A ny.gov website belongs to an official New York State government organization.
Secure ny.gov websites use HTTPS
A lock icon or https:// means you’ve safely connected to a ny.gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
April 21, 2025
Albany, NY
Photos of Governor Hochul and His Holiness Pope Francis Are Available Here
“I join Catholics around the world in mourning the loss of His Holiness Pope Francis.
“Pope Francis embodied the values Christ taught us every day: helping the less fortunate, calling for peace and ensuring every person is treated as a child of God. He led with compassion, humility and inclusivity, emphasizing that God does not disown any of his children. He reminded us of our collective responsibility to protect this beautiful planet, our shared home. And he was a man of peace, and a fighter for social and economic justice.
“Last year I was honored to be invited to the Vatican to deliver remarks at a Pontifical Summit to discuss climate change. His Holiness delivered a remarkable address calling on the world to save our planet and take care of the most vulnerable in our society. He then spoke individually to each of the leaders assembled, and blessed Bill and I on the occasion of our 40th wedding anniversary. It is a moment I will never forget.
“We should all strive to carry on his legacy. May His Holiness rest in peace.”
You are leaving the official State of New York website.
The State of New York does not imply approval of the listed destinations, warrant the accuracy of any information set out in those destinations, or endorse any opinions expressed therein. External web sites operate at the direction of their respective owners who should be contacted directly with questions regarding the content of these sites.
A mourner holds a portrait of Pope Francis at the Basílica de San José de Flores in Buenos Aires, a church where the pope worshipped in his youth.AP Photo/Gustavo Garello
Pope Francis, whose papacy blended tradition with pushes for inclusion and reform, died on April, 21, 2025 – Easter Monday – at the age of 88.
Here we spotlight five stories from The Conversation’s archive about his roots, faith, leadership and legacy.
1. A Jesuit pope
Jorge Mario Bergoglio became a pope of many firsts: the first modern pope from outside Europe, the first whose papal name honors St. Francis of Assisi, and the first Jesuit – a Catholic religious order founded in the 16th century.
Those Jesuit roots shed light on Pope Francis’ approach to some of the world’s most pressing problems, argues Timothy Gabrielli, a theologian at the University of Dayton.
Gabrielli highlights the Jesuits’ “Spiritual Exercises,” which prompt Catholics to deepen their relationship with God and carefully discern how to respond to problems. He argues that this spiritual pattern of looking beyond “presenting problems” to the deeper roots comes through in Francis’ writings, shaping the pope’s response to everything from climate change and inequality to clerical sex abuse.
Early on in his papacy, Francis famously told an interviewer, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Over the years, he has repeatedly called on Catholics to love LGBTQ+ people and spoken against laws that target them.
An LGBTQ couple embrace after a pastoral worker blesses them at a Catholic church in Germany, in defiance of practices approved by Rome. Andreas Rentz/Getty Images
But “Francis’ inclusiveness is not actually radical,” explains Steven Millies, a scholar at the Catholic Theological Union. “His remarks generally correspond to what the church teaches and calls on Catholics to do,” without changing doctrine – such as that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Rather, Francis’ comments “express what the Catholic Church says about human dignity,” Millies writes. “Francis is calling on Catholics to take note that they should be concerned about justice for all people.”
At times, Francis did something that was once unthinkable for a pope: He apologized.
He was not the first pontiff to do so, however. Pope John Paul II declared a sweeping “Day of Pardon” in 2000, asking forgiveness for the church’s sins, and Pope Benedict XVI apologized to victims of sexual abuse. During Francis’ papacy, he acknowledged the church’s historic role in Canada’s residential school system for Indigenous children and apologized for abuses in the system.
But what does it mean for a pope to say, “I’m sorry”?
Members of the Assembly of First Nations perform in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican on March 31, 2022, ahead of an Indigenous delegation’s meeting with Pope Francis. AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino
Annie Selak, a theologian at Georgetown University, unpacks the history and significance of papal apologies, which can speak for the entire church, past and present. Often, she notes, statements skirt an actual admission of wrongdoing.
Still, apologies “do say something important,” Selak writes. A pope “apologizes both to the church and on behalf of the church to the world. These apologies are necessary starting points on the path to forgiveness and healing.”
Many popes convene meetings of the Synod of Bishops to advise the Vatican on church governance. But under Francis, these gatherings took on special meaning.
The Synod on Synodality was a multiyear, worldwide conversation where Catholics could share concerns and challenges with local church leaders, informing the topics synod participants would eventually discuss in Rome. What’s more, the synod’s voting members included not only bishops but lay Catholics – a first for the church.
The process “pictures the Catholic Church not as a top-down hierarchy but rather as an open conversation,” writes University of Dayton religious studies scholar Daniel Speed Thompson – one in which everyone in the church has a voice and listens to others’ voices.
In 2024, University of Notre Dame professor David Lantigua had a cup of maté tea with some “porteños,” as people from Buenos Aires are known. They shared a surprising take on the Argentine pope: “a theologian of the tango.”
Pope Francis drinks maté, the national beverage of Argentina, in St. Peter’s Square on his birthday on Dec. 17, 2014. Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images
Francis does love the dance – in 2014, thousands of Catholics tangoed in St. Peter’s Square to honor his birthday. But there’s more to it, Lantigua explains. Francis’ vision for the church was “based on relationships of trust and solidarity,” like a pair of dance partners. And part of his task as pope was to “tango” with all the world’s Catholics, carefully navigating culture wars and an increasingly diverse church.
Francis was “less interested in ivory tower theology than the faith of people on the streets,” where Argentina’s beloved dance was born.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jonathan Hamilton-Diabo, Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream; June Callwood Professor of Social Justice; Special Advisor on Indigenous Initiatives, Victoria University, University of Toronto
Pope Francis reads his statement of apology during a visit with Indigenous peoples at Maskwaci, the former Ermineskin Residential School, July 25, 2022, in Maskwacis, Alberta. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
With the death of Pope Francis, his apology for residential schools in Canada and its impacts needs to be explored nearly three years after it was delivered.
On July 25, 2022, in Maskwacîs, Alta., Pope Francis apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for its role in the residential school system:
This formal apology, and other statements the Pope made in Canada, came seven years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 Final Report. The TRC called for the Pope “to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools.” This was to occur, in Canada, within one year.
It is important to understand circumstances leading to the Pope’s Maskwacîs apology, the reaction at the time and its significance for the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Catholic Church.
I previous explored these themes as the Pope arrived in Canada. I questioned whether the apology would contribute to healing or deepen the distrust in the church. As a Mohawk faculty member raised in Catholicism, who teaches in the fields of theology and education, and has family members who attended these schools, I seek to revisit this question nearly three year later.
Seven years after TRC final report
The Pope’s Maskwacîs apology wasn’t the first time a statement was issued by a member of the Catholic Church. The Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate (the Oblates) apologized in 1991 “for the part we played in the cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious imperialism” which “continually threatened the cultural, linguistic, and religious traditions of the Native peoples.”
The importance of who offers an apology cannot be overstated. In 1998, Jane Stewart, the minister of Indian Affairs of Canada, read a Statement of Reconciliation acknowledging the tragedies experienced by students that attended residential school. Indigenous leaders criticized the statement, sensing a lack of ownership or not taking responsibility. It came across as an expression of regret rather than an apology, and was further rejected, as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien didn’t offer it.
In July 2022, Pope Francis apologized before thousands of people: survivors, their families, community members and leaders. This was significant, considering the length of time for this to materialize.
From this pain, a great amount of anger was directed towards the Catholic Church.
Church buildings were vandalized or set on fire. As many were in First Nations territories, this created tensions, since there were still community members that were part of the Christian tradition.
This outcry reignited attention towards residential schools and the Church. The Vatican invited a delegation of survivors to meet the Pope in March 2022. This visit provided an opportunity for delegation members to share their stories, however its location is important to consider. The meeting took place at the Vatican, potentially escalating the power imbalance between the Church and First Nation, Inuit and Métis delegates.
Some of the impacts of the apology may not be felt instantaneously. It represents hope for a better relationship and a starting point for healing. Without any apology, any measures that the church offered would not gain traction. The lack of a papal apology over many years kept this as the focal point, further damaging the relationship between the Church and many Indigenous people and continuing to erode trust.
Since then, the Catholic Church has undertaken steps to address the harms of the residential schools and contribute to healing process. In 2023, the Vatican released a statement on the Doctrine of Discovery, indicating the Catholic Church was distancing itself from this concept and repudiating it, as it was not part of Church teachings.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the Oblates committed to developing a process for the transparent access to records. Barriers to church records prevented access to documents that could help locate family members who never came home.
In a July 2024 statement, the CCCB said it has “established structures … to support dialogues and foster greater understanding of Indigenous cultural, linguistic and spiritual traditions and values,” and wishes to deepen academic collaborations to understand of the Doctrine of Discovery.
While small advancements in reconciliation activities stemming from Pope Francis’ apology have occurred, the healing journey is long. Distrust is evident as the Church’s sincerity in this process is questioned; however, the apology presents an opportunity to renew relationships and forge new paths together.
The criticisms of how and when it transpired and even what was said will always remain, however the apology was necessary.
It was necessary for many survivors, who felt recognized. It was necessary for the Church to formally acknowledge its responsibility. It was necessary for Pope Francis to offer the apology directly to Indigenous people.
Jonathan Hamilton-Diabo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In my view, each moment represented a move toward reconciliation for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. My focus, for the most part, considers the healing dimension of his visit. At the same time, I understand and acknowledge the limitations of his apology and the deep pain caused because of what was not said.
Dene interpreter and survivor, Jessie Sylvestre, asked to translate Pope Francis’s apology during his visit, was critical and hurt that the Pope read his apology rather than speak it from the heart. She also named feeling “almost sick” and angry after seeing the “very patriarchal” sight of many priests and the Pope. The absence of women in visible leadership roles was noted as disturbing by other Indigenous women also.
Still, for many Indigenous survivors, Pope Francis’s apology was deeply meaningful and I wish to explore that phenomenon here.
I am particularly interested in why some survivors of Residential Schools in Canada are (and remain) Christian in the face of the horrendous treatment they endured at the hands of Christian churches’ representatives.
For perpetrators or those navigating moral responsibility for historic injustices and wrongs, it is much easier to avoid understanding what truly happened and rush to be reconciled. The long delay in the Pope coming to Canada and apologizing to Indigenous survivors after the TRC’s clear call for this in Call to Action No. 58 speaks to feet dragging with regard to the Catholic Church as an institution.
Yet, it is possible to say that by Pope Francis’s deeds and words he consciously and intentionally demonstrated he wanted to face the truth.
He acknowledged that his presence and his apology could trigger survivors but he understood why it was vitally important for many survivors to witness his apology. Many dared to share their burden with him despite the pain that was evoked.
Anishinaabe and Ukrainian writer Patty Krawec, from Lac Seul First Nation, uses the term “unforgetting” by which she means “excavating truth and bringing it to the surface.”
Such “unforgetting” was stirred up by Pope Francis’s presence and his words. For some, it was either consciously or intuitively an important step toward healing and reconciliation.
‘Incarnate’ meaning
Pope Francis, both because he represented the Catholic Church and because of who he is as a person, played a role in excavating deep memories and consoling the pain of “heavy burdens.”
He acknowledged the horrors of what Ojibwe author Richard Wagamese described as “an institution that tried to scrape the Indian off of their insides.” In Maskwacis, Pope Francis thanked Indigenous survivors for telling him “about the heavy burdens that you still bear, for sharing with me these bitter memories,” noting that even though costly, “it is right to remember, because forgetfulness leads to indifference.”
In his book, Method in Theology, Lonergan speaks about different “carriers of meaning.” One such carrier was what he termed “incarnate meaning,” the “meaning of a person, of their way of life, of their words or of their deeds.”
I believe that Pope Francis’ “incarnate meaning” was his most significant legacy in terms of what his visit meant for reconciliation. Certainly, he understood and acknowledged that words are not enough, “firm action and irreversible commitment” are required.
Continued spiritual violence
In the article “The Papal Apology and Seeds of an Action Plan,” Don Bolen, Archbishop of Regina, spells out four areas that witness to where action is taking place: truth telling (in the form of research and archival work), solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, supporting recovery of “Indigenous language and culture” and recognizing the intrinsic value of Indigenous Peoples’ “relationship with the land and environment.”
Yet, in a soon-to-be published paper (titled Spiritual Violence against Indigenous Peoples in Canada: Ethical Guidelines and Calls to Healing), with colleagues, I describe the ongoing “spiritual violence” against Indigenous traditions by Christian churches.
Pope Francis understood the privilege of encounter with the beauty of Indigenous Peoples’ traditions as he so clearly stated in his encyclical letter, Laudato Si’: On Care for our Common Home.
In that letter, he recognizes the deeply rooted values of Indigenous Peoples in relationship with land (which includes water, vegetation, animals — all that lives on and because of the land).
Several times during his visit to Canada, Pope Francis spoke of that special relationship, a relationship that is so foreign to a western perspective which tends to view land merely as a commodity and not as a living being with which one is in relationship.
As was witnessed in many encounters — Maskwacis, Edmonton, Québec and Iqaluit — perhaps Pope Francis’s most important legacy for truth and reconciliation in Canada is his willingness and humility to acknowledge the suffering, to be present to those who suffer, and in face of that suffering to have the audacity to say, “What are you going through?”
Christine Jamieson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This file photo taken on May 26, 2024 shows Pope Francis waving to the crowd as he attends an event at St. Peter’s Square in Vatican. [Photo/Xinhua]
Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, died Monday at the age of 88, said the Vatican in a statement.
Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio on Dec. 17, 1936, in Buenos Aires, Francis was head of the Roman Catholic Church since 2013.
His death came weeks after returning home from a 38-day stay in intensive care, and followed an intense Holy Week schedule that included public appearances.
After a period of mourning, the Vatican will turn toward preparations for a gathering of the College of Cardinals to select Francis’ successor.
Cardinals attend Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica, before they enter the conclave to decide who the next pope will be, on March 12, 2013, in Vatican City.Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Image
With the death of Pope Francis, attention now turns to the selection of his successor. The next pope will be chosen in what is called a “conclave,” a Latin word meaning “a room that can be locked up,” or, more simply, “a closed room.”
Members of the College of Cardinals will cast their votes behind the closed and locked doors of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, famous for its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo. Distinguished by their scarlet robes, cardinals are chosen by each pope to elect future popes. A cardinal must be under the age of 80 to be eligible to vote in the conclave. Of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, 138 are currently eligible to elect the new pope.
As a scholar of global Catholicism, I am especially interested in how this will be the most diverse conclave in the history of the Catholic Church.
For many centuries, the College of Cardinals was dominated by Europeans – Italians, in particular. In fact, the first time a non-European cardinal actually cast a ballot in a conclave was only in the 20th century, when Baltimore’s archbishop, James Gibbons, voted in the 1903 papal election. Now, the College of Cardinals has members from over 90 countries, with Francis having appointed nearly 80% of them.
Before the conclave, the College of Cardinals will meet in what are called “general congregations” to discuss issues facing the church. These general congregations will also be an opportunity for new cardinals and those from distant geographical locations to get to know their fellow cardinals.
This can be a time for politicking. In times past, the politicking was rumored to include bribes for votes, as was alleged in the election of Alexander VI, a Borgia pope, in 1492. Nowadays, it is considered to be bad form – and bad luck – for a cardinal to lobby for himself as a candidate. Buying votes by giving money or favors to cardinals is called “simony” and is against church law.
Two to three weeks after the papal funeral, the conclave will begin. The cardinals will first make a procession to the Sistine Chapel, where electronic jamming devices will have been set up to prevent eavesdropping and Wi-Fi and cellphone use. As they file into the chapel, the cardinals will sing, in Latin, the hymn “Come Holy Spirit.” They will then vow on a book of the Gospels to keep the conclave proceedings secret.
After these rituals, the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations will say out loud, in Latin, “Extra Omnes,” which means “Everyone Out.” The doors of the Sistine Chapter will then be locked, and the conclave will begin.
Francis pledging to uphold the vow of secrecy.
The voting process
The cardinals electing the pope will be seated in order of rank.
When the cardinals have assembled, nine will be chosen at random to run the election, with three of them being “scrutinizers” who will examine the ballots and read them aloud.
After writing down the name of their chosen candidate, the cardinals will bring their ballots to the front of the chapel and place them on a plate that is set on top of an urn in front of the scrutinizers. Using the plate to drop their ballot into the urn, they will say, “I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected.”
A new pope is elected by a two-thirds majority. If this majority is not reached during the first ballot, the ballots will be burned in a stove. Black smoke rising through the Sistine Chapel’s chimney will signal to the outside world that the election is still ongoing, a tradition that began with the election of Benedict XV in 1914. Chemical additives are used to make sure the smoke is black because during the election of John Paul II, there was confusion over the smoke’s color.
Following the first day – and on the days thereafter – there will be up to four ballots a day if a two-thirds majority is not reached. Both Benedict XVI and Francis were elected after relatively few ballots: four in the case of Benedict; five with Francis. According to rules set by Benedict, if a new pope is not chosen after 13 days, there will be a day of prayer and reflection. Then the election will be between the top two candidates, one of whom must receive a two-thirds majority.
But regardless of the time frame, a new pope will be chosen. Once a candidate receives enough votes, he is asked, “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?” By saying “Accepto,” or “I accept,” he becomes the new leader of the Catholic Church. This time, the ballots will be burned to create white smoke that will tell the world that the conclave has ended and that a new pope has been chosen.
Immediately after being elected, the new pope decides on his name, as Jorge Maria Bergoglio did when he was the first pope to choose the name Francis. The choice of a name – especially one of an immediate predecessor – often indicates the direction of the new pope’s pontificate. In Francis’ case, his name honored St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th century mystic known for his simplicity and love for nature.
The so-called Room of Tears.
The new pope is then led to the “Room of Tears.” In this chamber, off the Sistine Chapel, he will have moments to reflect on the burdens of his position, which have often brought new popes to tears. He will put on a white cassock and other signs of his office. His election will be announced from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica.
When Francis was announced as pope.
From the balcony, the new pope will greet the crowd below and deliver his first blessing to the world. A new pontificate will have begun.
Mathew Schmalz is Roman Catholic and a political independent.
The 88-year-old pontiff had been well aware of his fragile state and advanced age. As early as 2015, Pope Francis had expressed the desire to be buried in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, a fifth-century church in Rome dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was so devoted to Mary and her basilica that after each of his more than 100 trips abroad, he would visit it after returning to Rome to pray and meditate.
I’m a specialist in Catholic liturgical history. In earlier centuries, papal funerals have been elaborate affairs, ceremonies befitting a Renaissance prince or other regal figure. But in recent years, the rites have been simplified. As Pope Francis has mandated, here are the steps that the ritual will follow.
First station: Preparation of the body
The funeral rites take place in three parts, called stations. The first takes place in the pope’s private chapel, after medical professionals have certified his death. Until recently, this stage had taken place at the pope’s bedside.
After the body lies in rest in the chapel, the cardinal serving as the pope’s camerlengo – the pope’s chief of staff – will make the arrangements for the funeral. He is also tasked with running the Vatican until a new pope is elected. The current camerlengo is Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell, appointed by Francis in 2019.
As has been done for centuries, the camerlengo will formally call the deceased pope by the full name given to him when he was baptized as an infant – Jorge Mario Bergoglio. There are narratives or legends stating that, at this time, the pope was also tapped three times on the forehead with a small silver hammer. However, there is no documented proof that this was actually done in earlier centuries to verify a pope’s death.
Traditionally, another ancient rite will also take place after the declaration of the pope’s death: the defacing of the pope’s ring. Each pope wears a custom-made ring with an engraved image of a man fishing from a boat, hearkening back to the gospel of Matthew, where Jesus calls St. Peter a “fisher of men.” This Fisherman’s Ring, with the name of the current pope engraved over the image, could act as a seal on official documents. The camerlengo will break Francis’ ring and smash the seal with a hammer or other instrument to prevent any other person from using it.
The pope’s apartments will also be locked, with no one allowed to enter; traditionally, this was done to prevent looting.
Second station: Viewing the body
The deceased pope will be dressed in his simple white cassock and red vestments, then placed in a simple wooden coffin. This will be carried in procession to St. Peter’s Basilica, where the public viewing will take place for the next three days.
The pope’s body will be left in the plain, open casket during this viewing period in order to emphasize the pope’s humble role as a pastor, not a head of state. The earlier practice would have been to place the body on top of a tall raised platform, called a catafalque; this ended with the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI in 2022.
At Francis’ funeral, after the public viewing, a plain white cloth will be placed over the pope’s face as he lies in the oak coffin, a continuing part of papal funerals. But this will be the first time that only a single coffin will be used; it will likely contain a document describing his pontificate and a bag of coins from his pontificate as well.
The funeral Mass will then be celebrated at St. Peter’s, most likely inside because of the late winter weather, and there will likely be a crowd of believers outside, assembled on the plaza. The homily will reflect on the life and spirituality of the deceased pope; Francis himself preached at the funeral of his retired predecessor, Pope Benedict. And the future Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, preached at the funeral of Pope St. John Paul II when Ratzinger was the leader, or the dean, of all senior church officials – what’s known as the College of Cardinals.
The current dean is 91-year-old Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, and it is unclear whether he will be able to continue this tradition due to his advanced age. Masses will continue to be said in Francis’ memory for nine days after his death – a period called the Novendialis. This ritual was inspired by an ancient Roman tradition prescribing a mourning period ending on the ninth day after a death.
Third station: Burial
Why does Pope Francis want to be buried in St. Mary Major and not in the Vatican?
Afterward, popes could be buried in a number of different locations, such as the Basilica of St. John Lateran – the official cathedral of Rome – or other churches in and around Rome. A few were even buried in France during the 14th century, when the papacy moved to the French border for political reasons.
Most popes are buried in the grottoes underneath St. Peter’s, and since Pope Leo XIII’s burial at St. John Lateran in 1903, every pope has been buried at St. Peter’s. According to Francis’ wishes, however, there will likely be a procession across Rome to Santa Maria Maggiore, including the hearse and cars carrying others who will attend this private ritual.
After a few final prayers and sprinkling of holy water, the coffin will be placed in its final location inside the church. Only later will the area be opened to the public for prayers and veneration.
After so many journeys from Rome to visit Catholic communities in countries across the globe, and so many visits to this basilica for prayer and meditation, it seems fitting that, at the end of his life’s journey, Francis would make one last trip to the church he loved so much to be laid to rest forever.
Joanne M. Pierce does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Cardinals attend Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica, before they enter the conclave to decide who the next pope will be, on March 12, 2013, in Vatican City.Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Image
With the death of Pope Francis, attention now turns to the selection of his successor. The next pope will be chosen in what is called a “conclave,” a Latin word meaning “a room that can be locked up,” or, more simply, “a closed room.”
Members of the College of Cardinals will cast their votes behind the closed and locked doors of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, famous for its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo. Distinguished by their scarlet robes, cardinals are chosen by each pope to elect future popes. A cardinal must be under the age of 80 to be eligible to vote in the conclave. Of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, 138 are currently eligible to elect the new pope.
As a scholar of global Catholicism, I am especially interested in how this will be the most diverse conclave in the history of the Catholic Church.
For many centuries, the College of Cardinals was dominated by Europeans – Italians, in particular. In fact, the first time a non-European cardinal actually cast a ballot in a conclave was only in the 20th century, when Baltimore’s archbishop, James Gibbons, voted in the 1903 papal election. Now, the College of Cardinals has members from over 90 countries, with Francis having appointed nearly 80% of them.
Before the conclave, the College of Cardinals will meet in what are called “general congregations” to discuss issues facing the church. These general congregations will also be an opportunity for new cardinals and those from distant geographical locations to get to know their fellow cardinals.
This can be a time for politicking. In times past, the politicking was rumored to include bribes for votes, as was alleged in the election of Alexander VI, a Borgia pope, in 1492. Nowadays, it is considered to be bad form – and bad luck – for a cardinal to lobby for himself as a candidate. Buying votes by giving money or favors to cardinals is called “simony” and is against church law.
Two to three weeks after the papal funeral, the conclave will begin. The cardinals will first make a procession to the Sistine Chapel, where electronic jamming devices will have been set up to prevent eavesdropping and Wi-Fi and cellphone use. As they file into the chapel, the cardinals will sing, in Latin, the hymn “Come Holy Spirit.” They will then vow on a book of the Gospels to keep the conclave proceedings secret.
After these rituals, the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations will say out loud, in Latin, “Extra Omnes,” which means “Everyone Out.” The doors of the Sistine Chapter will then be locked, and the conclave will begin.
Francis pledging to uphold the vow of secrecy.
The voting process
The cardinals electing the pope will be seated in order of rank.
When the cardinals have assembled, nine will be chosen at random to run the election, with three of them being “scrutinizers” who will examine the ballots and read them aloud.
After writing down the name of their chosen candidate, the cardinals will bring their ballots to the front of the chapel and place them on a plate that is set on top of an urn in front of the scrutinizers. Using the plate to drop their ballot into the urn, they will say, “I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected.”
A new pope is elected by a two-thirds majority. If this majority is not reached during the first ballot, the ballots will be burned in a stove. Black smoke rising through the Sistine Chapel’s chimney will signal to the outside world that the election is still ongoing, a tradition that began with the election of Benedict XV in 1914. Chemical additives are used to make sure the smoke is black because during the election of John Paul II, there was confusion over the smoke’s color.
Following the first day – and on the days thereafter – there will be up to four ballots a day if a two-thirds majority is not reached. Both Benedict XVI and Francis were elected after relatively few ballots: four in the case of Benedict; five with Francis. According to rules set by Benedict, if a new pope is not chosen after 13 days, there will be a day of prayer and reflection. Then the election will be between the top two candidates, one of whom must receive a two-thirds majority.
But regardless of the time frame, a new pope will be chosen. Once a candidate receives enough votes, he is asked, “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?” By saying “Accepto,” or “I accept,” he becomes the new leader of the Catholic Church. This time, the ballots will be burned to create white smoke that will tell the world that the conclave has ended and that a new pope has been chosen.
Immediately after being elected, the new pope decides on his name, as Jorge Maria Bergoglio did when he was the first pope to choose the name Francis. The choice of a name – especially one of an immediate predecessor – often indicates the direction of the new pope’s pontificate. In Francis’ case, his name honored St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th century mystic known for his simplicity and love for nature.
The so-called Room of Tears.
The new pope is then led to the “Room of Tears.” In this chamber, off the Sistine Chapel, he will have moments to reflect on the burdens of his position, which have often brought new popes to tears. He will put on a white cassock and other signs of his office. His election will be announced from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica.
When Francis was announced as pope.
From the balcony, the new pope will greet the crowd below and deliver his first blessing to the world. A new pontificate will have begun.
Mathew Schmalz is Roman Catholic and a political independent.
Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with a serious bout of double pneumonia.
Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.
There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk. He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.
From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in more than 300 years.
Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.
“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”
Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.
The day before his death, Pope Francis made a brief appearance on Easter Sunday to bless the crowds at St Peter’s Square.
Between a rock and a hard place
Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.
His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.
He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.
The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.
Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people – that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.
At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.
Impact on the Catholic Church
In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.
He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.
He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.
Love for our common home
The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.
Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.
He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.
Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.
Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).
Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens
Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.
Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.
With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.
Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.
Catholicism in the modern age
Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.
He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.
Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, died on Easter Monday at the age of 88.
On Easter Sunday, he used his message and blessing to appeal for peace in Middle East and Ukraine.
Pope Francis will be remembered as a pastoral leader who cared deeply about the environment and those impacted by migration, poverty and war.
During his Pontificate, he did make important changes to the patriarchal structure of the Catholic Church – but did he go far enough?
A pope for all?
Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis highlighted the struggles of women in society. He took important steps to expand opportunities for women in the church and address its patriarchal structure.
This was showcased by his inclusion of women in the 2024 synod (a global meeting of the whole church, represented by bishops) and his granting of voting rights for 57 women out of a total of 368 attendees.
This includes the recent 2025 appointment of an Italian religious sister, Simona Brambilla, to lead a Vatican department.
During his papacy, Pope Francis also strongly supported the ongoing involvement of women in positions of leadership in the Roman Curia (the governance body of the church).
At local levels, in parishes, he made it possible for women to be formally appointed to the positions of catechist and lector – roles previously reserved for men.
Pope Francis himself stated women still encountered obstacles, and opportunities for women to participate were under-utilised by local churches.
In his autobiography, published in January this year, he wrote of the “urgent challenge” to include women in central roles at every level of church life.
He viewed this move as essential to “de-masculinising” the church and removing the problem of clericalism.
Importantly, the reasoning that underpins women’s limited role in the life of the church remains unchanged.
In particular, Pope Francis referred to gender stereotypes and supported the theology of complementarianism (a view that women are different but equally valued, where their central contribution is to motherhood, femininity and pastoral care responsibilities).
Moreover, despite ongoing discussions, Pope Francis appeared to be unresponsive to calls for a greater role for women in ministry.
Women cannot preach during Mass or be ordained to the priesthood or deaconate, despite multiple attempts by Catholic reform groups to advocate for women’s inclusion.
The 2023 International Survey of Catholic Women, which surveyed more than 17,000 Catholic women from 104 countries and eight language groups, found women across the world were keen for church reform that recognises women’s leadership capacities and ongoing contribution to church communities.
More than eight in ten (84%) of the women surveyed supported reform in the church. Two-thirds (68%) agreed women should be ordained to the priesthood, and three-quarters (78%) were supportive of women preaching during Mass.
The survey reported on the deep frustration and despair women experienced for not having their gifts and talents recognised.
Women also stated they are dissatisfied with the burden of labour they carry in the church.
In this regard, Pope Francis did not address the financial burdens and exploitation of Catholic women who work for the church without adequate recognition or pay. This leaves women, particularly those working in parishes, open to exploitation.
While this recognition is important, church responses to abuse remain inadequate and more needs to be done to safeguard women in pastoral settings.
With regard to sexual and reproductive decision-making, the International Survey of Catholic Women found the majority of respondents wanted more freedom of conscience around such issues. This is because when they are denied by church law, women’s agency was diminished and their vulnerability to situations of gendered violence increased.
The papacy of Pope Francis has made no reforms in this area, leaving many Catholic women frustrated and disappointed.
Hope for the future?
More than 60 years ago, Vatican II generated hope for change among Catholic women.
Pope Francis reignited that hope, and listened. But responses have been too slow and Catholic women are still waiting for genuine reform.
Tracy McEwan receives funding from the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme (DAAD) and Australian Research Theology Foundation Inc. (ARTFinc).
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation, the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme (DAAD) and the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stan Chu Ilo, Research Professor, World Christianity and African Studies, DePaul University
The death of Pope Francis in an Italian hospital on 21 April 2025 marks the end of a significant era for the Vatican and the global Catholic following of 1.3 billion faithful.
The first pope from the Americas and also the first to come from outside the west in the modern era, Pope Francis was elected leader of the Catholic church on 13 March 2013.
By the time the Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013 there was a general feeling that the Catholic church was reaching the end of an era. At the time, the church was beset by crises, from corruption to clerical sexual abuse.
Some of the challenges facing the church which the ageing Pope Benedict XVI could no longer handle included:
Moreover, the church was reeling from the revelation of papal secrets of his predecessor Pope Benedict by the papal butler. A book detailing these secrets portrayed the Vatican as a corrupt hotbed of jealousy, intrigue and underhanded factional fighting.
The revelations caused the church a great deal of embarrassment.
It meant therefore that Cardinal Bergoglio was elected by the Catholic cardinals with a mandate to clean up the church and reform the Vatican and its bureaucracy. He was to institute processes and procedures for transparency, accountability and renewal of the church and its structures, and address the lingering scandals of clerical abuse.
The Pope’s global legacy
Three key things defined his papal role and legacy.
First is concentrating on the core competence of the church: serving the poor and the marginalised. This is what the founder of the Christian religion, Jesus Christ, did.
Francis focused the Catholic church and the entire world on one mission: helping the poor, addressing global inequalities, speaking for the voiceless, and placing the attention of the world on those on the periphery.
He also chose to live simply, forsaking the pomp and pageantry of the papacy.
Secondly, he changed the way the Catholic church’s message is communicated. In his programmatic document, Evangelii Gaudium, he called the church to what he calls “missionary conversion”. His thinking was that everything that is done in the church must be about proclaiming the good news to a wounded and broken world.
His central message was that of mercy towards all, an end to wars, our common humanity and the closeness of God to those who suffer. The suffering in the world continues to grow because of injustice, greed, selfishness and pride. He also focused on symbols and simple style to press home his message, like celebrating mass at a wall that divides the United States and Mexico.
In 2015 he made a risky trip to Bangui, the capital of Central African Republic, during a time of war and tension between the fighting factions of the Muslim Seleka and the Christian anti-balaka. He drove on the Popemobile with both the highest ranking Muslim cleric in the country and his Christian counterpart and visited both a Christian church and a mosque to press home the message of peace.
The third strategy was restructuring the church and reforming the Vatican bank.
He created the G8 (a representative council of cardinals from every part of the world) to advise him, calling the Catholic church to a synod for dialogue on every aspect of the life of the church. This effort was unprecedented.
He also overhauled the procedures for the synod of bishops, making it more participatory, and gave women and the non-ordained voting rights. He shook up the membership of the Vatican department that picks bishops to include women. He appointed the first woman (Sr Simone Brambilla) to lead a major Vatican department and to have a cardinal as her deputy. Another woman (Sr Raffaella Petrini) was named the first woman governor of the Vatican City State.
Pope Francis and Africa
The pontiff’s legacy will be keenly felt in Africa. Three things stand out.
First, he reflected the concerns of people on the continent with his message against imperialism, colonialism, exploitation of the poor by the rich, global inequality, neo-liberal capitalism and ecological injustice. Pope Francis became a voice for Africa. When he visited Kenya in 2015, he chose to visit the slums of Nairobi to proclaim the gospel of liberation to the forsaken of society. He called on African governments to guarantee for the poor and all citizens access to land, lodging and labour.
In a sense, Pope Francis embodied the message of decolonisation and was driven in part by the liberation theology that developed in Latin America. This theology tied religious faith with liberation of the people from structures of injustice and structural violence.
Secondly, he encouraged African Catholics to develop Africa’s own unique approach to pastoral life and addressing social issues in Africa. Particularly, Pope Francis believed in decentralisation and local processes in meeting local challenges. He said many times that it is not necessary that all problems in the church be solved by the pope at the Roman centre of the church.
In this way, he encouraged the growth and development of African priorities and cultural adaptation to the Catholic faith. He also encouraged greater transparency and accountability among African bishops and gave African Catholic universities and seminaries greater autonomy to develop their own educational priorities and programmes.
Thirdly, Pope Francis had a very deep connection to Africa’s young people. He encouraged and supported initiatives and programmes to strengthen the agency of young people, to give them hope and support their personal, spiritual and professional development. For the first time in history, on 1 November 2022, Pope Francis met virtually with more than 1,000 young Africans for an hour. I helped organise this meeting. He answered their questions and encouraged them to fight for what they believe.
A reformist agenda
The reforms of Pope Francis could be termed a movement – from a church of a few where priests and bishops and the pope call the shots to a church of the people of God where everyone’s voice matters and where everyone’s concerns and needs are catered to.
He quietly changed the tone of the message and the style of the leadership at the Vatican.
Granted, he did not substantially alter the content of that message, which is often seen as conservative, Eurocentric, and resistant to cultural pluralism and social change. But he constantly chipped away at its foundations through inclusion and an openness to hearing the voices of everyone, including those who do not agree with the church’s position. In doing this, he shifted the priorities and practices of the Catholic church regarding such core issues as power and authority.
Pope Francis opened the doors to the voices of the marginalised in the church — women, the poor, the LGBTQI+ community, and those who have disaffiliated from the church. Many African Catholics would love to see more African representation at the Vatican, and many of them also worry about the widening division in the church, particularly driven by cultural and ideological battles in the west that have nothing to do with the social and ecclesial context of Africa.
Why his papacy mattered
Pope Francis was the first pope from the Americas, the first Jesuit pope, the first to choose the name Francis and the first to come from outside the west in the modern era. He chose the name Francis because he wanted to focus his papacy on the poor, emulating St Francis of Assisi.
In a sense, Pope Francis redefined what religion and spirituality mean for Catholicism. It’s not laying down and enforcing the law without mercy, it is caring for our neighbours and the Earth. This is the kind of religion the world needs today.
– Pope Francis: why his papacy mattered for Africa – and for the world’s poor and marginalised – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-why-his-papacy-mattered-for-africa-and-for-the-worlds-poor-and-marginalised-251059
Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, died on Easter Monday at the age of 88.
On Easter Sunday, he used his message and blessing to appeal for peace in Middle East and Ukraine.
Pope Francis will be remembered as a pastoral leader who cared deeply about the environment and those impacted by migration, poverty and war.
During his Pontificate, he did make important changes to the patriarchal structure of the Catholic Church – but did he go far enough?
A pope for all?
Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis highlighted the struggles of women in society. He took important steps to expand opportunities for women in the church and address its patriarchal structure.
This was showcased by his inclusion of women in the 2024 synod (a global meeting of the whole church, represented by bishops) and his granting of voting rights for 57 women out of a total of 368 attendees.
This includes the recent 2025 appointment of an Italian religious sister, Simona Brambilla, to lead a Vatican department.
During his papacy, Pope Francis also strongly supported the ongoing involvement of women in positions of leadership in the Roman Curia (the governance body of the church).
At local levels, in parishes, he made it possible for women to be formally appointed to the positions of catechist and lector – roles previously reserved for men.
Pope Francis himself stated women still encountered obstacles, and opportunities for women to participate were under-utilised by local churches.
In his autobiography, published in January this year, he wrote of the “urgent challenge” to include women in central roles at every level of church life.
He viewed this move as essential to “de-masculinising” the church and removing the problem of clericalism.
Importantly, the reasoning that underpins women’s limited role in the life of the church remains unchanged.
In particular, Pope Francis referred to gender stereotypes and supported the theology of complementarianism (a view that women are different but equally valued, where their central contribution is to motherhood, femininity and pastoral care responsibilities).
Moreover, despite ongoing discussions, Pope Francis appeared to be unresponsive to calls for a greater role for women in ministry.
Women cannot preach during Mass or be ordained to the priesthood or deaconate, despite multiple attempts by Catholic reform groups to advocate for women’s inclusion.
The 2023 International Survey of Catholic Women, which surveyed more than 17,000 Catholic women from 104 countries and eight language groups, found women across the world were keen for church reform that recognises women’s leadership capacities and ongoing contribution to church communities.
More than eight in ten (84%) of the women surveyed supported reform in the church. Two-thirds (68%) agreed women should be ordained to the priesthood, and three-quarters (78%) were supportive of women preaching during Mass.
The survey reported on the deep frustration and despair women experienced for not having their gifts and talents recognised.
Women also stated they are dissatisfied with the burden of labour they carry in the church.
In this regard, Pope Francis did not address the financial burdens and exploitation of Catholic women who work for the church without adequate recognition or pay. This leaves women, particularly those working in parishes, open to exploitation.
While this recognition is important, church responses to abuse remain inadequate and more needs to be done to safeguard women in pastoral settings.
With regard to sexual and reproductive decision-making, the International Survey of Catholic Women found the majority of respondents wanted more freedom of conscience around such issues. This is because when they are denied by church law, women’s agency was diminished and their vulnerability to situations of gendered violence increased.
The papacy of Pope Francis has made no reforms in this area, leaving many Catholic women frustrated and disappointed.
Hope for the future?
More than 60 years ago, Vatican II generated hope for change among Catholic women.
Pope Francis reignited that hope, and listened. But responses have been too slow and Catholic women are still waiting for genuine reform.
Tracy McEwan receives funding from the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme (DAAD) and Australian Research Theology Foundation Inc. (ARTFinc).
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation, the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme (DAAD) and the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation.
Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with a serious bout of double pneumonia.
Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.
There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk. He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.
From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in more than 300 years.
Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.
“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”
Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.
The day before his death, Pope Francis made a brief appearance on Easter Sunday to bless the crowds at St Peter’s Square.
Between a rock and a hard place
Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.
His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.
He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.
The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.
Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people – that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.
At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.
Impact on the Catholic Church
In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.
He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.
He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.
Love for our common home
The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.
Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.
He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.
Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.
Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).
Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens
Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.
Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.
With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.
Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.
Catholicism in the modern age
Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.
He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.
Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
From the moment of his election in 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the man who became Pope Francis, proved himself to be unconventional.
Shedding much of the formality of previous papal elections, he appeared for the first time on the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica in a simple white cassock without the red ermine-trimmed cape, known as a mozzetta, traditionally worn on such occasions.
On his chest was the silver pectoral cross he had worn as archbishop of Buenos Aires, rather than the gold cross worn by previous popes. His early demonstrations of unconventionality went beyond his dress as he refused to live in the Apostolic Palace, residing primarily in the Domus Sanctae Marthae guesthouse.
He was a pope of other firsts.
He took the name, Francis, in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi, becoming the first uniquely named pope in over 1,000 years (the last being Pope Lando in 913). Many of his major teachings, known as “papal encyclicals”, echoed the wisdom of Saint Francis.
For instance, Laudato Si (Praise Be to You, 2015) and Fratelli Tutti (All Brothers and Sisters, 2020), concerning care for the planet and care for each other respectively, drew their inspiration from the saint.
“My roots are Italian, but I am Argentinian and Latin American,” he insisted in his recent autobiography. It was this background as the first pope from the southern hemisphere, and his upbringing in Argentina, that formed his role as a voice for those on the peripheries of society: migrants, the poor, victims of war and the helpless.
Such an approach also reflected a diverse new reality within the church. The majority of the 1.36 billion Catholics around the world live outside Europe and North America.
He made clear early on that representing this new reality was central to his papacy by making his first official papal visit outside of Rome to the island of Lampedusa in southern Italy, where many migrants and refugees fleeing warfare attempted to land as a route into Europe. Denouncing people trafficking and referring to the 2013 migrant shipwreck that killed over 300 people, Pope Francis would later describe the island as an “underwater cemetery for too, too many corpses”.
A modernising pope
Pope Francis was also the first pope to be formed entirely in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which brought about fundamental changes to how the Catholic church related to wider society and the “modern world”. This included the celebration of the Mass in vernacular languages, rather than exclusively Latin.
Such formation shaped his attitude on such topics as the role of women in the church, technology and AI, the ongoing ecological crisis and the relationship between Catholicism and other faiths.
While the pope had made clear his feelings that “Vatican II” had not yet been fully implemented, his adherence to its ethos has made him unpopular with Catholics who view the changes brought about by the council as misplaced.
In 2021, he imposed new restrictions on the use of the older Latin mass, which had been commonplace before the council, now requiring priests to have the permission of their bishop for such a celebration. This reversed the allowances of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, who had permitted all priests to say Mass using the Roman Missal of 1962, without bishops permitting them.
The move was unpopular among many traditionalists who saw the pope as distancing himself from historical tradition. In response, the pope had criticised “those who seek to ‘safeguard the ashes’ of the past” rather than concerning themselves with the future growth and progress of the church.
In many ways, Pope Francis embodied a tension at the heart of Catholicism in the 21st century: too liberal for some Catholics and not liberal enough for others. As such, his attempts at reform necessarily became a fine balancing act. History will undoubtedly judge whether the right balance was struck.
His papacy was not without controversy. In May 2024 he apologised for using a derogatory term for gay men in a private meeting with Italian bishops, the remarks splashed on headlines around the world. The episode was particularly shocking as he had previously indicated a shift in the tone of the church’s attitude on issues such as blessings for same-sex couples.
In 2018, he admitted he made “grave errors” in his handling of clerical abuse cases in Chile. During a visit to the country, he had defended Bishop Juan Barros who stood accused of covering up sexual abuse. The pope cited a “lack of truthful and balanced information” and subsequently invited the victims to Rome to apologise.
The pope’s funeral and burial will continue his unconventionality. He will forgo the traditional three interlocking caskets of cypress, lead and oak, instead requesting a simple, zinc-lined wooden coffin.
He will also be the first pope to be buried outside the Vatican in over a century, asking instead to be buried at Rome’s Basilica of St. Mary Major. His funeral ceremony will also be simplified and shortened at his request.
Such will be the last act of an unconventional pope, for as he states in his autobiography, “the bishop of Rome is a pastor and a disciple, not a powerful man of this world”.
Liam Temple does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Celia Deane-Drummond, Professor of Theology, Director of Laudato Si’ Research Institute, Campion Hall, University of Oxford
Its mission is rooted in the pope’s religiously inspired vision of integral ecology – a multidisciplinary approach that addresses social and ecological issues of equality and climate breakdown.
Originating from Argentina, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, witnessed firsthand the destruction of the Amazon and the plight of South America’s poorest communities. His concern for justice for vulnerable communities and protection of the planet go hand in hand with his religious leadership.
In his first papal letter, Laudato Si’, he called for all people, not just Catholics, to pay more attention to the frailty of both our planet and its people. What we need is no less than a cultural revolution, he wrote. As a theologian, I recognise that he inspired significant change in three key ways.
1. At global climate summits
It’s no coincidence that Pope Francis released Laudato Si’ at a crucial moment in 2015 prior to the UN climate summit, Cop21, in Paris. A follow-up exhortation, or official statement, Laudate Deum, was released in October 2023, just before another UN climate summit, Cop28 in Dubai.
Did the decisions at these global meetings shift because of the influence of Pope Francis? Potentially, yes. In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis showed both encouragement and some frustration about the achievements of international agreements so far.
He berated the weakness of international politics and believes that Cop21 represented a “significant moment” because the agreement involved everyone.
After Cop21, he pointed out how most nations had failed to implement the Paris agreement which called for limiting the global temperature rise in this century to below 2°C. He also called out the lack of monitoring of those commitments and subsequent political inertia. He tried his best to use his prominent position to hold power to account.
Promoting a general moral awareness of the need to act in ecologically responsible ways, both in international politics and at the local level is something that previous popes, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also did. But, Pope Francis’s efforts went beyond that, by connecting much more broadly with grassroots movements.
2. By advocating for Indigenous people
Cop28 marked the first time that close to 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Pope Francis’s interventions potentially helped shift the needle just a little in the desired direction.
His emphasis on listening to Indigenous people may have influenced these gatherings. Compared with previous global climate summits, Cop28 arguably opened up the opportunity to listen to the voices of Indigenous people.
However, Indigenous people were still disappointed by the outcomes of Cop28. Pope Francis’s lesser-known exhortation Querida Amazonia, which means “beloved Amazonia”, was published in February 2020.
This exhortation resulted from his conversations with Amazonian communities and helped put Indigenous perspectives on the map. Those perspectives helped shape Catholic social teaching in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which means “all brothers and sisters”, published on October 3 2020.
For many people living in developing countries where extractive industries such as oil and gas or mining are rife, destruction of land coincides with direct threats to life. Pope Francis advocated for Indigenous environmental defenders, many of whom have been inspired to act by their strong faith.
For example, Father Marcelo Pérez, an Indigenous priest living in Mexico, was murdered by drug dealers just after saying mass on October 23 2023 as part of the cost of defending the rights of his people and their land.
While 196 environmental defenders were killed globally in 2023, Pope Francis continued to advocate on behalf of the most marginalised people as well as the environment.
3. By inspiring activism
I’ve been speaking to religious climate activists from different church backgrounds in the UK as part of a multidisciplinary research project on religion, theology and climate change based at the University of Manchester. Most notably, when we asked more than 300 activists representing six different activist groups who most influenced them to get involved in climate action, 61% named Pope Francis as a key influencer.
On a larger scale, Laudato Si’ gave rise to the Laudato Si’ movement which coordinates climate activism across the globe. It has 900 Catholic organisations as well as 10,000 of what are known as Laudato Si’ “animators”, who are all ambassadors and leaders in their respective communities.
Our institute’s ecclesial affiliate, Tomás Insua, based in Assisi, Italy, originally helped pioneer this global Laudato Si’ movement. We host a number of ecumenical gatherings which bring together people from different denominations and hopefully motivate churchgoers to think and act in a more climate-conscious way.
Nobody knows who the next pope might be. Given the current turmoil in politics and shutting down of political will to address the climate emergency, we can only hope they will build on the legacy of Pope Francis and influence political change for the good, from the grassroots frontline right up to the highest global ambitions.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Celia Deane-Drummond does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The death of Pope Francis in an Italian hospital on 21 April 2025 marks the end of a significant era for the Vatican and the global Catholic following of 1.3 billion faithful.
The first pope from the Americas and also the first to come from outside the west in the modern era, Pope Francis was elected leader of the Catholic church on 13 March 2013.
By the time the Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013 there was a general feeling that the Catholic church was reaching the end of an era. At the time, the church was beset by crises, from corruption to clerical sexual abuse.
Some of the challenges facing the church which the ageing Pope Benedict XVI could no longer handle included:
the confusion created in the English-speaking world with the translation of the New Roman missal into English.
Moreover, the church was reeling from the revelation of papal secrets of his predecessor Pope Benedict by the papal butler. A book detailing these secrets portrayed the Vatican as a corrupt hotbed of jealousy, intrigue and underhanded factional fighting.
The revelations caused the church a great deal of embarrassment.
It meant therefore that Cardinal Bergoglio was elected by the Catholic cardinals with a mandate to clean up the church and reform the Vatican and its bureaucracy. He was to institute processes and procedures for transparency, accountability and renewal of the church and its structures, and address the lingering scandals of clerical abuse.
The Pope’s global legacy
Three key things defined his papal role and legacy.
First is concentrating on the core competence of the church: serving the poor and the marginalised. This is what the founder of the Christian religion, Jesus Christ, did.
Francis focused the Catholic church and the entire world on one mission: helping the poor, addressing global inequalities, speaking for the voiceless, and placing the attention of the world on those on the periphery.
He also chose to live simply, forsaking the pomp and pageantry of the papacy.
Secondly, he changed the way the Catholic church’s message is communicated. In his programmatic document, Evangelii Gaudium, he called the church to what he calls “missionary conversion”. His thinking was that everything that is done in the church must be about proclaiming the good news to a wounded and broken world.
His central message was that of mercy towards all, an end to wars, our common humanity and the closeness of God to those who suffer. The suffering in the world continues to grow because of injustice, greed, selfishness and pride. He also focused on symbols and simple style to press home his message, like celebrating mass at a wall that divides the United States and Mexico.
In 2015 he made a risky trip to Bangui, the capital of Central African Republic, during a time of war and tension between the fighting factions of the Muslim Seleka and the Christian anti-balaka. He drove on the Popemobile with both the highest ranking Muslim cleric in the country and his Christian counterpart and visited both a Christian church and a mosque to press home the message of peace.
The third strategy was restructuring the church and reforming the Vatican bank.
He created the G8 (a representative council of cardinals from every part of the world) to advise him, calling the Catholic church to a synod for dialogue on every aspect of the life of the church. This effort was unprecedented.
He also overhauled the procedures for the synod of bishops, making it more participatory, and gave women and the non-ordained voting rights. He shook up the membership of the Vatican department that picks bishops to include women. He appointed the first woman (Sr Simone Brambilla) to lead a major Vatican department and to have a cardinal as her deputy. Another woman (Sr Raffaella Petrini) was named the first woman governor of the Vatican City State.
Pope Francis and Africa
The pontiff’s legacy will be keenly felt in Africa. Three things stand out.
First, he reflected the concerns of people on the continent with his message against imperialism, colonialism, exploitation of the poor by the rich, global inequality, neo-liberal capitalism and ecological injustice. Pope Francis became a voice for Africa. When he visited Kenya in 2015, he chose to visit the slums of Nairobi to proclaim the gospel of liberation to the forsaken of society. He called on African governments to guarantee for the poor and all citizens access to land, lodging and labour.
In a sense, Pope Francis embodied the message of decolonisation and was driven in part by the liberation theology that developed in Latin America. This theology tied religious faith with liberation of the people from structures of injustice and structural violence.
Secondly, he encouraged African Catholics to develop Africa’s own unique approach to pastoral life and addressing social issues in Africa. Particularly, Pope Francis believed in decentralisation and local processes in meeting local challenges. He said many times that it is not necessary that all problems in the church be solved by the pope at the Roman centre of the church.
In this way, he encouraged the growth and development of African priorities and cultural adaptation to the Catholic faith. He also encouraged greater transparency and accountability among African bishops and gave African Catholic universities and seminaries greater autonomy to develop their own educational priorities and programmes.
Thirdly, Pope Francis had a very deep connection to Africa’s young people. He encouraged and supported initiatives and programmes to strengthen the agency of young people, to give them hope and support their personal, spiritual and professional development. For the first time in history, on 1 November 2022, Pope Francis met virtually with more than 1,000 young Africans for an hour. I helped organise this meeting. He answered their questions and encouraged them to fight for what they believe.
A reformist agenda
The reforms of Pope Francis could be termed a movement – from a church of a few where priests and bishops and the pope call the shots to a church of the people of God where everyone’s voice matters and where everyone’s concerns and needs are catered to.
He quietly changed the tone of the message and the style of the leadership at the Vatican.
Granted, he did not substantially alter the content of that message, which is often seen as conservative, Eurocentric, and resistant to cultural pluralism and social change. But he constantly chipped away at its foundations through inclusion and an openness to hearing the voices of everyone, including those who do not agree with the church’s position. In doing this, he shifted the priorities and practices of the Catholic church regarding such core issues as power and authority.
Pope Francis opened the doors to the voices of the marginalised in the church — women, the poor, the LGBTQI+ community, and those who have disaffiliated from the church. Many African Catholics would love to see more African representation at the Vatican, and many of them also worry about the widening division in the church, particularly driven by cultural and ideological battles in the west that have nothing to do with the social and ecclesial context of Africa.
Why his papacy mattered
Pope Francis was the first pope from the Americas, the first Jesuit pope, the first to choose the name Francis and the first to come from outside the west in the modern era. He chose the name Francis because he wanted to focus his papacy on the poor, emulating St Francis of Assisi.
In a sense, Pope Francis redefined what religion and spirituality mean for Catholicism. It’s not laying down and enforcing the law without mercy, it is caring for our neighbours and the Earth. This is the kind of religion the world needs today.
Stan Chu Ilo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – After meditating on Jesus’ encounters with some figures from the Gospels, Pope Francis, continuing the cycle of catechesis dedicated to the life of Christ read in the light of the themes of the Holy Year, begins a new chapter, dedicated to the parables of Jesus. They are “stories that draw on images and situations from everyday reality”, explains the Pontiff in the text released only in written form for the General Audience that he was supposed to hold today, and “that is why they also touch our lives. They provoke us. And they ask us to take a position: where am I in this story?”.The Pope then analyzes what he himself defines as “the most famous parable, the one that perhaps we all remember”, that of the prodigal son: “In this we find the heart of the Gospel of Jesus, namely God’s mercy”.The evangelist Luke, explains the Pope, “says that Jesus tells this parable for the pharisees and the scribes, who lamented that He ate with sinners. This is why it could be said that it is a parable addressed to those who are lost, but do not know it, and judge others. The Gospel is intended to give us a message of hope, because it tells us that wherever we are lost, and however we are lost, God always comes looking for us!”.The Pope invites us to reflect on the behavior of the two sons. Indeed, both have lost their way: “the youngest because he got tired of being in a relationship that he felt was too demanding; but the eldest is also lost, because it is not enough to stay at home if there is pride and resentment in his heart”.”Love,” the Bishop of Rome points out, “is always a commitment, there is always something that we must lose in order to go towards the other. But the younger son in the parable thinks only of himself. Like all of us, hungers for affection, he wants to be loved. But love is a precious gift; it must be treated with care. Instead, he squanders it, he disregards it, he does not respect himself. He realizes this in times of famine, when no-one cares for him. The risk is that in those moments we beg for affection and attach ourselves to the first master we chance upon.”.It is these experiences, adds the Pope, ” that give rise within us to the distorted belief that we can only be in a relationship as servants, as if we had to atone for a guilt or as if true love could not exist”. And indeed “the younger son, when he hits rock bottom, thinks he will go back to his father’s house to pick up a few crumbs of affection from the ground”.In reality, the Pontiff emphasizes, “only those who truly love us can free us from this false view of love.” He then cites a work by Rembrandt, who in depicting the young man’s return home, depicts “the young man’s head is shaven, like that of a penitent, but it also looks like the head of a child, because this son is being born again. And then the father’s hands: one male and the other female, to describe the strength and tenderness in the embrace of forgiveness.”But it is the eldest son, the Bishop of Rome points out, “who represents those for whom the parable is told: he is the son who always stayed at home with his father, yet was distant from him, distant in heart. This son may have wanted to leave too, but out of fear or duty he stayed there, in that relationship. When you adapt unwillingly, however, you begin to harbour anger within you, and sooner or later this anger explodes. Paradoxically, it is precisely the eldest son who in the end risks being left out, because he does not share his father’s joy.” And the father “goes towards him too. He does not reproach him or call him to duty. He wants only that he feels his love. He invites him to enter and to leave the door open”.”That door remains open for us too. Indeed, this is the reason for hope: we are able to hope because we know that the Father is waiting for us, He sees us from afar, and He always leaves the door open”, concludes the Pope. (F.B.) (Agenzia Fides, 16/4/2025)
Share:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – Pope Francis has appointed the Rev. Fr. Marek Ochlak, O.M.I., currently Provincial Superior of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate in Poland, as Bishop of the Diocese of Fenoarivo Atsinanana (Madagascar),.His Exc. Msgr. Marek Ochlak, O.M.I., was born on March 14, 1966 in Nowe Miasto Lubawskie (Poland). He entered the Congregation of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate and attended the O.M.I. Minor Seminary in Markowice and novitiate in Koderi. He received his philosophical and theological formation in the O.M.I. Major Seminary in Obra. He made his perpetual profession in 1990 and was ordained a priest in 1992.He has held the following positions: Parish assistant of St. Eugène de Mazenod in Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland (1992-1994); preparation for the mission in Madagascar in France (1994-1995); Missionary in the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Toamasina (1995-2002); Head of the Apostleship of the Sea (2002-2006); Parish priest of Notre-Dame de Lourdes (2006-2009); Assistant in the Council of the O.M.I. Delegation, in Madagascar (1995-2008); Superior of the O.M.I. Delegation in Madagascar (2009-2015); Parish Priest of Befasy, Diocese of Morondava (2016-2021); In charge of the missions in the Province of Poland (2021-2022). Since 10 January 2023 he has been Provincial Superior of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate in Poland. (Agenzia Fides, 17/4/2025)
Share:
Operation Gomorrah may have been the most cynical event of World War Two (WW2). Not only did the name fully convey the intent of the war crimes about to be committed, it, also represented the single biggest 24-hour murder toll for the European war that I have come across.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
On the night of 27 July 1943, the RAF murdered 35,000, mostly working-class civilian residents living in the most densely populated part of Hamburg; a planned firebombing which started a sequence of events – a holocaust if not The Holocaust – that ended in Nagasaki on 9 August 1945. (Note The bombing of Hamburg foreshadowed the horrors of Hiroshima, National Geographic, 23 July 2021.) A holocaust is a “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war” (Oxford Dictionary). [In The Holocaust, 31,000 Jews were shot dead in Kyiv in a single day in 1941; the worst single day of The Holocaust, I understand.]
Hamburg was, literally, a dry run for what came later; the aim was to maximise the number of barbecued civilians by, among other things, choosing perfect weather conditions for an experiment in incendiary murder. (Yes, I am literally using inflammatory language.) While the total death toll of the week-long operation has been estimated to be over 40,000, the toll arising from the night of 27/28 July 1943 represents about 85% of the total.
The Gomorrah chapter of Peter Hitchens’ The Phoney Victory, 2018, gives a documented account of the moral duplicity surrounding Churchill’s bombing campaign. For a full story of the Allies’ firestorm holocaust, see Black Snow: Curtis LeMay, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Road to the Atomic Bomb, 2022, by James M Scott. (John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, is a survivor of the Tokyo episode, the raid that killed more people – over 100,000 – than any other in a single arsonous assault.)
Sodom and Gomorrah
These twin ‘cities of the plain’, which, if they ever existed, are now either under the Dead Sea or east of there, in modern Jordan. The key chapter in the bible (Genesis, ch.19) mainly emphasises Sodom, though Gomorrah was reputedly as ‘sinful’. The biblical story is ghastly, in its misogyny as well as its extollation of extermination of ‘others’.
Genesis (ch.19) tells us, when Lot (Abraham’s nephew) found himself, in Sodom, hosting two Angels/men, ‘the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.”‘ The secret to understanding this is the biblical meaning of the word ‘know’; in this case the events took place in Sodom, and the guests had the appearance of ‘men’.
Lot replies: ‘”I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men …”.’ While the men of Sodom did not take up the offer – they favoured Lot himself – the angel-men saved Lot and his family. Then ‘When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.”‘ …
‘When they had brought [the four of] them outside, [the angel-men] said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.” … Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.’ …
After the three survivors settled in a cave: ‘the firstborn [daughter] said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” … ‘Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.’ (Thus, the East Bank [of the River Jordan] was repopulated!!)
Hamburg came to be equated with biblical Sodom, as deserving victims for a particularly barbaric form of mass murder. Neither Churchill, nor his bomber commander Arthur Harris, could know that only 35,000 Hamburgers would die as a result of that night’s operation. There is reason to believe that Churchill and his savants were looking for many more than hundreds of thousands of Germans to be ‘de-housed’ over the incendiary bombing campaign. (Dehousing was the euphemism used by Churchill’s men; compare with ‘resettlement’ for the trip that the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto made to Treblinka.)
Hamburg and the Gomorrah holocaust
Why Hamburg? Basically, because it was there. Though it was/is a large industrial and mercantile port city, the terror target was workers, not the works which employed them. The National Geographic article notes, with gallows-humour irony: “After noticing that Brits whose homes were struck by bombs were less likely to show up to work, analysts determined that destroying Germany’s largest cities and towns would likely cripple Germany’s war efforts.” Hamburg was close to England, and could be reached without flying over occupied land. And Hamburg was defended by a radar system of sorts, though not as sophisticated as British radar. The first British bombing raid on Hamburg was very much a technology test-run; refer The Woman Whose Invention Helped Win a War – and Still Baffles Weathermen, Irena Fischer-Hwang, 28 November 2018, Smithsonian Magazine. The second British raid on Hamburg was the real thing, a particularly dry run to really get the Gomorrah holocaust underway.
Hitchens (p.178) says: “Winston Churchill speculated in a letter of 8 July I940 to his friend and Minister of Aircraft Production, the press magnate Lord (Max) Beaverbrook, that an ‘absolutely devastating exterminating [my emphasis] attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland would help to bring Hitler down’. Arthur Harris, later the chief of RAF Bomber Command, realised the significance of these extraordinary words … he kept a copy of this letter.”
Hitchens (p.181) citing Bishop Bell speaking in February 1944 in the House of Lords: “Hamburg has a population of between one and two million people. It contains targets of immense military and industrial importance. It also happens to be the most democratic town in Germany where the Anti-Nazi opposition was strongest. … Practically all the buildings, cultural, military, residential, industrial, religious – including the famous University Library with its 800,000 volumes, of which three-quarters have perished – were razed to the ground.” While dead and dazed people may have low morale, and therefore have an arguable incentive to wage a civil war against their own government, they – especially the dead – are uniquely unable to overthrow a ruthlessly militarised government.
We might note Hamburg’s anthropological links to England. At a time of high racial – indeed racist – sensibilities, Anglo-Saxon supremacy was a very real thing. The area of Germany around Hamburg is the ‘Hawaiki’ of the Anglo-Saxon people; Lower Saxony is the ancestral motherland of the English. The class-consciousness and revengeful bloodlust of the English political class outweighed their ethnic consciousness. This was not true for the German Nazis, for whom the English were racial equals; Hitler and his crew really did not want to kill English people. Nazi Germany wanted the United Kingdom to become a neutral country, as Ireland was, and as the United States was before December 1941. Nazi Germany’s policy was to enslave, resettle, and murder Slavs and Jews and Gypsies; not to kill or dehouse Englishmen and their families.
The ‘elephant in the room’ was Josef Stalin.
Hitchens (p.191): “There is little doubt that much of the bombing of Germany was done to please and appease Josef Stalin. Stalin jeered at Churchill for his failure to open a Second Front and to fight Hitler’s armies in Europe, and ceaselessly pressed him to open such a front – something Churchill was politically and militarily reluctant to do. Bombing Germany, though it did not satisfy Stalin’s demands for an invasion, at least reassured him that we were doing something, and so lessened his pressure to open a second front.”
Hitchens (p.198): “Overy [in The Bombing War 2014] recounts how on 28 March 1945 Winston Churchill, clearly growing sick of the violence he had unleashed as victory approached and the excuses for it grew thinner, referred (in a memorandum) to Harris’s bombing tactics using these exact words. He urged, none too soon, that attacks turn instead to oil and transport. Harris paid no attention, and right up until 24th April 1945, his bombers continued to drop incendiaries and high explosives on German cities, turning many thousands of civilians into corpses.” [Hitler committed suicide on 30 April 1945, and VE Day was 8 May.]
Point of Interest: Churchill contested three elections, all after VE Day, all using Great Britain’s ‘first-past-the-post’ plurality system. He won just one of those three, though even then – in 1951 – his party got fewer votes than a Labour Party seeking re-election at a time of great difficulty for left-wing parties worldwide. Churchill’s Conservative Party got way-fewer votes than Labour in 1945 and 1950. The pressure on Prime Minister Clement Attlee to call the UK snap election of 1951 (one-third of the way through the term of his elected Labour government) can be understood as a successful example of political cunning on the part of the British establishment; literally a King’s coup.
A Scale of ‘Evil’?
While I generally hesitate to use the word ‘evil’, it may still be useful to grade very powerful people on a zero-to-ten scale of malevolence. On zero we might have the pacifist version of Jesus. On ten would be some very powerful person who actively sought nuclear ‘Armageddon’ (which would destroy life, not just humanity). After recently reading some quite difficult literature about World War Two, this is where I would place five powerful leaders:
9: Josef Stalin
8: Adolf Hitler
7: Benito Mussolini, Winston Churchill
6: Harry Truman
I need to read more about Truman; though, his legacy seems to have been airbrushed much as Churchill’s has been, and I might decide to upgrade him to a 7.
I would also note that these leaders had their close and powerful henchmen, whose ‘evilness’ can also be rated on such a scale, for example:
9.5: Lavrenty Beria
9: Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler
Overall regimes can be better or worse than their leaders. I would rate both Stalin’s ‘Communists’ and Hitler’s ‘Nazis’ as both 8.5. Thus, Stalin’s regime was not quite as bad as its two most notorious figures. And Hitler’s regime was even worse than Hitler; that’s certainly not being kind to Hitler! (Stalin’s atrocities, the equal of Hitlers, were mostly committed in peacetime; the vast majority of Hitler’s were committed in wartime.)
‘Favourites’ as intimate (though not necessarily sexual) friends of powerful leaders
Churchill’s regime was not as bad as Churchill. Though Churchill had two favourites, both active members of his regime – especially his ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ – who were worse than him (possibly worse in one case, and definitely worse in the other). The ‘possibly worse’ one was Brendan Bracken, Minister for Information. Bracken, the prototype for ‘Big Brother’ in George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four, was Churchill’s Goebbels. Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ was a conflation of the Ministry of Information and Orwell’s wartime employer, the BBC. (Born in Ireland, Bracken was sometimes rumoured to have been Churchill’s ‘love child’, though that supposition is most likely untrue.) Surprisingly little has been written about BB.
The ‘definitely worse’ favourite was German born (Baden Baden) and educated (Darmstadt and Berlin) scientist, Frederick A Lindemann; who was granted the title Lord Cherwell in 1941. He built his career in Britain at Oxford University, becoming Professor of Physics there in 1919. He also became a bit of a wartime ‘test pilot’, managing to establish his loyalty to the United Kingdom. His close friendship with Churchill lasted decades, beginning in 1921.
Frederick Lindemann, aka Lord Cherwell
In my assessment, Lindemann is the closest individual yet to a ten-out-of-ten on the above-suggested scale of malevolence. Let’s say that, if World War Three comes and someone like Lindemann has as much access to the levers of power as Lindemann actually had, then the world would be a goner. (In Lindemann’s defence, it has been noted that he was fond of children and animals. Likewise, another man; one with a famous moustache.)
Frederick Lindemann exerted a beguiling influence over Churchill. When Churchill was not in power, in the 1930s, Lindemann ran a private think-tank for Churchill. In the 1930s he allegedly undermined the scientific development of radar, which proved critical to the defence of Britain from Luftwaffe attacks; indeed, Lindemann seems to have shown a lack of interest in military defence; his thing was the elimination or dehumanisation of ‘others’. Lindemann “was one of the first to urge the importance of atom bomb research” (Where to Read about Professor Lindemann, The Churchill Project, 6 May 2015); indeed “Following his 1945 return to the Clarendon Laboratory, Lindemann created the [United Kingdom] Atomic Energy Authority”, Wikipedia.)
I will illustrate the Lindemann problem with quotes from these three sources; some may argue that I have made a biased selection, but so be it:
Mukerjee: “Known as the Prof to admirers (because of his academic credentials and his brilliance) and as Baron Berlin to detractors (thanks to his German accent and aristocratic tastes), Lindeman was responsible for the government’s scientific decisions.”
Mukerjee: “Lindemann attended meetings of the War Cabinet, accompanied the prime minister on conferences abroad, and sent him an average of one missive a day. He saw Churchill almost daily for the duration of the war and wielded more influence than any other civilian adviser.”
Gladwell: “I think that’s the crucial fact about Lindemann. One time he’s asked for his definition of morality and he answers, ‘I define a moral action as one that brings advantage to my friends.’ … The man who defined a moral action as ‘One that brings advantage to my friends,’ was best friends with Winston Churchill.”
Gladwell: “Lindemann becomes a kind of gatekeeper to Churchill’s mind.”
Mukerjee: “On most matters Lindemann’s and Churchill’s opinions converged; and when they did not, the scientist worked ceaselessly to change his friend’s mind.”
Mukerjee: “The mission of the S branch [Churchill’s nearest equivalent to DOGE] was to provide rationales for whichever course the prime minister, as interpreted by the Prof, wished to follow.”
Mukerjee: “Department heads ‘began to realize that, like it or not, the Prof was the man whom Churchill trusted most, and that all their refutations, aspersions, innuendos or attempts at exposure would not shift Churchill from his undeviating loyalty to the Prof by one hair’s breadth,’ wrote [economist] Harrod. So it was that the Prof would pronounce judgment on the best use of shipping space, the profligacy of the army, the inadequacy of British supplies, the optimal size of the mustard gas stockpile, the necessity of bombing German houses – and, when the time came, the pointlessness of sending famine relief to Bengal.”
Gladwell: “An argument took place at the highest reaches of British government. The question was what was the best use of the royal air force against the Germans? … One school of thought says, ‘Let’s use our bombers to support military activities, protecting ships against German U-boats, destroying German factories.’ The other school of thought argues that bombing ought to serve a bigger, strategic purpose. In other words, ‘Let’s use bombing to break the will of the German people, let’s make their lives so miserable that they give up.’”
Wikipedia: On dehousing, Lindemann says “bombing must be directed to working class houses. Middle class houses have too much space round them, so are bound to waste bombs”.
Gladwell on Lindemann’s dishonesty: “Lindemann’s memo to Churchill. It’s very matter of fact; it’s all about what the data says except for one thing. That’s not what the data says. The Birmingham-Hull study reached the exact opposite conclusion [about working-class morale] that Lindemann did.”
Gladwell: “Other experts [eg Henry Tizard] in the government, critics of strategic bombing, point out immediately that Lindemann’s numbers are ridiculous, five or six times too high, based on obvious errors.” [Hitchens (p.205) claims that the numbers of civilian casualties were only ten percent of what Lindemann had promised. If you multiply by ten the number of civilians – mostly workers, their families, slaves, and refugees – killed in the totality of the Gomorrah holocaust, you get a number bigger than deaths in The Holocaust; this would be a measure of Lindemann’s intent.]
Gladwell: “One of Lindemann’s friends said, ‘He would not shrink from using an argument which he knew to be wrong if, by so doing, he could tie up one of his professional opponents.’ Lindemann wanted strategic bombing, so Churchill went ahead and ordered the bombing of German cities.”
Gladwell: “Most historians agree that strategic bombing was a disaster. 160,000 US and English airmen and hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed in those bombing campaigns. Many of Europe’s most beautiful cities were destroyed and German morale didn’t crack; the Germans fought to the bitter end. After the war, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Patrick Blackett wrote a devastating essay where he said that the war could have been won six months or even a year earlier, if only the British had used their bombers more intelligently.” [Note that the whole Gomorrah holocaust killed more Japanese civilians than German civilians; as noted in Black Snow: Curtis LeMay, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Road to the Atomic Bomb, the Hamburg dry run led more-or-less directly to the fire-bombings of almost every urban centre in Japan.]
Mukerjee: “‘Love me, love my dog, and if you don’t love my dog you damn well can’t love me,’ muttered a furious Churchill in 1941, after a member of the House of Commons had raised questions about the Prof’s influence.” [Gladwell: that “row occurred in 1942 and it occurred over strategic bombing”.]
Mukerjee: “Cherwell believed that a small circle of the intelligent and the aristocratic should run the world. ‘Those who succeed in getting what everyone wants must be the ablest,’ he asserted. The Prof regarded the masses as ‘very stupid,’ considered Australians to be inferior to Britons, advocated ‘harshness’ toward homosexuals, and thought criminals should be treated cruelly because ‘the amount of pleasure derived by other people from the knowledge that a malefactor is being punished far exceeds in sum total the amount of pain inflicted on a malefactor by his punishment.’” [Enjoyment arising from the punishment of the wretched outweighs the suffering of those wretched!]
Mukerjee: “Eugenic ideas also feature in a lecture that Lord Cherwell (then known as Professor Lindemann) had delivered more than once, probably in the early 1930s. He had detailed a science-based solution to a challenge that occupied many an intellect of the time: preserving for eternity the hegemony of the superior classes.”
Mukerjee: “New technologies such as surgery, mind control, and drug and hormone manipulations would one day allow humans to be fine-tuned for specific tasks. … ‘Somebody must perform dull, dreary tasks, tend machines, count units in repetition work; is it not incumbent on us, if we have the means, to produce individuals without a distaste for such work, types that are as happy in their monotonous occupation as a cow chewing the cud?’ Lindemann asked. Science could yield a race of humans blessed with ‘the mental make-up of the worker bee.’ This subclass would do all the unpleasant work and not once think of revolution or of voting rights: ‘Placid content rules in the bee-hive or ant-heap.’ The outcome would be a perfectly peaceable and stable society, ‘led by supermen and served by helots.’”
Mukerjee: “At least no one would demand votes on behalf of an ape. … To consolidate the rule of supermen – to perpetuate the British Empire – one need only remove the ability of slaves to see themselves as slaves.”
Gladwell: “How can you have a real debate against Churchill’s best friend? Friendship comes first.”
Gladwell: “The US starts sending over so many ships that, by late 1943 when the famine in Bengal is at its height, there’s actually a surplus of boats on the allied side. In fact, in 1943, the British actually start shipping wheat from Australia up through the Indian Ocean, just not to India. … British ships full of grain are sailing right past India on the way to the Middle East to be stored for some future, hypothetical need. They might even stop and refuel in Mumbai, but nothing leaves the ship. … Why is Lindemann [as Paymaster General] refusing to help? It doesn’t even make illogical sense. Indian soldiers, hundreds of thousands of them, are fighting the Germans in the Middle East and Africa. When other countries like Canada and the United States offered to send food to India, the British say, ‘We don’t want it.’ They turn down help. Lindemann seems completely unmoved by India’s plight.”
Gladwell: “Black people, according to a friend, filled him with a physical revulsion which he was unable to control. But I’m not sure that we’re seeing Lindemann here; I think we’re seeing Churchill. Churchill is the one with an issue about India. He’s obsessed with India. In the years leading up to the war, Gandhi is building his independence movement within India and Churchill hates Gandhi. Churchill is furious about the fact that Britain has to buy raw materials from India, meaning that the master is running up a debt with its supposed subject. … Why was Lindemann so adamant that England could not help India? Because Churchill was adamant that England could not help India and Lindemann was a loyal friend.”
CP Snow (1960), cited by Gladwell: “The Lindemann-Churchill relation is the most fascinating example of court politics that we’re likely to see.” [hmmm!]
Gladwell: “The best guess of how many died in the Bengal famine of 1943 is three million people. Three million. After the war, the British government held a formal inquiry into what happened, but the investigation was forbidden to consider, and I’m quoting, ‘Her Majesty’s government’s decision in regard to shipping of imports.’ In other words, they were asked to investigate the cause of the famine without investigating the cause of the famine.”
Hitchens (p.197): “Gas attacks were contemplated by Winston Churchill. … Overy writes ‘The RAF staff thought that incendiary and high-explosive raids were more strategically efficient [than gas or germ warfare], in that they destroyed property and equipment and not just people, but in any of these cases – blown apart, burnt alive or asphyxiated – deliberate damage to civilian populations was now taken for granted. This paved the way for the possibility of using atomic weapons on German targets in 1945’.”
It also paved the way for the potentially devastating anthrax attacks on Germany which would have taken place in 1944 had the American-led D-day offensive been unsuccessful; contamination from such attacks would have rendered parts of Germany uninhabitable for a human lifetime. (See my Invoking Munich, ‘Appeasement’, and the ‘Lessons of History’ 13 March 2025, which mentions both the Bengal famine and the anthrax program as well as the Hamburg holocaust.) The anthrax program bears the hallmark of Lindemann; the abandoned anthrax operation was dubbed Operation Vegetarian, in part a likely reference to Lindemann’s famed dietary obsessions.
Hitchens (pp.200-201): “It is surprising that Sir Max Hasting’s Bomber Command (first published in 1979) has not begun to change opinions. … Sir Max deserves much credit for the chapter in which he describes the indefensible destruction of the city of Darmstadt [south of Frankfurt] on 11 September 1944 (it was not, in any significant way, a military target). Hastings: ‘The first terrible discoveries were made: cellars crammed with suffocated bodies – worse still, with amorphous heaps of melted and charred humanity’.” (Lindemann went to school in Darmstadt. Victims most likely included his former classmates, teachers and their families.)
Hitchens (p.206), on the battle between Frederick Lindemann and Henry Tizard (the scientist who stood up to Lindeman, and paid a price): “Why is the only considerable account of this battle trapped inside [a] small, obscure volume that the reader must retrieve from deep in a few impenetrable scholarly libraries? Why is it not taught in schools? Why has nobody written a play about it? I suspect it is because this story, if well known, would undermine the shallow, nonsensical cult of Winston Churchill as the infallible Great Leader, a cult to which, surely, an adult country no longer needs to cling.”
Hitchens (p.205): “Tizard said that Lindemann’s estimate of the possible destruction was five times too high. He was supported by Patrick Blackett, a former naval officer who had become a noted physicist high in the scientific councils of the day. He would later win the Nobel Prize in Physics, and be ennobled as Lord Blackett. Blackett independently advised that Lindemann’s estimate was six times too high. ‘Both were slightly out. But they were nothing like as wrong as Lindemann was. Lindemann’s estimate of destruction was in fact ten times too high, as the postwar bombing survey revealed.” [The actual destruction of German cities was only one-tenth of what Lindemann had hoped and argued would be the case. Given the actual hundreds of thousands of barbecued German civilians, Lindemann had been arguing for millions.]
CP Snow (1960), cited by Hitchens (p.205): “It is possible, I suppose, that some time in the future people living in a more benevolent age than ours may turn over the official records and notice that men like us, well-educated by the standards of the day, men fairly kindly by the standards of the day, and often possessed of strong human feelings, made the kind of calculation I have just been describing. … Will they think that we resigned our humanity? They will have the right.” [Strikingly, although the post-war years have generally been regarded as ‘more benevolent’, the Gomorrah holocaust continues to ‘fly under the radar’. Indeed, so much so that Churchill’s speeches have been nominated as part of New Zealand’s schools’ draft English curriculum! (And that matter of Churchill was not raised by the New Zealand media; they were more interested in the ‘controversial’ possibility that Shakespeare might be compulsory.)]
Winston Churchill was not a nice man. His ‘favourite’ – Frederick Lindemann – was rather less nice.
Lessons
War itself is the problem, and the first casualty of war is truth. Drumbeating for war is cheap, and sabres are easily rattled. We stumble into wars without having any realistic idea how they might end; casual war becomes forever war. Wars involve multiple nasty people from the outset, and other similarly nasty people come to the fore during war, sometimes completely behind the scenes.
War changes much but solves little. World War Two was the first war in which civilians were targeted on an industrial scale. It ended, in Europe at least, in a Pyrrhic manner, with Josef Stalin’s USSR as the annihilist of Nazi Germany.
War in the modern age of globalisation means this and more. In a twenty-first century World War, while targeted civilians will be high on the murder list, the biggest death-counts are likely to be of untargeted civilians – residents of semi-belligerent and non-belligerent countries – and of completely guiltless non-human life forms.
If the Americans hadn’t successfully prosecuted D-Day (Operation Overlord) in 1944, I believe that Winston Churchill would have used the RAF to unleash his anthrax bombs. The Scottish island of Gruinard is only now becoming habitable, after eighty years of anthrax contamination. Imagine parts of Germany becoming uninhabitable – for nearly a century – had Operation Vegetarian been executed.
————-
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
King Charles’s recent visit to the Vatican may appear to be simply a symbolic gesture of ecumenical goodwill. But moments like this provide an opportunity to look at the long-term consequences of church-state relations around the world.
Today’s religious identities have more to do with political decisions made centuries ago than with personal faith. Spain and Portugal are predominantly Catholic not because of the individual choices of their population, but because their monarchs aligned (and maintained the hegemony) of the Roman Catholic church-state. In England, on the other hand, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome in the 1530s, challenging (“protesting”) against the universal papal authority and leading to the establishment of the Church of England.
This religious split also carried over to former colonies. Compare the US, (a Protestant country) to Mexico or Brazil (Catholic countries), and you’ll see the long shadow of these old decisions. My research shows the profound and lasting consequences of religion on these societies.
My findings suggest that countries with historical and legal alignments with the Catholic church — such as Spain, Portugal, Austria, Ireland and much of Latin America — tend to underperform on a number of metrics, including inequality and education, and have more political corruption compared to states that maintained institutional separation (such as through the Protestant Reformation). Historical Protestant countries include the UK, Switzerland, Scandinavian and North American countries.
In particular, countries with strong traditional links to the Catholic church tend to exhibit higher levels of corruption and inequality. They also perform weaker in education, sustainability and competitiveness compared to Protestant countries.
Prosperity and educational differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics are evident even within countries. In Switzerland, the Protestant cantons (such as Geneva and Zurich) are currently the most competitive, while the Roman Catholic cantons (such as Ticino and Valais) are the least competitive. In Germany, Protestants are more educated (0.8 years more) and more prosperous (5.4% higher income) than Catholics.
Before the Reformation, literacy in England was below 10%, and the Roman church largely monopolised education. The Protestant emphasis on individual reading – especially of the Bible – dramatically increased literacy rates and access to knowledge. This paved the way for broader democratic participation, industrialisation and innovation.
Protestantism similarly proved influential in historical law revolutions, gradually separating society from feudal institutions and papalist medieval canon law.
In Britain, the Reformation was not just a theological shift, but a political one, breaking institutional ties with Rome and affirming national sovereignty. The long-term effects of that decision have echoed through the UK’s democratic and economic development.
Church-state relations
The Vatican’s political influence is often underestimated. The Roman Catholic church is the only religious body that is, at the same time, a sovereign political state – with ambassadors, diplomatic immunity and seats at international forums. The pope holds absolute executive, legislative and judicial authority.
Many of today’s Catholic-majority countries maintain formal relations with the Roman See through bilateral treaties called concordats. These agreements exert the power of the church in countries that have them, and are rarely democratically consulted with the population.
In Colombia, for example, concordats throughout history have linked religion and politics, have given church-influenced groups power over the economy, and allowed Rome to control what is taught in public and private education at all levels.
Since then, liberal efforts have reestablished much of the state’s power. But the effects are still evident in the strong cultural identity and presence of Catholicism in the country. Colombia has one of the highest proportions of adults raised as Roman Catholics in the world (92%), after Paraguay (94%).
Historically, informal gestures of religious diplomacy have laid the groundwork for further cooperation and formal agreements with Rome.
But King Charles’s recent Vatican visit is more diplomatic than anything. It reflects modern efforts to maintain and strengthen state-to-state relations and discuss shared global concerns like climate change and peacebuilding.
It is for this reason that the king’s visit matters – not because a formal treaty is on the table, but because it shows the strength of the UK’s experience since the Reformation. An exemplary model of the success of church-state separation, British democracy and prosperity have thrived for centuries – without formal entanglements with the Catholic church.
Dr Jason Garcia-Portilla earned his PhD in Organization Studies and Cultural Theory at the University of St. Gallen (Switzerland), financed with a Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship–ESKAS. Additionally, he holds an MSc in Climate Change and Policy from the University of Sussex in the UK (funded by the British Chevening Scholarship).
In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis called for a radical break with consumerist lifestyles.Ricardo Perna/Shutterstock
On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour un écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins: l’impossible découplage? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).
“Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”
What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The “green” pope
In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:
“There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)
The “green” pope published Laudato Si’ on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. The aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.
In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:
“Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)
Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”
Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics”.
In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.
For Jacques Ellul, technology is anything but neutral since it represents genuine power driven by its own movement. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:
overconsumption in developed countries:
“Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);
the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:
“Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);
the hypertrophy of speculative finance:
“Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);
the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:
“In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);
the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones. (§-51)
Social justice and shrinking growth
In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.
Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations. (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).
This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.
In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.
“Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193)
Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.
Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council
In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis called for a radical break with consumerist lifestyles.Ricardo Perna/Shutterstock
On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour un écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins: l’impossible découplage? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).
“Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”
What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The “green” pope
In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:
“There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)
The “green” pope published Laudato Si’ on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. The aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.
In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:
“Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)
Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”
Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics”.
In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.
For Jacques Ellul, technology is anything but neutral since it represents genuine power driven by its own movement. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:
overconsumption in developed countries:
“Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);
the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:
“Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);
the hypertrophy of speculative finance:
“Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);
the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:
“In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);
the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones. (§-51)
Social justice and shrinking growth
In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.
Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations. (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).
This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.
In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.
“Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193)
Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.
Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – The Holy Father has appointed the Reverend Joseph Mopepe Ngongo, doctoral candidate in theology at the Université Catholique du Congo, as bishop of the diocese of Molegbe, Democratic Republic of the Congo.Msgr. Joseph Mopepe Ngongo was born on 15 July 1966 in Gemena, diocese of Molegbe. He entered the Saint François d’Assise Preparatory Seminary of Katokoli and studied philosophy at the Saint Jean-Baptiste Major Seminary of Bamanya and theology at the Université Catholique du Congo.He received priestly ordination on 19 March 1995.After ordination, he was awarded a licentiate in theology from the Université Catholique du Congo (1995-1997), and held the roles of formator (1997-2002) and rector (2002-2011) of the Saint Pierre et Saint Paul Interdiocesan Major Seminary in Lisala.In 2011 he began his studies for a doctorate in France where, at the same time, he served as vicar of the Notre Dame Saint Jacques Cathedral in Reims (2011-2021). In addition, he was moderator of the parishes of the Espace missionnaire Sedan-Yvois and chaplain of the Equipes du Rosaire of the metropolitan archdiocese of Reims (2021-2024).In 2024 he returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to conclude his doctoral studies at the Université Catholique du Congo in Kinshasa. (EG) (Agenzia Fides, 15/4/2025)
Share:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – The Holy Father has appointed the Reverend Fr. Miguel Fritz, O.M.I., until now apostolic administrator of Pilcomayo, Paraguay, as vicar apostolic of the same apostolic vicariate.The Reverend Fr. Miguel Fritz, O.M.I., was born on 10 May 1955 in Hannover, Germany. He obtained a diploma in theology from the Gutenberg University of Mainz and a licentiate in anthropology from the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana of Quito.He gave his perpetual vows in 1980 and was ordained a priest on 28 May 1981.He has held the following offices: deputy parish priest in Gelsenkirchen, Germany (1981-1984), deputy parish priest in Colonia Independencia, diocese of Villarrica del Espíritu Santo (1985-1987), service in the O.M.I. House of Formation in Lambaré, Asunción (1987-1988), deputy parish priest of Santa María, in the apostolic vicariate of Pilcomayo (1988-1994), vicar general of Pilcomayo and parish priest of Santa María (1995-2006), superior of the O.M.I. in the province of Paraguay (2007-2010), member of the O.M.I. General Council at the General House in Rome (2010-2016), and vicar general of Pilcomayo and parish priest of San Leonardo (2016-2022).Since 2022, he has served as apostolic administrator sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis of the apostolic vicariate of Pilcomayo. (EG) (Agenzia Fides, 15/4/2025)
Share:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – “Faced with the appalling injustice of evil, we never carry the cross of Christ in vain; on the contrary, it is the most tangible way for us to share in his redemptive love.” Under a gray sky, in St. Peter’s Square filled with pilgrims, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Vice Dean of the College of Cardinals, gave voice to the Pope by reading Pope Francis’ homily for Palm Sunday, the day that marks the beginning of Holy Week.The Pope, who is entering his fourth week of convalescence after being hospitalized for bilateral pneumonia, was absent from the ceremony, which began, as is tradition, with the blessing of olive and palm branches at the foot of the ancient obelisk in the center of St. Peter’s Square. From there, the procession continued to the square, decorated with olive trees.As last Sunday, at the end of the celebration, the Pope appeared unexpectedly on the square, greeted by long applause. “Happy Palm Sunday! Happy Holy Week!” These were the words spoken by the Pope, who, before returning to Casa Santa Marta, stopped to greet the Cardinals present and the authorities who had participated in the rite.[embedded content]In his commentary on today’s Gospel, that of the Passion according to Luke, Pope Francis, in the homily read by Cardinal Sandri, focused on the figure of Simon of Cyrene, the man who “while coming in from the countryside” was seized by the soldiers who then “laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.”The Pope described this action of carrying the cross as “ambivalent” because the man from Cyrene “was forced to carry the cross: he did not help Jesus out of conviction, but out of coercion.”On the other hand, “he then becomes personally involved in the Lord’s passion,” so that “Jesus’ cross becomes Simon’s cross. He was not the Simon, called Peter, who had promised to follow the Master at all times.That Simon disappeared on the night of betrayal, even after he had exclaimed: “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death”. Yet the Master had clearly taught: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me”. Simon of Galilee spoke but did not act. Simon of Cyrene acts but does not speak. Between him and Jesus, there is no dialogue; not a single word is spoken. Between him and Jesus, there is only the wood of the cross.””The cross of wood that Simon of Cyrene bore is the cross of Christ, who himself bore the sins of all humanity,” the Pope emphasized, recalling that Christ carries the cross “for love of us, in obedience to the Father, he suffered with us and for us. It is precisely in this unexpected and astonishing way, Simon of Cyrene becomes part of the history of salvation, in which no one is a stranger, no one a foreigner.”And when “we see the great crowds of men and women whom hatred and violence are compelling to walk the road to Calvary, let us remember that God has made this road a place of redemption, for he walked it himself, giving his life for us. How many Simons of Cyrene are there in our own day, bearing the cross of Christ on their shoulders! Can we recognize them? Can we see the Lord in their faces, marred by the burden of war and deprivation?Faced with the appalling injustice of evil, we never carry the cross of Christ in vain; on the contrary, it is the most tangible way for us to share in his redemptive love.” Jesus’ passion “becomes compassion whenever we hold out our hand to those who feel they cannot go on, when we lift up those who have fallen, when we embrace those who are discouraged.””In order to experience this great miracle of mercy, let us decide how we are meant to carry our own cross during this Holy Week: if not on our shoulders, in our hearts. And not only our cross, but also the cross of those who suffer all around us; perhaps even the cross of some unknown person whom chance — but is it really chance? — has placed on our way. Let us prepare for the Lord’s paschal mystery by becoming each of us, for one another, a Simon of Cyrene,” the Pope concluded.In the text of the reflection prepared for the recitation of the Angelus, released for the ninth consecutive Sunday only in written form, the Pontiff thanks all the faithful for their prayers on his behalf: “At this time of physical weakness, they help me to feel God’s closeness, compassion and tenderness even more. I too am praying for you, and I ask you to entrust all those who suffer to the Lord together with me, especially those affected by war, poverty or natural disasters.”The Bishop of Rome then turned his thoughts to Santo Domingo: “May God receive in His peace the victims of the collapse of a building in Santo Domingo, and comfort their families.” Then the appeal for peace, beginning with Africa: “The 15th of April will mark the second sad anniversary of the beginning of the conflict in Sudan, in which thousands have been killed and millions of families have been forced to flee their homes. The suffering of children, women and vulnerable people cries out to heaven and begs us to act. I renew my appeal to the parties involved, that they may end the violence and embark on paths of dialogue, and to the international community, so that the help needed may be provided to the populations.And let us also remember Lebanon, where the tragic civil war began fifty years ago: with God’s help, may it live in peace and prosperity.””May peace come at last to martyred Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, the Democratic Republic of Congo, to Myanmar, to South Sudan. May Mary, Mother of Sorrows, obtain this grace for us and help us to live this Holy Week with faith,” is the plea at the end of Pope Francis’s text. (F.B.) (Agenzia Fides, 13/4/2026)
Share:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Simla and Chandigarh, India, presented by Bishop Ignatius Loyola Ivan Mascarenhas.The Holy Father has appointed the Reverend Sahaya Thatheus Thomas, until now rector of the Holy Trinity Major Seminary in Jullundur, as bishop of the diocese of Simla and Chandigarh, India.Msgr. Sahaya Thatheus Thomas was born on 6 November 1971 in Chinnavilai, in the diocese of Kottar, Tamil Nadu. After his formation at Saint Paul’s Minor Seminary, Lucknow, he studied philosophy and theology at the Holy Trinity Major Seminary in Jullundur. He obtained a licentiate in theology and a doctorate in sacred scripture at the Universität Wien, Austria. He was also awarded a master’s degree in journalism and mass communication from the University of Punjab, in Patiala, and a master’s degree in human rights from the Indian Institute of Human RIghts in New Delhi.He was ordained a priest on 13 May 2001.He has held the following offices: parish assistant of Little Flower, in Panchkula (2001-2004), vice rector of the diocesan major seminary in Kauli (2004-2009), director of the Diocesan Commission for the Media and the Diocesan Bible Enquiry Centre (2004-2009), deputy parish priest in Schwechat, Austria (2010-2013), deputy parish priest in Retz in the metropolitan archdiocese of Vienna (2013-2016), and parish priest of Little Flower in Sangrur, Punjab (2017-2019). Since 2019 he has served as rector of the Holy Trinity Major Seminary in Jullundur. (Agenzia Fides, 12/4/2025)
Share:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – The Holy Father has appointed the Reverend Sonatan Kisku, until now vicar general of the diocese of Dumka and parish priest of Saint Mary’s, as auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Dumka, India, assigning him the titular see of Zarna.Msgr. Sonatan Kisku was born on 15 May 1969 in Kaudia, in the diocese of Dumka. He was ordained a priest for the same diocese on 15 April 2002. After attending Saint Paul’s Minor Seminary in Lucknow, he carried out his studies in philosophy at the Morning Star College in Calcutta, and in theology at the Papal Seminary in Pune. He was awarded a licentiate in canon law from the Pontifical Urbaniana University of Rome.He has held the following offices: deputy parish priest of Torai (2002-2004), director of the Diocesan Vocation Centre (2007-2008), diocesan bursar (2008-2013), diocesan chancellor (2008-2021), chargé for legal affairs (since 2008), chargé for the pastoral care of the Christian communities of Gopikandar (2012-2014), chargé for young priests (since 2013), chargé for elderly and sick priests (since 2014), vicar general (since 2015), director of the Social Development Centre (2015-2023), secretary of Saint Joseph’s English Medium School (since 2015), regional director of the Basic Ecclesial Communities of the region of Jharkhand and the Andaman Islands (since 2021). Since 2023 he has served as parish priest of Saint Mary’s in Dumka. (Agenzia Fides, 12/4/2025)
Share:
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – The Holy Father has erected the ecclesiastical province of Calicut, India, elevating the see of Calicut to a metropolitan Church and assigning to it as suffragans the diocese of Kannur and Sultanpet, until now belonging to the ecclesiastical province of Verapoly.The Holy Father has appointed Bishop Varghese Chakkalakal, until now bishop of Calicut, as metropolitan archbishop of the same See. (Agenzia Fides, 12/4/2025)
by Cardinal Pietro Parolin*Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – We publish Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s preface to the book by the missionary and priest Antonio Sergianni, “The journey of the Gospel in China. In the footsteps of Father Matteo Ricci” (published by “La conchiglia di Santiago”, San Miniato, Pisa). The book is a precious and passionate testimony to the adventure of Christianity in China, which was also born out of personal encounters with Chinese bishops, priests, and Catholic laity.Father Sergianni (84), a spiritual son of Father Divo Barsotti, entered the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions (PIME) as a young man and was ordained a priest in 1965. From 1980 to 2003, he served as a missionary in Taiwan, visiting several provinces of mainland China for long periods. He then worked for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, now the Dicastery for Evangelization, where he was responsible for the affairs of the Catholic Church in China.***There are many ways to look at China. And for a Christian, it is legitimate to look at China “in the light of the Word of God.” Thus writes Father Antonio Sergianni, priest and missionary, at the beginning of this book, hinting at the source of the unique and incomparable power that permeates its pages.Faith in Jesus Christ, as the Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément used to say, ‘is not an anxious pietism of life.’ Nor is it an idealism dedicated to imagining and building alternative worlds. Just as it recognizes that the Kingdom of God ‘is not of this world, whose form is passing’ (Paul VI, Credo of the People of God), faith in Jesus Christ can, almost as a ‘side effect,’ out of grace and humility, also make our view of worldly affairs clearer and more penetrating. It can lead us to realistically grasp dynamics ignored by geopolitical analyses, factors disregarded by economic interpretations, which usually do not take into account the expectations of greatness and goodness that mysteriously vibrate in the history and life of peoples.Dynamics and factors that today seem even more hidden and distant due to the global flow of media and communication in which we are all involved.With his faithful gaze, Father Antonio captures the human greatness of the Chinese people’s and Chinese civilization’s journey through time, helping us grasp it in all its breadth. A dizzying greatness, a kind of mystery of History, with a continuity spanning more than a thousand years, which seems to cross and overcome the caesuras between historical epochs. A human entity without equal in its writing and forms of social organization, which has always assigned its authorities the task of mediating and ensuring the balance between human society and the natural order. This is a reality that inherited from the Confucian tradition the conviction of its universal mission, of the centrality and attraction of its civilization, and which now appears with renewed prominence on the world stage, arousing diverse reactions ranging from admiration to anxiety, from hostility to sympathy.With the gaze of faith, Father Sergianni in his book glimpses a possible overlap between the Chinese reality, which pervades history as an unprecedented mystery, and another reality linked to a mystery of a different kind: the mystery that came into the world with the birth of Christ and gave birth to a people who pervade history until the end of time.With the gaze of faith, Father Antonio traces all the historical periods that have marked the encounter between the proclamation of Christ and China, from the arrival of the monks of the ancient Church of the East on Chinese soil in the first centuries of Christianity to the present day. With historical clarity and, at the same time, moving compassion, the author traces the golden thread of the encounters between the “mystery” of China and the Christian mystery that have so often occurred during this long adventure. This golden thread mysteriously interweaves failures and new beginnings, missed opportunities and new beginnings, tribulations and moments of grace. Each passage seems like a deposit and promise of something great that will soon unfold. Already now, and yet not yet.In the final stretch of the journey of the last decades, the gaze of faith with which Father Sergianni looks at history, at China, and at faith in China, becomes above all the gaze of a witness. One can say that the power, the intimate strength of this book, comes from the fact that it is, first and foremost, a testimony of Christian love. The pages in which he casually recounts his encounters and his long-standing bond with Chinese brothers and sisters in faith – bishops, priests, nuns, lay men and women – allow the reason and source of this love to shine through. Along his life’s journey, his love for Christ was strengthened and embraced by encounters with Chinese Catholic brothers and sisters. His love for Jesus was grateful, even to the point of shedding tears, when he saw what Jesus himself was doing among them. Among people who performed simple tasks during the time of tribulation and carried bricks down the river for years. Like the priest who told him how he was mistreated because he did not know how to “clean the toilets,” and how, precisely in such moments, he “felt the risen Jesus Christ at my side, a great peace, and the desire to sing.”Because of this vision of faith and his love for Chinese Catholics, Father Antonio also appropriately and objectively documents the concern of the Popes and the Apostolic See for the affairs of the Church in China. His account of the papal interventions regarding the proclamation of the Gospel in China, from Benedict XV to Pope Francis, testifies to the consistency of the criteria followed by the Bishops of Rome in various circumstances, who have always acted in fidelity to the apostolic nature of the Church, preserving the treasure of communion even in times of trial.The documentation compiled by Father Sergianni in the appendix to this volume is a valuable and useful tool for all those who wish to retrace, in an objective yet passionate way, the most important stages of the unparalleled journey of the Chinese Catholic community in recent decades, beginning with the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China.With his book, Father Sergianni clarifies what Pope Francis said: Even in times of patience and trial, “the Lord in China has preserved the faith of the People of God on this journey.” And today, Chinese Catholics, fully Catholic and fully Chinese, “in communion with the Bishop of Rome, are moving forward in the present age. In the context in which they live, they also bear witness to their faith through works of mercy and charity, and in their witness they make a genuine contribution to the harmony of social coexistence, to the building of our common home” (cf. video message to the International Conference for the 100th Anniversary of the Concilium Sinense, Rome, May 21, 2024).In the daily life of the “small remnant” of Chinese Catholics, with all their human limitations and poverty, this encounter takes place between the mystery of Christ’s efficacious grace and the historical events of Chinese reality, which Father Antonio describes in his book. From this interconnectedness, gifts can be released for all. This encounter, too, can mysteriously contribute to ensuring that the breath and longing for greatness of the Chinese people and all other peoples do not become closed in on themselves and fuel fears with endless wars, but are channeled toward paths of peace that promote encounters and paths of fraternity, of fraternal coexistence between different peoples.For all these reasons, we must thank Father Sergianni for the gift of this book.(Agenzia Fides, 12/4/2025)*Vatican’s Secretary of State
Share:
Warning: this article contains major spoilers for the ending of White Lotus season three.
“Is this a bit ‘You killed my father, prepare to die,’ kind of?” asks Chelsea, the horoscope-obsessed Brit played with charm by Aimee Lou Wood in season three of The White Lotus.
Chelsea may be thinking of The Princess Bride (1987), but we’re firmly in Hamlet territory. Her partner Rick (Walton Goggins) soon sets off to avenge his father’s death and kicks off a chain of violence that ends, inevitably, in blood and tragedy.
Mike White’s luxury-hotel-meets-moral-decline drama, The White Lotus, has always toyed with highbrow references. Season two gave us Madame Butterfly meets commedia dell’arte (a genre of early Italian theatre replete with wealthy lovers, greedy old men, duplicitous servants and glamorous courtesans).
Season three shifts the setting to Thailand. There, the show’s satire of super-wealth is framed through not only the lens of Buddhism, but also through many of Sheakeapre’s great tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and King Lear.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Enter Rick, our sullen Hamlet. He’s been raised on a tragic fairy tale. As a child, his mother told him that his saintly father was murdered by a corrupt Thailand-based hotel-owner, Jim Hollinger (Scott Glenn). Rick insists this theft of a parent is the root of his suffering. But like Hamlet, he can’t act – not at first.
When he finally does pull the trigger, the results are devastating. Jim’s wife, Sritlana (Lek Patravadi), reveals the twist. Jim was his real father, an oedipal moment that was unsurprising in a season so obsessed with incest.
In the ensuing swirl of gunfire, Chelsea is killed. Rick, cradling her body in a Lear-like pietà, is shot by the noble yet spiritually doomed security guard Gaitok (Tayme Thapthimthong). The two lovers’ bodies float in the lily-strewn waters in an overt modern-day remake of Sir John Everett Millais’s painting, Ophelia (another character from Hamlet).
Yet it’s Timothy Ratliff (Jason Isaacs), not Rick, who most clearly channels Hamlet’s existential torment. Facing exposure for financial fraud, Timothy contemplates suicide and even taking his family with him.
Like Hamlet, though, he hesitates. Not out of pity, but uncertainty. What comes after death? Hamlet asked the same:
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Life is suffering. Hamlet and the Buddha knew that well. So why do we put up with it? To live or die? To act or wait? At a Buddhist monastery, Timothy seeks answers to these questions.
The senior monk tells him: death is not an escape, but a return. Like a droplet returning to the sea, “Death is a happy return, like coming home.” Pain is inescapable; it must be faced. Timothy, and Hamlet, struggle to accept that.
The inevitability of greed
Season three of The White Lotus may have touched on Hamlet’s considerations of suicide, revenge and fate (its finale is named Amor Fati, which translates as love of one’s fate), but its trademark attack on the inevitability of greed was thrown into sharp relief this season thanks to its light engagement with Buddhism.
Timothy speaks with the monk.
The senior monk tells Timothy in his gently broken English, “Everyone run from pain towards the pleasure, but when they get there only to find more pain. You cannot outrun pain.” This season, even our moral compasses, Gaitok, Piper (Sarah Catherine Hook) and Belinda (Natasha Rothwell), run from pain to pleasure – towards power, sex, comfort and money over enlightenment.
Gaitok puts his morals aside to kill Rick so that he might get a promotion and win the heart of Mook (Lalisa Manobal). Piper decides against a year at the monastery after realising she needs the comforts of wealth more than she realised. And Belinda? She could have exposed the killer of Tanya (Jennifer Coolidge’s beloved character from seasons one and two). Instead, she takes a US$5 million payout and sails away smiling.
As she departs, Billy Preston’s buoyant song Nothing from Nothing plays. It’s the same phrase Rick uttered earlier in the season: “Nothing comes from nothing, right?” He’s already empty, he cannot be saved. On the surface, it’s a throwaway line. But it holds weight – philosophical, spiritual and Shakespearean.
Buddhism teaches anatta, the doctrine of no-self. It’s the idea that release comes through relinquishing ego, embracing nothingness. Since we are essentially nothing, all that ever can come from us is nothing: the business and strife and frustration of life is in fact empty froth on the surface of a deep nothingness. And Shakespeare knew the dangers of misunderstanding that “nothing”.
Belinda goes back on her plans to start a business with Pornchai once she receives the money.
“Nothing comes from nothing” is a favoured maxim of King Lear. After asking the first two of his three daughters to express profusely their love for him, he rewards them with land and wealth. Turning to his third daughter, Cordelia, he asks, “What can you say to draw / A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak,” to which she responds:
Cordelia: Nothing, my lord.
Lear: Nothing?
Cordelia: Nothing.
Lear: Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.
If Cordelia gives Lear “nothing,” he will give her “nothing” in return – no dowry, no inheritance, no kingdom. This exposes how Lear has come to place a transactional value on love. In his mind, affection must be spoken, quantified and rewarded with land and power. He’s unable, or unwilling, to recognise the moral worth of Cordelia’s honest, restrained love because it offers no immediate gratification or political utility.
At this early stage of the play, Lear, like The White Lotus’s spiritually bankrupt denizens, falsely clings to worldly value, not seeing it as mere illusion. Belinda’s spiritual bank, however, was full. Yet in the season’s finale, the repetition of “nothing comes from nothing” after Belinda’s ethical one-eighty hints at how fateful her choice really is.
In one moment, she trades enlightenment and true (if restrained) happiness for the nothingness of wealth. At the start of both The White Lotus and King Lear, “nothing”, whether it means death, poverty, or solitude, is a threat. By the end, it’s all that remains.
Emily Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
