Traditionalist bishop who fought Communion in hand still has no gravestone after 7 years

(LifeSiteNews) — Seven years after his death, Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise’s grave still has no headstone. The Argentine Capuchin, known worldwide for his steadfast defense of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, is buried in the cemetery of San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy – the town famous for the convent where St. Pio of Pietrelcina lived. In place of a marble inscription, only a simple paper funeral notice, taped over his grave at his 2019 burial, marks the spot.

The situation is as unusual as it is symbolically significant for a bishop who left a lasting mark on contemporary liturgical discourse. To understand why his memorial remains incomplete, and what it would take to restore it, LifeSiteNews spoke with Italian journalist Simone Ortolani, who has spent recent months investigating the case with the hope of bringing the matter to the attention of Catholics worldwide.

As an independent associate producer, Ortolani has produced documentaries on prominent figures of the Italian Church, including Cardinal Ersilio Tonini and the Servant of God Father Guglielmo Gattiani, broadcast by the Catholic television network TV2000. He is also the editor and author of several books devoted to spirituality and the liturgy.

In closely following the case of Juan Rodolfo Laise’s tomb, Ortolani aims to help determine responsibility and bring forth a resolution to the ongoing injustice.

LifeSiteNews: Mr. Ortolani, thank you for granting us this interview. To begin with, how did your journalistic interest in the case of Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise’s tomb arise?

Simone Ortolani: The matter was brought to my attention by my friend, attorney Francesco Patruno, a highly respected expert in canon law, whom I thank for involving me in this case. Patruno had made a pilgrimage to San Giovanni Rotondo, following in the footsteps of the figures historically closest to Padre Pio: his parents, siblings, first spiritual directors, and long-standing spiritual daughters. During his visit to the town cemetery, where these authentic figures of holiness who grew up in the shadow of the great stigmatist friar of Gargano are buried, he noticed, upon entering the Capuchin chapel, the state of neglect and impermanence in which the Argentine bishop’s tomb remains. He immediately sensed that behind that simple sheet of paper affixed to the white gravestone lay a more complex ecclesiastical story worthy of being told.

LSN: First of all, may I ask who Juan Rodolfo Laise was?

He was one of the leading figures of the South American episcopate and of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. Born in Buenos Aires in 1926 and died in 2019 at the age of 93, he governed the Diocese of San Luis for 30 years, from 1971 to 2001, with apostolic firmness, doctrinal rigor, and solid theological formation. Upon becoming bishop emeritus, he chose to spend his final years in San Giovanni Rotondo – a return to his Capuchin roots – where he served until the end as a confessor and spiritual director to thousands of pilgrims, especially Spanish-speaking ones.

LSN: Laise was an Argentine bishop. Are his relations with Bergoglio, before and after the latter’s election to the papacy, well known?

It should first be clarified that there was never any personal or direct clash between the two prelates, or at least none that is documented by reliable sources. Their paths crossed during the debates of the Argentine Episcopal Conference (CEA), where an institutional and theological disagreement emerged, reflecting two opposing ecclesiological and liturgical visions. The point of greatest tension came in April 1996, when the majority of the CEA – driven by its progressive wing, including the then Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires, Bishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio – requested from the Holy See an indult for Communion in the hand. Bishop Laise opposed the request, considering it a concession fraught with risks for the faith of ordinary Catholics. This divergence remained evident even after Cardinal Bergoglio’s election to the papacy.

LSN: What, concretely, did Laise do to oppose the practice of Communion in the hand?

He acted with juridical rigor and pastoral determination. When the Holy See granted the indult to Argentina, he applied the provisions of the universal legislation scrupulously, recalling that, according to the instruction Memoriale Domini (1969) and the subsequent Dominicae Cenae (1980) of John Paul II, the universal law of the Church remained Communion on the tongue, whereas Communion in the hand was merely an indult, the application of which depended upon the prudent judgment of the local ordinary.

Exercising this faculty, he prohibited the practice within the Diocese of San Luis. This was not ideological obstinacy but a decision rooted in a profound ecclesiology: to safeguard the dogma of the Real Presence and protect the faithful’s right to receive the Eucharist in the most reverent manner possible – a position he defended in his book La Comunión en la mano: Documentos e historia (“Communion in the Hand: Documents and History”).

LSN: What theological reasons motivated this firmness regarding the Eucharistic liturgy? Was his position an isolated one?

Quite the contrary. It was, and remains, a position shared by highly authoritative figures within the Church. Among them was Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who stated: “Everywhere I go in the whole world, the thing that saddens me most is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” In addition, I would mention the positions of Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Cardinal Robert Sarah (former prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) – expressed also in the excellent foreword he wrote for Father Federico Bortoli’s book La distribuzione della Comunione sulla mano (“The Distribution of Communion in the Hand”) – and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, among others. All of them have reaffirmed that the manner of approaching the Eucharist is not merely a question of external form but directly affects the faith itself, according to the principle lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”).

The reasons advanced by Laise in favor of Communion on the tongue rest upon several complementary arguments. The first concerns safeguarding the dogma of the Real Presence: Catholic theology teaches that Christ is truly present in every particle, even the smallest fragments. Receiving Communion in the hand increases the risk that microscopic particles may remain on the palms or fingers and be lost, whereas distribution on the tongue, together with the use of the communion paten, reduces this risk. There is also the preservation of the sense of the sacred: physical signs help us understand invisible realities, and if the Eucharist is handled like ordinary food, there is a danger – especially among children or less well-formed faithful – of a gradual secularization of the gesture. Receiving the Host on the tongue, by contrast, expresses the attitude of one who receives a gift rather than taking grace for oneself.

Closely connected with this is the sacredness of consecrated hands: Tradition has reserved direct contact with the Eucharistic species to the hands of the priest, anointed with Sacred Chrism, and this distinction between the ordained minister and the lay faithful points to the transcendence of the Eucharistic Mystery. Finally, on the more strictly canonical level, the primacy of universal law over an exception remains: Communion on the tongue is still the ordinary norm of the Church, whereas Communion in the hand originated as a localized exception granted through an indult. For bishops more closely attached to Tradition, the exception should never become the prevailing practice at the expense of the norm.

Bishop Laise understood all this well in advance. His was not an abstract rigidity but rather love for the Eucharist and a pastoral desire to preserve the faithful from a loss of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament. For this reason, his stand is still described today as prophetic.

LSN: What documentary evidence have you gathered so far, and, at the present stage, what facts may be regarded as established?

The facts on the ground are clear and present a striking contrast. Years after his death, Bishop Laise’s tomb still lacks a complete gravestone, bearing only a paper funeral notice protected by a plastic covering that has by now yellowed with age, affixed at the time of his burial in 2019. By contrast, within the same chapel, the graves of friars who died in subsequent years have all been completed in the ordinary manner with marble slabs and permanent inscriptions. This disparity is an objectively verifiable fact.

LSN: Are the administrative responsibilities already clear, or does the situation remain uncertain?

I cannot answer that with precision. The matter appears, at least in theory, to be divided among three parties: the Diocese of San Luis in Argentina (which bears the canonical and moral responsibility for preserving the memory of its bishop), the Capuchin Province of Foggia (which hosts his mortal remains in its cemetery chapel in San Giovanni Rotondo), and the municipal cemetery administration of the Town of San Giovanni Rotondo. I believe this threefold division has created a deadlock of responsibilities: each party can claim to be waiting for another to take the next step, and the situation consequently remained frozen.

LSN: It is certainly a curious coincidence that the situation remained frozen precisely in Laise’s case and not in others. During your investigation, have you received either official or unofficial explanations from the authorities involved? If so, how convincing do you find them?

Not in this particular case. In the past I have had professional contacts with the Capuchin Order in other contexts, and I have always come away with the impression of an institution characterized by integrity, rigor, and genuine human and spiritual sensitivity. For that very reason, I trust that the religious province will take responsibility for the situation, giving the decisive impetus needed to unblock the matter and restore to Bishop Laise the burial he deserves.

LSN: In your judgment, can this situation be attributed simply to bureaucratic delay, or do there appear to be indications pointing toward other motivations?

To preserve professional balance, it is important to avoid conspiratorial interpretations unsupported by objective evidence. That said, a journalist must also know how to read silence. Throughout the history of the Church, administrative inertia has at times been employed as an indirect means of diminishing memories considered inconvenient or divisive.

Bishop Laise was a countercultural voice against certain forms of liturgical progressivism and was regarded, more or less, as an “enemy of Pope Francis” during a period in which, generally speaking, there was no shortage of episodes of adulation, idealization, and servility toward the Argentine pontiff. The hypothesis that this stalemate reflects a certain institutional reluctance to honor his memory publicly therefore remains logically plausible, even though it has not been demonstrated.

LSN: To what extent do you believe Bishop Laise’s ecclesial profile, well known for his positions on the liturgy and Communion on the tongue, influenced the perception of this affair?

To a decisive extent. Laise was not just any bishop; he was a point of reference for Catholics attached to the liturgical Tradition. In 2015, in Rome, he inaugurated the Fourth Populus Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage by presiding over its Pontifical Vespers. When a shepherd of such stature remains for years without a completed gravestone, traditionalist circles naturally tend to interpret this as a reflection of a broader climate of marginalization. The unfinished tomb thus becomes, in the common perception, the symbol of a posthumous exile.

LSN: Have you found interest or concern on the part of the Catholic world, particularly among those attached to Tradition, or does substantial indifference still prevail?

Until quite recently, Catholics attached to Tradition were unaware of the matter. Awareness and discussion are only now beginning to emerge, after attorney Patruno raised the issue and brought it to my attention.

LSN: Are there comparable precedents involving bishops or religious whose burial remained incomplete for such a long period? If so, what differences distinguish the Laise case?

Ecclesiastical history does record cases of prolonged provisional burials, but only under particular circumstances: legal disputes over testamentary property or an imminent transfer of the remains in view of a cause for beatification. In Laise’s case, none of these conditions appear to exist. There is no complex monumental work requiring substantial funding, but simply an ordinary cemetery inscription on an existing marble slab. That is precisely where the anomaly lies: the delay has occurred in the Capuchin cemetery of San Giovanni Rotondo, a place historically renowned for the orderliness and care devoted to the remains of its religious.

LSN: What are the next steps in your investigation, and which aspects do you still consider crucial to clarify?

Three questions remain central. Does a gravestone inscription project already exist, and has it already been paid for? Which of the three entities involved has in fact halted the process? Is there a problem concerning the epitaph or the inscription to be engraved on the marble, or is the issue simply one of funding and the lack of available financial resources? The objective of the investigation is to compel the authorities to emerge from the ambiguity of silence.

LSN: If this matter were ultimately resolved positively through the completion of the gravestone, would you regard it merely as the solution of an administrative issue, or also as a public recognition of Bishop Laise’s ecclesial legacy?

The marble gravestone already exists; what has not been completed is the inscription, unlike the other graves of the Capuchin friars within the chapel. That being said, completing it would first and foremost be an act of justice owed to the memory of a pious and devoted Capuchin bishop. To continue postponing the completion of the inscription amounts to inflicting a kind of posthumous penalty upon a shepherd who devoted his life to defending the holiness of the sacraments, thereby fueling the suspicion that he is being penalized for having been out of step with Pope Francis because of their earlier disagreements in Argentina and his traditional positions on liturgical matters. Personally, I do not wish to believe that this hypothesis is well founded. I hope instead that this is merely a case of bureaucratic neglect, albeit a serious one, which should be remedied as soon as possible.