The first false note of Leo’s 12-day visit to South America from November 6 to 17 has been struck even before his arrival.
Cardinal Daniel Sturla of Uruguay has ordered the suspension of Novus Ordo Masses throughout the Archdiocese of Montevideo during much of this upcoming weekend, apparently to encourage and “facilitate” participation in Leo’s visit to the country.
According to the order, all Saturday evening and Sunday morning Masses in the archdiocese are canceled, while Friday evening Masses are left to the discretion of individual clergy, with Sunday afternoon Masses allowed to proceed as usual.
Dubious directive
Sturla’s decree is marred by a number of troubling potential consequences and implications, some of them downright absurd.
For example, one of the most problematic is that it makes no provision for a general dispensation from the Sunday Mass obligation, despite canceling the Masses that most Novus Ordo Catholics would ordinarily attend to fulfill that obligation.
While Catholics remain bound by the Sunday obligation, under pain of serious sin, their customary opportunities to fulfill it have been substantially restricted by this ill-conceived order. Sunday afternoon Masses, which will continue as usual, are not necessarily a practical alternative for everyone, especially the elderly, the infirm, families with young children, and those lacking transportation.
Ironically, as influential traditional Catholic Cullum Smith noted on X, as the Novus Ordo masses are canceled, the country’s “lone SSPX chapel” will still offer the traditional Mass.
The logic of the order is also questionable when considering Leo’s itinerary. On Saturday evening, Leo is scheduled to attend a prayer vigil at Montevideo’s Centenario Stadium, but his Sunday morning Mass will take place more than 100 miles away, outside the Archdiocese of Montevideo.
To suppress ordinary Sunday Masses across the capital’s archdiocese, when no papal Mass is scheduled there that morning, makes no sense.
Troubling theological implications
The Council of Trent, in Session XXII, solemnly reaffirmed that the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice, in which the same Christ who offered Himself upon Calvary is offered sacramentally in an un-bloody manner. It is therefore not “just another religious activity” that can be played fast and loose with.
The Dispatch
To elevate a papal visit above this reality smacks of arrogance. That being said, considering the Synodal Church’s worship of man, this is not surprising at all.
Click here to support Integrity’s independent Catholic journalism!
Those involved in this poor decision seem to have forgotten that the Roman Pontiff’s office exists to safeguard the faith and strengthen the Church in her divine mission, not to elevate the papal claimant above the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
A true bishop, especially a true pope, is entrusted with the care of souls, the preservation of sound doctrine, and the administration of the sacraments. His authority doesn’t exist for the mere organization of ecclesiastical occasions.
In Acerbo Nimis, Pope St. Pius X emphasized the grave responsibilities of pastors towards the souls committed to their charge, in keeping with the principle salus animarum suprema lex — the salvation of souls is the supreme law. This means that while a bishop does have the authority to make decisions regulating Mass schedules, that authority must always be exercised with due regard for the spiritual needs of his flock.
In the Montevideo case, the legitimate justification for an archdiocese-wide suspension of Masses can easily be argued to be absent. This decision also comes across as being more concerned with Leo’s celebrity and the manufacturing of crowds than with the spiritual welfare of the faithful. It is highly regrettable that, instead of strengthening the sacramental life of the Uruguayan faithful, the papal visit is now disrupting it.
Leo, Sturla, and the hierarchy of the Archdiocese of Montevideo needs to be reminded that it is not the Church’s mission to assemble the largest possible crowds around ecclesiastical dignitaries.
Leo’s visit surrounded by scandal
While on the subject of false notes, another one that keeps ringing, albeit faintly in the background, concerns the controversies surrounding Leo’s South American past.
Uncomfortable and inconvenient questions continue to linger about Leo’s handling of clerical abuse allegations during his tenure as Bishop of Chiclayo, Peru. Three women accused Father Eleuterio Vásquez González, commonly known as “Fr. Lute,” of sexually abusing them as minors. Then-Bishop Robert Prevost did initiate a canonical investigation and impose restrictions on the priest, but the complainants challenged the adequacy of the proceedings.
Msgr. Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue, who briefly represented the women as their canon lawyer, has publicly supported their allegations and questioned Prevost’s handling of the case. He has spoken to Integrity co-founder Stephen Kokx previously. This raises questions about whether the investigation was merely a half-hearted public relations exercise intended to pacify the victims while covering up the abuse.
The controversy acquired a further dimension with the publication of Santiago Roncagliolo’s The Shepherd and the Wolves, which identified Leo XIV’s private secretary, Fr. Edgard Rimaycuna, as a “disciple” of Fr. Lute.
With Leo now returning to the continent where these controversies originated, questions concerning his pastoral judgment and accountability, are casting long shadows.
