas: human dignity and rights; social/environmental justice for the global common good; how moral agency is impacted by cultural context and digital technology; the moral dimensions of friendship; sexual justice and the ethics of marriage and family life; liberation theology and inclusive solidarity; healing the psychological, spiritual, social, and moral harm caused by clergy abuse. Dr. Mescher has written dozens of popular and academic articles. His current research and writing focus on mental health and moral injury.

If you haven’t listened to Part One, I would encourage you to start with that episode.

LINKS:

Measuring & Exploring Moral Injury Caused by Clergy Sexual Abuse
https://www.xavier.edu/moral-injury-report/

“Moral Injury and Clerical Sexual Abuse” PFG podcast with Marcus Mescher
https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/p/marcus-mescher-moral-injury-and-clerical

The Liberation Theology Podcast
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7rloQVzrrwM3WSp2OxRviY?si=04fe4a3646a9441b

Accountability, Healing, and Trust: Interdisciplinary Reflections for Ministry in the Midst of the Catholic Sex Abuse Crisis
https://litpress.org/Products/8897/Accountability-Healing-and-Trust

Awake Blog
https://www.awakecommunity.org/blog

ABOUT THIRD SPACE: Third Space is the podcast for those who see the beauty of Catholicism, as well as the ugliness, who have experienced real harm AND real grace in the Church. Every episode I will have conversations with guests about the good and the bad in the Church—avoiding easy answers or black & white fundamentalism—in order to hold on to all that is true.

SUPPORT THIS SHOW: Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. All of your support directly helps my family and allows me to continue working on projects like this podcast, the newsletter, as well as resources about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

www.catholicthirdspace.com

LIVING SOLIDARITY: Living Solidarity upholds the infinite dignity of every person by addressing the reality of spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Catholic Church. Living Solidarity helps to build a Church of integrity and solidarity by accompanying survivors of spiritual abuse with trauma-informed life coaching; equipping Church leaders and institutions to confront systemic harm; and creating resources grounded in psychological research and the Church’s Social Teaching. Visit livingsolidarity.com to learn more, to connect with Paul, to schedule individual life coaching, or to invite Paul to speak or consult with your community, parish, seminary, or diocese.

ABOUT THE HOST: Paul Fahey is currently a professional counselor, retreat leader, and the host of the Third Space podcast. He provides counseling for those who have been spiritually abused and creates resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against all forms of abuse. He previously worked for eight years as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic parish. Paul Fahey lives in Michigan with his wife, Kristina, and their five kids.

Check out the Course

This is an eight module course that includes recorded presentations, slides, piles of additional resources, and access to a private community to connect and share resources with others who have attended the course or workshop.

This pre-recorded course is self-paced, making it a great option for those who are unable to participate in the live workshop. Here’s a preview:

Check out the Course

Bridget’s article was published last week. I wanted to share it here (it’s really good) along with some longer comments of my own. Bridget writes:

Spain’s bishops have warned that forms of evangelization that leverage high emotions to proclaim the Gospel risk distorting Catholic spirituality and can lead to forms of abuse.

The bishops highlighted those concerns in a doctrinal note from the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, published in March. The note warns that an “emotional bombardment” employed as part of some methods of first evangelization can become a form of spiritual abuse or promote an “emotional reductionist” form of Christian spirituality, even when such techniques may be used with the best of intentions. The document also warns that those with an “overly emotional faith” are more susceptible “to psychological manipulation” by evangelizers.

The document puts the instruction within the context of “the various signs of a rebirth of the Christian faith in society,” particularly among young people, and “the creativity of the various initiatives of first proclamation [of the Gospel] that the Holy Spirit has stirred up in many ecclesial movements and associations.”

Despite the energy and conversions those events may generate, multiple dangers exist, according to the Spanish bishops. Evangelization based on strong emotions may lead to an incomplete transmission of the faith, one that does not contribute to spiritual maturity but that teaches converts to rely on emotionally intense experiences to affirm and strengthen their faith. New believers can become “consumers of impactful experiences and insatiable seekers of the gratification of spiritual feeling.”

The bishops compared the phenomenon to the current populist political climate where many politicians try to induce citizens to vote for them through emotional appeals to fear or anger.

“In the spiritual life, too, there is a danger of trying to provoke certain behaviors through emotional bombardment,” the document states.

I’d encourage you to read her whole article here: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/dispatches/2026/06/01/spanish-bishops-emotional-manipulation-evangelization/

I wanted to highlight paragraph 10 of that document (again, this is an AI translation) and offer some longer comments than what there was space for Bridget to publish. From the bishops’ document:

“Many current social and political discourses frequently appeal to emotions (fear, hope, indignation) in order to generate certain behaviors and adherence. Also in the spiritual life there is the danger of seeking to elicit certain behaviors through an ‘emotional bombardment,’ which could be considered a form of ‘spiritual abuse.’ Such abuse can manifest itself in the form of ‘emotional group pressure,’ which forces individuals to feel the same as others in order not to self-marginalize from the experience. And even through the use of false supernatural or mystical experiences (‘false mysticism’), which distort an authentic vision of God, as means to exert dominance over consciences, nullifying the autonomy of persons or to commit other types of abuse, which must be considered of special moral gravity” (10).

Events that are crafted to elicit strong emotions (e. g. rock concerts) are not manipulative in themselves. Neither is using elements (music, lights, etc.) to help others emotionally enter into prayer or praise. The Church’s liturgical traditional is based of the belief that it’s good to engage our whole body, all of our senses, in prayer.

Spiritual abuse manifests itself when an emotional experience is presented as God manifesting his will for an individual person or as an endorsement of a group or movement. This could look like leaders at highly emotional retreats or youth rallies saying/implying that because someone is having an emotional experience:

• “It’s God’s will that you’re here.”

• “It’s God’s will that you discern the priesthood/religious life.”

• “God is blessing/commissioning this group/movement.”

In order to avoid manipulation, it’s important for those in authority to emphasize that God’s will is always mediated, and therefore this mediation must always be discerned in the individual’s conscience. People must be given the space and freedom to bring these emotional experiences into dialogue with the Lord in the innermost sanctuary of their heart, asking God what they mean for their life and what His will is for them.

If those in authority suppress or bypass the essential role of individual conscience, then we move into the realm of spiritual imposition and abuse of conscience. If those in authority neglect to properly foster and encourage personal discernment, then the ground is tilled for intentional and unintentional manipulation.

And it’s important to emphasize that this manipulation can happen even if those with authority have the best of intentions. Intentions don’t define whether or not something is coercive. And teens/children are more at risk for all of these kinds of manipulation.

*AI was used to edit this post

Also, I wanted to share that I have a new self-paced online course about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church. This course will help you recognize spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church; know the symptoms of spiritual abuse, religious trauma, and moral injury; and better identify spiritually abusive systems. The course includes access to a private online community where you can connect and share resources with others who have gone through this course.

Check out the course here:

https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/p/new-self-paced-online-course-about

This is Part One of a two-part conversation with Dr. Marcus Mescher. In the first part of the conversation we discuss Liberation Theology, its origins, development, and relationship with the universal Church. We also spend time reflecting on the life and work of the Dominican theologian, Gustavo Gutiérrez. In Part-Two, we will dive into the Church’s teaching on the preferential options for the poor, exploring its roots in Scripture as well as its relationship to the Ordo Amoris. From there we discussed the importance of the Church having a “preferential options for survivors” and what living that out could look like on an institutional and personal level. I really loved this conversation and I hope you enjoy it as well.

Dr. Marcus Mescher is associate professor of Christian ethics. He holds a Ph.D. from Boston College and specializes in Catholic social teaching and moral formation. His research and writing concentrate in the following areas: human dignity and rights; social/environmental justice for the global common good; how moral agency is impacted by cultural context and digital technology; the moral dimensions of friendship; sexual justice and the ethics of marriage and family life; liberation theology and inclusive solidarity; healing the psychological, spiritual, social, and moral harm caused by clergy abuse. Dr. Mescher has written dozens of popular and academic articles. His current research and writing focus on mental health and moral injury.

LINKS:

Measuring & Exploring Moral Injury Caused by Clergy Sexual Abuse
https://www.xavier.edu/moral-injury-report/

“Moral Injury and Clerical Sexual Abuse” PFG podcast with Marcus Mescher
https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/p/marcus-mescher-moral-injury-and-clerical

The Liberation Theology Podcast
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7rloQVzrrwM3WSp2OxRviY?si=04fe4a3646a9441b

Accountability, Healing, and Trust: Interdisciplinary Reflections for Ministry in the Midst of the Catholic Sex Abuse Crisis
https://litpress.org/Products/8897/Accountability-Healing-and-Trust

Awake Blog
https://www.awakecommunity.org/blog

ABOUT THIRD SPACE: Third Space is the podcast for those who see the beauty of Catholicism, as well as the ugliness, who have experienced real harm AND real grace in the Church. Every episode I will have conversations with guests about the good and the bad in the Church—avoiding easy answers or black & white fundamentalism—in order to hold on to all that is true.

SUPPORT THIS SHOW: Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. All of your support directly helps my family and allows me to continue working on projects like this podcast, the newsletter, as well as resources about spiritual abuse in the Catholic Church.

www.catholicthirdspace.com

LIVING SOLIDARITY: Living Solidarity upholds the infinite dignity of every person by addressing the reality of spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience in the Catholic Church. Living Solidarity helps to build a Church of integrity and solidarity by accompanying survivors of spiritual abuse with trauma-informed life coaching; equipping Church leaders and institutions to confront systemic harm; and creating resources grounded in psychological research and the Church’s Social Teaching. Visit livingsolidarity.com to learn more, to connect with Paul, to schedule individual life coaching, or to invite Paul to speak or consult with your community, parish, seminary, or diocese.

ABOUT THE HOST: Paul Fahey is currently a professional counselor, retreat leader, and the host of the Third Space podcast. He provides counseling for those who have been spiritually abused and creates resources for Church leaders to better safeguard their communities against all forms of abuse. He previously worked for eight years as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic parish. Paul Fahey lives in Michigan with his wife, Kristina, and their five kids.

This won’t be anything like a comprehensive response to how terribly Catholics can speak about suffering, but I’ll offer a couple of reflections.

Where I live in Michigan, my circle of friends will joke about the “up north Masses” we’ve witnessed over the years during our vacations. Pastors who run these rural parishes seem to be able to do whatever they want in the liturgy with, I assume, little to no accountability.

A few years ago I was at an “up north Mass” and...it was beautiful.

It was in a little old wooden church tucked away in rolling hills. The inside was as lovely as the outside: stained glass windows, ornate high altar, beautiful music, and just the right amount of excessive incense.

The church also had a communion rail. And that’s when my inner Trad comes out. I love receiving at a communion rail. It gives me a moment to collect myself and be present before receiving the Eucharist rather than feeling herded through a line.

It was beautiful, until father began speaking. He preached his homily about this line from the first reading that day: “The LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity” (Isaiah 53:10).

He said that when Jesus took our sins on the cross, Jesus became something that God was pleased to crush and this is how Jesus paid the debt for sin.

I was shocked. I leaned over to Kristina and said, “That’s penal substitutionary atonement. He’s saying that God the Father was happy to crush God the Son. That’s nuts.”

The priest went on and said, from the pulpit: “God’s currency is suffering. And you need to use this life to invest in eternity.”

God’s currency is suffering.

On the drive back after Mass, Kristina and I talked about how our younger selves wouldn’t have thought twice about this priest’s homily. Now it made us feel sick.

Here’s a church full of people, lots of young couples with lots of kids, who need to hear about God’s love and all they got was the priest’s personal paganism presented as authentic Catholicism.

I distinctly remember a family that sat in front of us with six young kids. The oldest was maybe third grade and the youngest was still a baby. The baby dropped something in the aisle during Mass so I grabbed it and gave it to the mom, and she looked so tired. Tired like she hadn’t slept all night. Tired like only a parent with young kids can feel.

I don’t know this woman. I don’t know her family. But I know that feeling. And instead of encouragement, mercy, or the relentless love of God, this homily told her that God wants her to suffer.

This Mass reflected back to Kristina and me what we used to believe about God and Catholicism:

• That we must earn God’s grace.

• That grace is transactional; I pay in with acts of piety and morality and God gives me a return on my investment sometime in eternity.

• That the hard things, the decisions that cause the most suffering, are what God is asking of us.

We really used to believe that God’s currency is suffering.

We believed this because we were told this. Maybe not as starkly as Fr. Edgelord, but that’s how we were formed in the Catholic cultures of our young adulthood. Suffering was subtly presented as a good thing, as something God desires. And this completely undermines the Gospel.

The Church’s teaching on redemptive suffering (re: the Catechism and Salvifici Doloris) is that Christ’s suffering was/is redemptive. God chose to become human, and further yet, he chose to suffer in his humanity in order to liberate from us from suffering and death. Christ shows us that we have a God who walks in solidarity with us, even in the horror of our suffering. And he teaches us that in caring for others who are suffering we are caring for him. Here’s one of many passages about suffering from the Catechism:

“Moved by so much suffering Christ not only allows himself to be touched by the sick, but he makes their miseries his own: “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.” But he did not heal all the sick. His healings were signs of the coming of the Kingdom of God. They announced a more radical healing: the victory over sin and death through his Passover. On the cross Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil and took away the “sin of the world.” of which illness is only a consequence. By his passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion” (CCC 1505).

The Church is explicitly clear: suffering is evil. It’s a result of sin. It is not desired by God. In fact, saving us from the consequences of sin (suffering included) is the reason that God became man. The Church is clear that part of her mission, the mission of all the baptized, is to help alleviate suffering. The Church warns against turning our back on suffering. From Pope Leo’s exhortation, Dilexi Te:

“The many forms of indifference we see all around us are in fact ‘signs of an approach to life that is spreading in various and subtle ways. What is more, caught up as we are with our own needs, the sight of a person who is suffering disturbs us. It makes us uneasy, since we have no time to waste on other people’s problems. These are symptoms of an unhealthy society. A society that seeks prosperity but turns its back on suffering. May we not sink to such depths! Let us look to the example of the Good Samaritan.’ The final words of the Gospel parable — “Go and do likewise” ( Lk 10:37) — represent a mandate that every Christian must daily take to heart” (DT 107).

However, in this state of “already saved but not yet fully” we still experience some of the consequences of sin, one of which is suffering. In this earthly life, suffering is inevitable. But because of Christ, I can choose to spiritually “offer up” this inevitable suffering, uniting it to the cross, uniting it to Christ’s mission to liberate all of creation from sin and suffering.

In this way, God even allows something as evil as suffering to be a way for me to love others. And sometimes, out of love, I may freely choose to suffer to protect another. “There’s no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.”

None of this means that God desires suffering. Nor does it mean that Christians should desire suffering, just muscle through it, or not seek to alleviate it! It’s good to care for myself in my own suffering.

And if somebody else is telling me to just “offer it up” instead of helping me to alleviate my suffering—or worse, if they tell me I should welcome it because God’s currency is suffering—it may be because they are uncomfortable with my suffering. It may be because they don’t want, or feel unable, to accompany me through suffering. But instead of acknowledging their own limitations here (limitations God is pleased to accompany them through), they twist their discomfort into an imposition on others.

I will end here with the longer reflection from that address from Pope Leo in Spain:

“There are moments of darkness and suffering that our society silences because certain cultural norms demand that we always be victorious and perfect, and so our limitations, fragility and pain must be eliminated or confined to the deafening silence of loneliness or even shame. And in these moments, we may instinctively think that God has abandoned us as well. However, the cross of Jesus tells us that God does not abandon us, that he is at our side, crucified with us in moments of pain and extreme loneliness, that he gathers not only our tears but also the cry of our suffering that others do not hear — a cry that Jesus made his own on the cross, saying, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

In a catechesis on the final hours of Jesus, Benedict XVI says that his suffering becomes a cry of prayer, and this is true for us as well: in the face of the most difficult and painful situations, when God seems absent, we must entrust to him once again the burdens we carry in our hearts, even crying out to him, even protesting like Job, confident that in some way he is present and near even when he appears to be silent.

But I believe we cannot do this alone. In times of pain, at least as much as possible, we must open ourselves to someone who can help us utter a simple prayer, who can accompany us with discretion without rushing to explain that pain, who can take us by the hand and lead us out of this cry.

These experiences also offer a message to us believers, to the whole Church: we must not spiritualize pain, superficially attributing it to ‘God’s will’ or to some mysterious plan of his, because this risks minimizing that suffering, silencing it and hurting people. God does not want suffering. He carries it with us and invites us to trust in him with perseverance. Let us remember what Pope Francis said: with God, life is always reborn.”

*AI was used to edit this post

We discussed why we think the encyclical is getting as much attention as it’s getting, if technology is neutral, what is means for the Church to dialogue with the world, and more!

Sarah and I hope to keep hosting these live discussions. Pope Leo is still working his way through his weekly catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. Which we hope to devote the next Leo Live to once it’s all released. So keep an eye out!

Go ahead and follow Ricardo at where he discusses “science, cosmology and its relationship to ecology, technology, policy, economics, politics, history, religion and culture.”

Become a paid subscriber to Third Space here: https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/subscribe

Subscribe to Pope Leo Weekly here:
https://popeleoweekly.substack.com/subscribe

We’ve both personally grown as we’ve engaged with Pope Leo’s teaching and the vision that he’s setting for the Church, and we want to share that with others. Sarah has a theological education and a background working/teaching in higher education. Paul has a catechetical background and experience leading online workshops and discussion groups. What if we brought all of that together into an online seminar that examines the life and teaching of Pope Leo XIV?

Our Idea

We want to lead a small group online seminar starting in September. The group will meet every week for an hour and half and will read and discuss Pope Leo’s biography, Evangelii Gaudium (Pope Francis’s programmatic document that Pope Leo has pointed to several times as the starting place to understand his priorities), Magnifica Humanitas, Dilexi Te, In Unitate Fidei, and other selected addresses/homilies. We also hope to bring in a guest expert or two to join our discussions. This seminar would be for 12-15 people and would cost $1,200 a person.

This seminar would be for: catechists, teachers, priests, parents, Catholics, non-Catholics, anyone who wants to take a deep dive to better understand the mind and teaching of our new pope. It will be an opportunity to learn and grow in relationship with others in a small group, in a non-judgmental space that proclaims and invites, but never imposes.

However, we need to know if there’s enough interest in something like this before we can move forward. If this is something you would be genuinely interested in, please fill out this short survey. You’ll be asked for your name, why you would be interested in this seminar, and then select from a couple of days/times for the meetings (a daytime option or an evening option).

Survey

Details

• Start date: Week of September 8

• Duration: 12 weeks

• Frequency: Weekly, 90-minute meetings

• Format: Seminar-style discussion

• Cost: $1,200

• Total estimated time commitment per week: 3 hours

• Main texts (to be supplemented with other readings): Pope Leo XIV by Elise Ann Allen, Evangelii Gaudium (Pope Francis), Dilexi Te, In Unitate Fidei, and Magnifica Humanitas

Let us know if you’re interested! And hopefully we can make this seminar a reality.

- Sarah and Paul

Survey

It’s time for another Leo Live! And this one is going to be Magnifica-cent.

Next Wednesday at 8:30pm (EST) we will discussing Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo’s new encyclical on safeguarding humanity during the age of AI.

This month, will be joining us! Ricardo writes over at where he discusses “science, cosmology and its relationship to ecology, technology, policy, economics, politics, history, religion and culture.” We were thrilled that he accepted our invitation to join us.

(As a side note, Pope Leo is still working his way through his weekly catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. Which we hope to discuss during a Leo Live later in the summer once it’s all released.)

You can access the livestream for next week here:
https://open.substack.com/live-stream/228732

Become a paid subscriber to Third Space here: https://www.catholicthirdspace.com/subscribe

Subscribe to Pope Leo Weekly here:
https://popeleoweekly.substack.com/subscribe

“Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.” Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas

“In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery.

In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of ‘infidels.’ [174] It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. [175]

This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized.

This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. [176] It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.”

It’s hard to overstate how significant this paragraph is.

It feels meaningful that it’s the first American pope, himself a descendant of enslaved persons and of people who owned slaves, who is unequivocally apologizing for the Church’s horrific historical complicity in slavery. This stands in contrast to his namesake, Leo XII, who penned a revisionist history when he condemned slavery in 1888. Also, this paragraph is, to my knowledge, the most authoritative magisterial teaching to date that states that doctrine can, and has, developed to the point of apparent reversal. Further, Pope Leo also indicates that the Church delaying development can be profoundly unjust.

A year and a half ago, I wrote a long catechesis about the Church’s teaching on development of doctrine. In that essay I included a section summarizing the Church’s teaching on slavery as a historical case study for development. Here’s that section of my article. And you can read the whole essay here: https://wherepeteris.com/navigating-growth-and-development-in-a-living-tradition/

A historical case study

In 1840, Bishop John England—the first bishop of Charleston, South Carolina—wrote a series of letters to John Forsyth, the US Secretary of State at the time. Forsyth had been publicly claiming that Pope Gregory XVI had condemned slavery in his 1839 Papal Bull In Supremo Apostolatus. Bishop England felt the need to correct the Secretary of State because Pope Gregory had not in fact condemned slavery itself, only the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

In the course of his letters, Bishop England drew from Scripture, Tradition, the natural law, and multiple historical examples of the Church tolerating and engaging in slavery to argue that slavery itself was not immoral and that the pope has no authority to teach otherwise.

As surprising as this may be for Catholics to hear now, Bishop England’s analysis of the Church’s teaching on slavery was not off base. Slavery was widely practiced by the patriarchs in the Old Testament, was never condemned by Jesus, and St. Paul famously tells slaves to “be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” (Eph 6:5).

The Didache repeats this exhortation of obedience and many Church Fathers—including St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the latter two personally owned slaves)—did not view slavery as incompatible with Christianity. Pope Gregory the Great defended slavery and also owned slaves, including children. At least four ecumenical councils explicitly permitted slavery and St.Thomas Aquinas taught that slavery was not against the natural law. Christians advocating for the total abolition of slavery were in the extreme minority throughout the patristic and medieval eras.

Slavery was still present in the Church as it moved into the Renaissance. For example, in 1452, as European countries were beginning to explore and colonize Africa, Pope Nicholas V promulgated the Papal Bull, Dum Diversas granting the King of Portugal explicit permission to “invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels” and to “lead their persons in perpetual servitude.” This effectively gave the Portuguese full license to enslave Africans.

Then in the next century, Pope Paul III, even though he explicitly allowed Christians in Rome to purchase slaves, condemned the enslavement of the Indigenous peoples in the Americas by the Spanish. At this time, theologians, canonists, and popes were not arguing about whether or not slavery was evil, but in what circumstances it was or was not allowed. It was not until Pope Gregory XVI’s papal bull in 1839—after tens of millions of Africans were enslaved—that the Church publicly condemned the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

So, in 1840, Bishop John England was on solid doctrinal ground when he said that slavery itself was not immoral. In fact, in 1866, twenty-six years after the bishop’s letters, the Holy Office (now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) taught, with the approval of Pope Pius IX, that slavery “considered in itself and all alone, is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law.”

Then, in 1888, despite the weight of Scriptural justification and 1800 years of Church teaching and engagement in slavery, Pope Leo XIII taught, “the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature” (In Plurimis 3). Pope Leo repeated his condemnation of slavery in his 1890 encyclical Catholicae Ecclesiae. The Church has repeatedly condemned slavery since then. Most notably, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council said slavery “insults human dignity” (GS 27) and then in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II taught that slavery is intrinsically evil.

There are a few things worth noting about the history of the Church’s teaching on slavery. First, an action that was repeatedly encouraged and allowed by the Magisterium and explicitly taught as not “repugnant to the natural and divine law” is now understood as intrinsically evil. The more developed “butterfly” of Pope John Paul II’s teaching about the dignity of the human person looks nothing like the “caterpillar” of Pope Pius IX’s understanding of human dignity. This development ultimately led to nothing less than a reversal of the Church’s teaching about the morality of slavery. History demonstrates the possibility of dramatic change in magisterial teaching.

Second, while Pope Francis explained that his development of the Church’s teaching regarding the death penalty centers primarily on the Church’s greater understanding and awareness of the dignity of every human life, Pope Leo XIII did not provide an explanation for his development concerning slavery. While his teaching emphasized Christ as the great liberator and the fraternity of all people, Pope Leo also engaged in a revisionist history to justify his development, claiming the Church has always desired to end slavery, even erroneously stating that “the Roman Pontiffs, who have always acted, as history truly relates, as the protectors of the weak and helpers of the oppressed, have done their best for slaves” (In Plurimis 13).

Looking back on those historical teachings through the Church’s present teaching, we could say that Pope Leo XIII’s development regarding slavery was also the result of the Church growing in her understanding of human dignity. We can conclude now that the “perennial substance” (to borrow Pope Francis’s terminology) of the Bible’s passages about slavery does not include slavery itself and the many examples and justifications of slavery in the Scripture and Tradition are products of cultural conditioning. By condemning slavery, Pope Leo XIII recovered a deeper “patrimony of the Church” and was “in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself” (to borrow Pope Benedict XVI’s terminology).

Third, it is easy to hear echoes of Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Burke in Bishop England’s letters. Specifically, regarding the pope’s ability to condemn slavery, Bishop England wrote:

“The Pope is the divinely constituted and authorized witness of the doctrine and morality of the unchanging church, and not a despot who can alter that teaching at his mere will; whilst the church herself claims no power either to add to the deposit of faith, or to change the principles of that morality for whose promulgation she is divinely commissioned.”

This exact argument, almost verbatim, has been repeated by critics of Pope Francis’s magisterial teaching. In fact, in a 2014 interview, Cardinal Burke said, “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith” (emphasis mine). It is clear by now that the assertion that the living Magisterium has no authority to change the Church’s teaching reflects neither history nor the Magisterium’s understanding of its own authority.

Finally, the dramatic change in the Church’s teaching on slavery raises some challenging questions about the role of the faithful when we believe that a teaching needs to change. Can 15th century Catholic abolitionists be seen as unfaithful to the Church’s teaching when they were being faithful to what the Church would eventually teach in the 19th century? If the Church’s teaching can dramatically change, then it follows that unfaithfulness in one era could be faithfulness in the next. What does that mean for Catholics who are opposed to some of the Church’s moral teachings now?

There are not easy answers to these questions. Navigating what this means for us personally will require a well formed conscience and an active and personal relationship with a God who we know is good. Is it a coincidence that St. John Henry Newman, the theologian who the Fathers of Vatican II drew on to understand development of doctrine, is also who they referenced for their teaching on conscience? While the relationship between personal conscience and Church authority is beyond the scope of this article, perhaps, as each of us navigates this tension, we ought to recall Newman’s saying, “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”

[This section of my article drew largely from All Oppression Shall Cease: A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church by Fr. Christopher Kellerman, SJ. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2022).]

*AI was used to edit this post