Over the past two weeks, the narrative that “Pope Leo is correcting Francis” has emerged with renewed vigor in English-language conservative Catholic media. Unlike the aesthetic differences that were desperately held up as dramatic reversals in the early months of Leo’s papacy — such as when his decision to take a summer vacation in Castel Gandolfo was treated as a return to venerable tradition — the more recent efforts have taken aim at Pope Francis’s teachings and major decisions.
First, Pope Leo’s March 19 announcement of an October meeting on Amoris Laetitia was cast as, effectively, a re-litigation of Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage and the family. Later, Leo’s mention of the sacramental ordination of men to the priesthood during his March 25 Wednesday audience was framed as a defense of an all-male clergy (and some even saw it as a subtle rebuke of Sarah Mullally, the Church of England’s new Archbishop of Canterbury, who was installed the same day). His remarks to Prince Albert about Catholicism’s status as the state religion of Monaco were followed by comments across social media and Reddit suggesting that his words indicate he is an integralist and promotes confessional states. And a message from Pope Leo signed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin to the French bishops was treated as the clearest signal yet that Pope Leo intends to reverse Traditionis Custodes.
In each case, the narrative is the same: Leo is leading the Church in the opposite direction of where Pope Francis was leading it. In each case, the evidence is thin and the language is ambiguous at best. The Parolin letter is the most instructive example, because when we compare the English-language reading against the text itself and how it was understood by its French audience, the conservative reading in the Anglosphere crumbles.
What the Letter Actually Says
The letter, dated March 18 and published on March 25 by the French bishops’ conference, was sent by Cardinal Pietro Parolin on Pope Leo’s behalf to the bishops of France as they gathered for their plenary assembly in Lourdes. It addresses three topics: Catholic education, the abuse crisis, and liturgy — in that order. The liturgy passage is the third and final topic:
« Vous avez enfin, chers frères, l’intention de traiter du délicat thème de la Liturgie, auquel le Saint-Père est particulièrement attentif, dans le contexte de la croissance des communautés liées au Vetus Ordo. Il est préoccupant que continue de s’ouvrir dans l’Église une douloureuse blessure concernant la célébration de la Messe, le sacrement même de l’unité. Pour la guérir, un regard nouveau de chacun porté sur l’autre, dans une plus grande compréhension de sa sensibilité, est certainement nécessaire ; un regard pouvant permettre à des frères riches de leur diversité de s’accueillir mutuellement, dans la charité et l’unité de la foi. Veuille l’Esprit Saint vous suggérer des solutions concrètes permettant d’inclure généreusement les personnes sincèrement attachées au Vetus Ordo, dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie. »
In English translation:
“Finally, dear brothers, you intend to address the delicate theme of the Liturgy, to which the Holy Father is particularly attentive, in the context of the growth of communities connected to the Vetus Ordo. It is troubling that a painful wound continues to open within the Church concerning the celebration of the Mass, the very sacrament of unity. To heal it, a new way of looking at one another—marked by greater understanding of each other’s sensibilities—is certainly necessary; a perspective that would allow brothers, enriched by their diversity, to welcome one another in charity and in the unity of faith. May the Holy Spirit inspire in you concrete solutions that will generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo, while respecting the orientations established by the Second Vatican Council in matters of liturgy.”
The first thing to notice is the grammatical register. “May the Holy Spirit suggest to you concrete solutions” is a prayer, not a directive. The Pillar’s characterization of this as “a clear indication that Pope Leo wishes local bishops to move quickly” toward lifting restrictions is an editorial gloss imposed on a petition to the Holy Spirit.
The second thing to notice is what the text leaves out. It does not mention Traditionis Custodes, expanding celebrations, restoring previous permissions, or granting faculties. Instead, it calls for “respecting the orientations established by the Second Vatican Council in matters of liturgy.” This, if anything, should discourage those who hope to see a return to the liturgical situation in force when Pope Benedict’s document Summorum Pontificum was in effect. Vatican II did not foresee — as Benedict’s policy allowed — the unreformed Roman Rite coexisting alongside the reformed liturgy.[1]
The Council’s constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium stated, “holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.” In Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, with which he promulgated the reformed missal, St. Paul VI expressed his hope “that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit” (emphasis added).
The Word That Changed in Translation
Much of the divergence between English-language and French-language readings hinges on the concept of generosity — “généreusement” in the original French. In English, when a manager is told to be “generous” with a resource, the implication is quantitative — give more of it. The Pillar, the Catholic Herald, and others have clearly read it this way: generous access, generous permissions, generous provision.
But while the two words are near-cognates, the French générosité often connotes a nobility of soul or an inherent character trait (grandeur d’âme), whereas the English “generosity” typically emphasizes the tangible act of giving or an abundance of resources. In this context, French Catholic readers are more likely to hear a call for pastoral openness and largeness of spirit than a technical directive to expand celebrations. A French bishop hearing this phrase would likely understand it as a call to welcome persons pastorally, not to expand the number of Latin Masses in a diocese.
I discussed the letter with three French Catholic journalists who have covered the French Church for years. All three confirmed that this is the most likely reading. One told me that the pope was certainly “asking for a better inclusion” of traditionalists in the Church, but was surprised that it was being interpreted as a call for greater access to the Vetus Ordo. He said that the French bishops “do not have the power to” lift restrictions and “are already struggling with the application of Traditionis Custodes.” In other words, they cannot simply restore the pre-2021 situation on their own authority, since exceptions to its provisions are reserved to Rome. A second said: “I’ve seen this interpretation in some of the American conservative media. It is not the one we seem to have on this side of the Atlantic. I don’t think it’s a call for a rollback.”
The contrast in editorial judgment is striking. La Croix — arguably the most important Catholic newspaper in France — covered the Parolin letter with an article focused entirely on the future of French Catholic education. The liturgy passage did not register as newsworthy. The Catholic Herald, by contrast, published three separate articles about the letter in three consecutive days, all focused on liturgy: a news report, a follow-up interview with Parolin, and an opinion column by Joseph Shaw, president of the International Una Voce Federation, who declared that the letter “surely sounds the death knell” of the argument that liturgical discord undermines Church unity.
Shaw’s reading — that “generous inclusion” “can only mean allowing more celebrations of the older liturgy” — is not one that any of the French journalists I consulted would recognize. It also ignores the letter’s controlling clause: “dans le respect des orientations voulues par le Concile Vatican II en matière de Liturgie” — “while respecting the orientations desired by the Second Vatican Council regarding the liturgy” — a clear boundary marker, not a throwaway qualifier.
The French Bishops and the Traditionalists
The context in which the French bishops are reading this letter matters enormously. One of the journalists I spoke to noted that “the general feeling amongst French bishops towards traditionalists isn’t particularly warm.” In other words, unlike some US bishops, most of the French episcopate is not eager to undermine or exempt their dioceses from Francis’s restrictions.
In 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a survey to the world’s bishops about the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. The French bishops’ synthesis of their responses — representing 87 of 92 metropolitan dioceses — is a devastating document. The bishops reported communities that wound Church unity, refuse concelebration, reject Vatican II, criticize the pope, and operate as a parallel Church. The synthesis concludes: “The overall observation is that we are witnessing two worlds that do not meet.”
These are the same bishops now being asked to “include generously.” They know exactly what that inclusion would require — and they know the Vatican II clause is there precisely because of what they themselves reported.
Closing Thoughts
I want to be clear. Pope Leo is not Pope Francis. He has a different personality, a different rhetorical style, and (at least so far) a different approach to governance. To a certain extent, he does seem to be deliberately ambiguous in some of his words and gestures. It is not unreasonable for traditionalists to hear encouragement in some of his words. But encouragement in tone is not the same as change in policy, let alone a reversal of his predecessor. Repeatedly in this early part of his papacy, Francis’s conservative and traditionalist critics have engaged in a great deal of wishful thinking about what they believe Pope Leo is hinting regarding the future of the Tridentine Mass. As of today, Traditionis Custodes remains the law of the Church, and the Parolin letter contains no language that would modify it.
Meanwhile, the same week this letter was published, Pope Leo appointed Bishop Heiner Wilmer — who was sharply criticized by the Catholic right when he was rumored to be on the short list for CDF Prefect in 2022 — to lead the Church in Münster, the largest diocese in Germany. He also wrote a warm letter to Archbishop Sarah Mullally upon her installation as the first woman Archbishop of Canterbury. These actions do not fit the narrative of a pope correcting his predecessor’s progressive legacy. His episcopal appointments, his affirmations of Catholic social teaching and a consistent ethic of life, and his repeated denunciations of US immigration and foreign policies point to a papacy that is very much in line with the major priorities of Pope Francis.
What we have witnessed this month in English-language Catholic media is not journalism. It is wishcasting — the projection of the hopes of US and British conservative Catholics onto a pope who has given them very little to work with, filtered through a language barrier that they have not bothered to cross.
Note
[1] Some have suggested that Pope Benedict’s decision to allow two forms of the rite to exist side-by-side for an extended period is in accord with Vatican II, but it seems more likely he borrowed the idea from Klaus Gamber, an outspoken German critic of the liturgical reform, who made a very similar proposal in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background. Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote a foreword to the French edition.
Image: The amphitheater in Lourdes where the bishops of France meet for their plenary assembly. Vatican Media.
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. In addition to his work for the site, his writing has appeared in America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, US Catholic, The Irish Catholic, Catholic Outlook, The Synodal Times, and other Catholic publications. He has been quoted in The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The New York Post, and other mainstream outlets on Catholic affairs. He previously co-hosted the Field Hospital podcast with Jeannie Gaffigan and The Debrief podcast. Before founding Where Peter Is, he worked in communications at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Climate Covenant. He is married with four children.
Popular Posts