Pope Leo XIV affirms celibacy for priests, demands ‘firm' action on sex abuse
ROME (AP) — Pope Leo XIV affirmed Wednesday that priests must be celibate and insisted that bishops take 'firm and decisive' action to deal with sex abusers, as he gave marching orders Wednesday to the world's Catholic hierarchs.
Leo met in St. Peter's Basilica with about 400 bishops and cardinals from 38 countries attending this week's special Holy Year celebrations for clergy. A day after he gave an uplifting message of encouragement to young seminarians, Leo offered a more comprehensive outline of what bishops must do to lead their flocks.
It's an issue the former Cardinal Robert Prevost would have long pondered given his role as the prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Bishops. In that job from 2023 until his election in May, the Chicago-born Prevost vetted bishop nominations for Pope Francis, identifying the type of leader who would further Francis' view of a church where all are welcome and dialogue is the decisive form of governance.
History's first American pope reaffirmed Wednesday that the primary role of bishops is to forge unity in his diocese among clergy and to be close to his flock in word and deed. Bishops must live in poverty and simplicity, generously opening their homes to all and acting as a father figure and brother to his priests, Leo said.
'In his personal life, he must be detached from the pursuit of wealth and from forms of favoritism based on money or power,' he said.
Bishops must remain celibate 'and present to all the authentic image of the church, holy and chaste in her members as in her head,' he said.
Referring to cases of abuse, he said bishops 'must be firm and decisive in dealing with situations that can cause scandal and with every case of abuse, especially involving minors, and fully respect the legislation currently in force.'
It was the second time in a week that Leo has commented publicly on the abuse scandal. On Friday night, in a written statement to a crusading Peruvian journalist who documented gross abuses in a Peruvian Catholic movement, Leo said there should be no tolerance in the Catholic Church for any type of abuse. He identified sexual and spiritual abuses, as well as abuses of authority and power in calling for 'transparent processes' to create a culture of prevention across the church.
Francis, who in many ways placed Leo in position to succeed him, had also reaffirmed celibacy for Latin rite priests while acknowledging it was a discipline of the church, not doctrine, and therefore could change. But he refused appeals from Amazonian bishops to allow married priests to address the priest shortage in the region.
Prevost spent two decades as a missionary and bishop in Peru and would know well those arguments. But on Wednesday he reaffirmed the celibate priesthood as the 'authentic image' of the church.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over funding cuts
A group of 21 Democratic-led states filed a Tuesday lawsuit against the Trump administration for arbitrarily cutting grants allegedly misaligned with an agency's goals. Plaintiffs, which include New York, Illinois and California, said federal agencies have taken on a nationwide 'slash-and-burn campaign' to unlawfully revoke previously awarded funds through a subclause in federal regulations. States' attorneys general allege a clause permitting federal agencies to terminate grants 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' is being misused by the Trump administration. The states said congressionally mandated funds cannot be 'stripped away' to punish jurisdictions that enforce policies disliked by the current administration. States with sanctuary cities, research projects related to environmental protection standards and other measures have lost federal dollars in recent months. 'With the stroke of a pen, federal agencies have deprived States of critical funding they rely on to combat violent crime and protect public safety, equip law enforcement, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct life-saving medical and scientific research, address food insecurity experienced by students in school, ensure access to unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and much more,' plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit. 'Federal agencies have done all of this without any advance notice, without any explanation to the State recipients, and in direct contravention of the will of Congress,' they added. 'The State recipients' sole offense has been that they used the grant funding precisely how they had promised in the grant applications—and as they were instructed by the agencies at the time of the grant award.' 'Leftist AGs and governors who would rather spend their days drafting toothless letters in an attempt to 'stick it to Trump' continue to miss the mark while failing to address real issues impacting their states,' White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told The Hill. 'Every one of these elected officials should focus on serving their constituents, not their party bosses, and work with the President and this administration to enact the agenda the American people overwhelmingly supported.' The lawsuit follows a federal judge's Thursday ruling rejecting the Department of Transportation's attempts to tie state funding to immigration enforcement operations.
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Zelensky Reveals Details of Chat with Trump at NATO Summit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, that he and President Donald Trump discussed potential defense cooperation during a chat at the NATO Summit, including the joint production of drones with American companies and the purchase of U.S. air defense systems. "We can strengthen each other," Zelensky wrote, emphasizing the strategic value of closer military ties. He also noted that he briefed Trump on the current realities of the war in Ukraine. "I presented him with what is really happening on the ground," Zelensky said, adding: "Putin is definitely not winning." This article includes reporting by The Associated Press. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The most pro-American Muslims in the Middle East
Advertisement From another: 'What righteous rage would Americans feel if a Muslim nation overthrew our own elected government and supported a police state for decades?' It's an allegation that critics have been making for years. Barack Obama voiced it in a widely touted speech in Cairo early in his presidency. 'In the middle of the Cold War,' he declared, 'the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.' Other prominent Democrats, including former presidential candidate Advertisement But the historical record isn't nearly so cut-and-dried, as Peter Theroux, a longtime US intelligence officer, 'First, the CIA did not mount or execute a coup. Second, Mossadegh was not democratically elected. Third, the shah was not yet corrupt. Fourth, he was not brought back to power, because he had never left it.' For those whose instinct is always to find fault with US policy, the narrative that the CIA ran roughshod over Iranian democracy to overthrow Mossadegh — who had incurred Western displeasure by nationalizing the country's oil industry — may be irresistible. But it rests on myths. As Ray Takeyh, a leading scholar of Iran and a former senior adviser in the Obama State Department, Mossadegh's fall was driven mostly by deep domestic opposition from Shia clergy, middle class professionals, and the military, which resented the growing authoritarianism of the prime minister. When the shah, acting within his constitutional authority, dismissed Mossadegh, the prime minister reacted by arresting the man who brought him the news. It's true that the American and British governments assisted the anti-Mossadegh forces, but they didn't conjure them into existence. Mossadegh's downfall in 1953 was chiefly the result of his own mismanagement and the mobilization of powerful Iranian factions — not a nefarious CIA-engineered plot. Advertisement But even if you disregard all that, even if you regard Mossadegh as a liberal Iranian hero undermined by Anglo-American perfidy, there is a much bigger problem with the 'But Mossadegh!' argument. It's illogical. The goal of Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution of 1979 was to transform Iran into a nation governed by strict sharia law under a Supreme Leader — himself — and to impose a radical Islamist dictatorship throughout society. The new regime suppressed liberal nationalists, including many who had admired Mossadegh, and dismantled the country's remaining democratic institutions. Khomeini's theocracy didn't come to vindicate Mossadegh; it came to crush every liberal value he embraced. Moreover, the new Islamic republic's hatred for America had nothing to do with 1953 and everything to do with its own revolutionary ideology. The mullahs who seized power saw American liberalism, secularism, and friendship toward Israel as a cultural and religious threat. That is why it encouraged throngs to chant 'Death to America!' and why it has repeatedly facilitated deadly attacks on Americans. But the most compelling refutation of the claim that the Tehran government's implacable anti-Americanism is rooted in the 1953 ouster of Mossadegh is that Iranian grassroots public opinion is If 1953 had sown the deep cultural resentment that leftist critics imagine, the Iranian street ought to be a hotbed of hatred for Americans. Instead, numerous indicators of public opinion within Iran, formal and informal, show the opposite: Ordinary Iranians admire American society and people, even if they sometimes resent US policy. 'A 2009 World Public Opinion poll found that 51 percent of Iranians hold a favorable opinion of Americans, a number consistent with other polls, meaning that Americans are more widely liked in Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East,' Advertisement Two years later, Iranians active on social media have made a point of expressing warmth toward Americans, especially in recent years. A notable example occurred in 2017, when protests against the travel ban imposed during the first Trump administration prompted Iranian users to launch an online There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence — including videotaped scenes in which Advertisement For more than 40 years, the Iranian government has denounced the United States as 'the Great Satan' and Israel as 'the little Satan' and vowed to ' The toppling of Mossadegh in 1953 may have been a significant chapter in modern Iranian history, but it has little do with how ordinary Iranians today regard the nation that its Islamist oppressors have been cursing for more than four decades. Like the people of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, the people of Iran see America — If the current US-Israeli strikes on Iran succeed in destroying the mullahs' nuclear weapons infrastructure that will be a good thing. But it will be a great thing if the attacks pave the way to ending the evil regime that has ruled Iran since 1979, and at long last open the door to a brighter, freer, happier future for the long-suffering people of Iran. Advertisement This is adapted from the current , Jeff Jacoby's weekly newsletter. To subscribe to Arguable, visit . Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
