Ash Wednesday 2026 - Pope Leo's Message

Pope Leo has given this message for Lent 2026 (source: here). OTOH I think it worth posting in full as part of sharing a message for all Christians. OTOH doing so is handy for me to access this important message, as I prepare to preach on Wednesday night in the Catholic Pro Cathedral here in Christchurch!

Dear brothers and sisters, 

Lent is a time in which the Church, guided by a sense of maternal care, invites us to place the mystery of God back in the center of our lives, in order to find renewal in our faith and keep our hearts from being consumed by the anxieties and distractions of daily life. 

Every path towards conversion begins by allowing the word of God to touch our hearts and welcoming it with a docile spirit. There is a relationship between the word, our acceptance of it and the transformation it brings about.  For this reason, the Lenten journey is a welcome opportunity to heed the voice of the Lord and renew our commitment to following Christ, accompanying him on the road to Jerusalem, where the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection will be fulfilled.

Listening 

This year, I would first like to consider the importance of making room for the word through listening. The willingness to listen is the first way we demonstrate our desire to enter into relationship with someone.  

In revealing himself to Moses in the burning bush, God himself teaches us that listening is one of his defining characteristics: “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry” (Ex 3:7). Hearing the cry of the oppressed is the beginning of a story of liberation in which the Lord calls Moses, sending him to open a path of salvation for his children who have been reduced to slavery. 

Our God is one who seeks to involve us. Even today he shares with us what is in his heart.  Because of this, listening to the word in the liturgy teaches us to listen to the truth of reality. 

In the midst of the many voices present in our personal lives and in society, Sacred Scripture helps us to recognize and respond to the cry of those who are anguished and suffering. In order to foster this inner openness to listening, we must allow God to teach us how to listen as he does. We must recognize that “the condition of the poor is a cry that, throughout human history, constantly challenges our lives, societies, political and economic systems, and, not least, the Church.” [1]

Fasting 

If Lent is a time for listening, fasting is a concrete way to prepare ourselves to receive the word of God. Abstaining from food is an ancient ascetic practice that is essential on the path of conversion. Precisely because it involves the body, fasting makes it easier to recognize what we “hunger” for and what we deem necessary for our sustenance. Moreover, it helps us to identify and order our “appetites,” keeping our hunger and thirst for justice alive and freeing us from complacency. Thus, it teaches us to pray and act responsibly towards our neighbor. 

With spiritual insight, Saint Augustine helps us to understand the tension between the present moment and the future fulfilment that characterizes this custody of the heart. He observes that: “In the course of earthly life, it is incumbent upon men and women to hunger and thirst for justice, but to be satisfied belongs to the next life. Angels are satisfied with this bread, this food.  The human race, on the other hand, hungers for it; we are all drawn to it in our desire. This reaching out in desire expands the soul and increases its capacity.” [2] Understood in this way, fasting not only permits us to govern our desire, purifying it and making it freer, but also to expand it, so that it is directed towards God and doing good.

However, in order to practice fasting in accordance with its evangelical character and avoid the temptation that leads to pride, it must be lived in faith and humility. It must be grounded in communion with the Lord, because “those who are unable to nourish themselves with the word of God do not fast properly.” [3] As a visible sign of our inner commitment to turn away from sin and evil with the help of grace, fasting must also include other forms of self-denial aimed at helping us to acquire a more sober lifestyle, since “austerity alone makes the Christian life strong and authentic.” [4] 

In this regard, I would like to invite you to a very practical and frequently unappreciated form of abstinence: that of refraining from words that offend and hurt our neighbor. Let us begin by disarming our language, avoiding harsh words and rash judgement, refraining from slander and speaking ill of those who are not present and cannot defend themselves. Instead, let us strive to measure our words and cultivate kindness and respect in our families, among our friends, at work, on social media, in political debates, in the media and in Christian communities. In this way, words of hatred will give way to words of hope and peace. 

Together 

Finally, Lent emphasizes the communal aspect of listening to the word and fasting. The Bible itself underlines this dimension in multiple ways. For example, the Book of Nehemiah recounts how the people gathered to listen to the public reading of the Law, preparing to profess their faith and worship through fasting, so as to renew the covenant with God (cf. 9:1-3). 

Likewise, our parishes, families, ecclesial groups and religious communities are called to undertake a shared journey during Lent, in which listening to the word of God, as well as to the cry of the poor and of the earth, becomes part of our community life, and fasting a foundation for sincere repentance.  In this context, conversion refers not only to one’s conscience, but also to the quality of our relationships and dialogue. It means allowing ourselves to be challenged by reality and recognizing what truly guides our desires — both within our ecclesial communities and as regards humanity’s thirst for justice and reconciliation. 

Dear friends, let us ask for the grace of a Lent that leads us to greater attentiveness to God and to the least among us. Let us ask for the strength that comes from the type of fasting that also extends to our use of language, so that hurtful words may diminish and give way to a greater space for the voice of others. Let us strive to make our communities places where the cry of those who suffer finds welcome, and listening opens paths towards liberation, making us ready and eager to contribute to building a civilization of love. I impart my heartfelt blessing upon all of you and your Lenten journey. 

From the Vatican, 5 February 2026, Memorial of Saint Agatha, Virgin and Martyr LEO PP. XIV ____________________________________________________ 

[1] Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te (4 October 2025), 9. 

[2] Augustine The Usefulness of Fasting, 1, 1. 

[3] Benedict XVI, Catechesis (9 March 2011). 

[4] Paul VI, Catechesis (8 February1978).

Waitangi 2026

 

(Photo taken during 9 am service, Friday 6 February 2026, at Waitangi, Bay of Islands.)

I have visited Waitangi twice before - the place that is - but never for 6 February celebrations and commemorations. This year I targeted being at Waitangi for 6 February and was able to be there by 2 pm on Thursday 5 February, in time for a powhiri [formal welcome] for church leaders. Ideally one would be at Waitangi two or three days out from 6 February itself as various meetings and events take place, including a hui [forum] with leading politicians. This year's politicians hui was taking place as I arrived at Waitangi.

On Waitangi Day itself there is a lot going on, from events involving waka (canoes), food stalls, events/meetings focusing on specific themes or issues, a traditional naval parade around the middle of the day with 21 gun salute from a naval vessel moored out in the bay, and generally a fun and festive day with thousands of people. Most importantly, from a spiritual perspective, there is a well attended Dawn Service at 5 am and another service (similar but not exactly the same) at 9 am. I took part in both services (being invited to share in leading prayers in each service) and it was a privilege to do so.

A key figure in the preparation and leading of these services is Bishop Kito Pikaahu, Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau. I was glad to support Bishop Kito this year.

There are many things to be said each Waitangi Day and there is no shortage of news articles and opinion pieces to look up, read and reflect on, with this year being no exception. In what I offer as my reflection here I am attempting to say something I have not seen others say. I see no need to either repeat or to comment on what others have said, especially about the political "temperature" of this year's events, meetings and services.

Is Waitangi a "thin" place?

I am a sucker for natural beauty and ona previous visit to the Waitangi treaty grounds, I was blown away by the immense beauty of the location and its buildings. On any reckoning, it is a place of beauty: land meets sea meets trees meets historica houses. On Friday morning, sitting through two services, as part of wider celebrations of Te Tiriti, I was struck by the "thinness" of the place - a sense that heaven meets earth there as much as land meets sea. Althought it is 186 years since the signing in 1840, it felt like the signing was only last year, and somewhere nearby were the missionaries and chiefs, the Busbys and Hobsons who signed the treaty. Might we call the Waitangi treaty grounds one of NZ's "sacred spaces"? Can we properly deem that on 6 February 1840 a spiritual compact was formed between two peoples, even though the language is focused on more material matters of land, sea and sky, and governship and chieftainship?

Te Tiriti matters, not only as a document but as a cultural pivot

Moving through the remainder of the day, which was literally moving through throngs of many groups of friends and families as (I suppose) more than 10,000 people flocked to Waitangi, Maori and Pakeha, I was struck by the thought of how - notwithstanding many shortfalls and significant work-ons - we happily mingle, Maori and Pakeha, in a cultural, social, relational mixing which flows from 6 February 1840. Our history is different because of 1840. Different from the histories of, say, Australia, Canada, the United States of America, as well as of New Caledonia and Tahiti. Even though we have had long periods of neglect of Te Teriti and continue to have raging controversies over its active meaning for us in present times, nevertheless, Maori and Pakeha relationships have always been on a different footing to relationships in other countries between first peoples and new settlers. We might have been different as a nation but we are not, and that is due to Te Tiriti. Whatever we make of the wording of Te Tiriti, its signing is a pivotal moment in the development of our distinctive Kiwi culture.

Church-state relationships in NZ are ambiguous but the church was "there" when Te Tiriti was signed

Part of Bishop Stephen Lowe's sermon emphasised the role Bishop Pompallier played as one of the religious overseers to the process of Te Tiriti's wording being finalised and signed off. Indeed, if I have my facts correct, it was Pompallier as much as anyone whose influence pushed for the "Article 4" (verbalised but not written into the Treaty) which promised protection for differing religions in NZ. Other missionaries were involved, notably the Williams' brothers from CMS. What might the Treaty have been if the missionaries, Anglican, Catholic and Wesleyan had not been around? Perhaps more importantly, what might the Treaty have been without some specifically evangelical Christian minds at work in the British government and bureaucracy? We have never been a church-state and there is no formally defined state-church, yet our history records the church as being present for and in the background to this pivotal moment. As Christians we can be proud of that presence, and we can and should celebrate God at work on 6 February 1840. We also need to continue to assert the importance and appropriateness of the Dawn Service (and any later services) as vital to celebrations of Te Tiriti as anchored into the historical fact of the missionaries' role.

A Note on John's Gospel and History

I have enjoyed the discussion in the comments to the post below about John's Gospel, a discussion which has ranged over a number of questions concerning the history John tells and the theology expressed through that telling. Is John's theological history more theology than history?

I want to offer an observation or two here but am not specifically relating these observations to any observations in the comments below as I do not have time this week - much travelling about to take place - to fully engage in a fascinating conversation (and a respectful one too - thank you commenters).

Observation 1

John's Gospel, whatever we make of the cleansing of the temple (is John's "early" cleansing a shift in time or a second cleansing to the Synoptics' late cleansing?) or the day of Jesus' crucifixion (which differs by a day from the Synoptics' version) or any other anomaly we seeby comparing John with the Synoptics, is a historical account in at least this way: John's narrative outline is the Synoptics' outline in respect of the big events: baptism, miracles/signs and teaching/discourses, entry into Jerusalem at the end of his life, debate and dispute, a last supper with disciples, betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial and resurrection. That is, when John talks about the Word being made flesh (1:14), he is talking about the Word being made Jesus of Nazareth in the same way as the Synoptics. This man called Jesus and no other man called by any other name, and this man Jesus has things happen to him and is involved in events as all the gospels recount. John's Gospel is historical in the same way as the Synoptics regarding most of the significant events of Jesus' life. Whatever spiritual or heavenly insights we glean from John such as about Jesus as the apocalyptic revealer-agent of God, descended to us and ascending back to the Father (see end of John 1, John 3), with all the mystical overtones involved in such passages, everything in John's Gospel is about the man Jesus, just as the Synoptics are.

Observation 2

John's Gospel can be historical (per observation 1 above) without implication that the way it tells history satisfies expectations we may have for consistency. If the cleansing of the temple according to John is placed chronologically differently to the Synoptics, that is awkward to explain because it means there is an inconsistency between the Johannine and Synoptical histories of Jesus. We don't like inconsistencies between histories. But what if there is an explanation other than that "there must have been two cleansings, one told by John, one told by the Synoptics"? What if, in a different world and in a different time, that way of telling history, driven by wish to make a theological point or three, was accepted as "okay"? And, if that is so, it may undermine our regard for John as history and not exactly uplift the mana of John as theology. But is the "our" here as important as understanding the "he": John wrote the gospel not us!

That is enough for now. I am off on a roadie to Waitangi. Next week, see my report on events there. Might it be a theological history of what happened in a deeply historical place, over which there is much arguing as to the meaning and significance thereunto :).