A RORATE Guide to the Cardinals and the Conclave

Read more »

William Cash, former editor of the Catholic Herald, on Pope Francis’s funeral and legacy

The sight of Donald Trump and his Catholic First Lady being given a special dispensation to pray for a few moments before the coffin of Pope Francis was a reminder of how religion has returned not only to the forefront of US politics but is now centre stage in world affairs. This was made even more evident by the extraordinary sight of Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelensky sitting down in St Peter’s for a pre-funeral diplomatic chat, which Zelensky described as having the “potential to become historic”.

Joe Biden – a cradle Catholic who supports abortion – was also there, having been notably absent from the 2023 funeral of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. The last US president to attend a papal funeral was George W. Bush for Pope St John Paul II – now raised to the altars of the Church – in 2005.

With St Peter’s basking in the deepest of clear blue skies, unscarred by the plume of airline traffic, President Trump’s presence in front of the Vatican’s phalanx of scarlet-clad cardinal-electors who concelebrated the majestic outdoor Mass is a reminder of how America, with its 60 million Catholics, has now become a global battleground for the Church and her future. The next pope will shape the faith of some 1.4 billion Catholics for a generation or more.

The cardinals resembled a praetorian guard of Roman senators during an interregnum vacuum of power. Trump had to be there, of course, as he was partly only in Rome thanks to the millions of diverse American Catholics watching the service back in the US. Some 59 per cent of US Catholics (especially Hispanics) voted for him.

Significantly, the first reading was in English by American Kielce Gussie, who works as a journalist at Vatican News. She read several verses from the Acts of the Apostles.

As a former editor of the Catholic Herald, I had a strange mix of feelings watching the Requiem Mass of a pope who liked to be known as the Great Reformer. Whilst in Rome back in late February, when Pope Francis was critically ill, I spent an hour inside the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore where he will be buried. He will be the first pope to be laid to rest outside the Vatican City walls for many years.

Having his tumultuous and controversial reign as pope end in what can only be described as an unfashionable budget-tourist neighbourhood of two-star hotels and kebab shops seems almost fitting. It is not a glitzy or wealthy area; it is poor and shabby. Other than the beautiful basilica – one of the Seven Basilicas that pilgrims hundreds of years ago visited on their way into Rome along the Via Francigena – there are few reasons to go there.

It was only when I found myself alone in the church, where I made my confession and attended Mass, that I learned another reason why Pope Francis may have chosen to be buried there. A small plaque revealed that it was in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore where St Ignatius Loyola – founder of the Jesuits – celebrated his first Mass on Christmas Day 1538.

Pope Francis, of course, was the first Jesuit pontiff; he was a bundle of paradoxes and contradictions but clearly a man bent on a holy mission. While he rests in the basilica, he will be keeping company with Rome’s famous Marian icon, Maria Salus Populi Romani, which he was especially moved by.

Pope Francis entrusted his apostolic journeys to the protection of the Salus Populi Romani, an icon that became a special friend as he prayed to her before setting out on all 47 of his papal journeys abroad and on his return to the Vatican – it is a Jesuit tradition. Ever since its foundation, the Society of Jesus has been especially devoted to this rarest of icons. Its extraordinary history explains why the church – one of the four papal basilicas of Rome – is regarded as perhaps the most important sanctuary dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the Western world. Pope Gregory I (590–604) is said to have paused in prayer in front of the icon to implore for an end to the plague.

Popes have given generous donations to the icon as ex-voto offerings: from Clement VIII (1592–1605) to Gregory XVI (1831–1846) and Pius XII (1939–1958), pontiffs have given crowns and jewellery, praying for the intercession entrusted to Salus Populi Romani during various highly challenging times for the Church.

Again, this seems fitting. Pope Francis leaves a legacy of division as well as an almighty set of challenges to bring the Church back together. Catholics around the world, and especially in America, are looking for a pope to heal wounds – one who will unify the Church as it tries to overcome the daily siege of secularisation.

Throughout my time as Herald editor, it was impossible not to admit that Francis was blessed with a charismatic brand of unpredictable, almost fierce energy – often turning explosive – and had a special affinity with the young, poor, downtrodden and dispossessed. I certainly felt his holiness on the various occasions I was close to him, such as in St Peter’s Square when he blessed the crowd after the canonisation of St John Henry Newman. A friend recently described Francis to me as our “Good Shepherd tending to a flock under siege by packs of voracious wolves.” Whoever the next pope is, the first thing that must be done is to try to heal wounds.

Historians will surely regard Pope Francis as one of the most progressive, paradoxical and divisive popes in over 2,000 years of Christian history. The progressive nuances of his political playbook often showed what even his own British friend and biographer Austen Ivereigh referred to as a “certain sharpness, even bitterness” in his character when it came to score-settling or defying tradition, particularly in handing out red hats to those archbishops who might normally expect one.

He enjoyed being a papal “disruptor”, but his modernising agenda often seemed designed to punish traditionalists. My heart missed a beat when Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, who led the papal funeral Mass, said in his measured and enlightened homily that Francis “opened his heart” to everybody. Some orthodox Catholic leaders – such as Cardinal Zen – might not agree, nor would the late Cardinal Pell, who was imprisoned on spurious claims of sex abuse whilst bravely trying to reform Vatican finances.

When Fiducia Supplicans, which was designed to appear as though it allowed the blessing of same-sex relationships, backfired, he had to row back and issue clarifications. It damaged his authority, and a 2024 Gallup poll found that 30 per cent of American Catholics had a “disfavourable” view of Pope Francis – the highest recorded.

Bishops in Africa – led by Cardinal Ambongo – jointly declared that they could not apply the “pastoral” blessings proposed in the Vatican declaration without causing scandal. As a result, Francis quickly adopted a volte-face and gave African bishops an exemption on this highly contentious issue. But the Holy See’s authority was damaged, and the “for clarity” memos became embarrassing.

Pope Francis also reopened the liturgy wars, which seemed unnecessary. Last year, the Herald was involved in getting an “Agatha Christie II” letter together after newly hardened restrictions were imposed on the Traditional Latin Mass. A 2024 variant of the original 1971 letter was published in The Times, with new signatures gathered thanks to the Catholic composer Sir James MacMillan and Joseph Shaw of the Latin Mass Society.

As editor, I received many letters despairing of Pope Francis’s seemingly open hostility towards traditional Catholics, at a time when many younger Catholics were actively embracing the Latin Mass as a way of bringing fresh energy, vocations and numbers into the Church. I couldn’t understand – and still cannot – why the Pope embarked on a course of action that wilfully divided Catholic communities. “The Catholic Church is Being Ripped Apart,” wrote The New York Times.

Pope Francis often also seemed somewhat disconnected from his own priestly flock. Back in November 2023, I recall us publishing a remarkable poll of US Catholic seminarians undertaken by the Catholic University in Washington – it found that 80 per cent identified as “traditional” or orthodox, and rejected the progressive Francis agenda. It said that young liberal priests had “all but vanished”.

It seemed clear that the direction Pope Francis was trying to take the Church was at odds with the feelings and views of mainstream Catholics who believe the Magisterium has been harmed, even vandalised, by excessive progressiveness over the past 60 years – seemingly for its own sake and out of apathy towards traditional Church teaching and morally rooted Western culture.

As editor, I often felt that our mission was to “hold the old City gates” against the forces of progress, secularisation and the soulless digital age. I use the word City, in upper case, as I felt our team of scribbler knights and editors were actually – if it doesn’t sound too ridiculous – trying to hold the gates of the City of God. Sometimes, alas, as our Herald foot soldiers stood on the battlements, it felt as if the ancient gates of the Catholic Church were under siege by progressive forces within the Church itself.

Looking back, it feels a shame that rather too much of my time – and that of the brilliant Herald team, now led decisively by Serenhedd James – was spent channelling our intellectual and reporting energies into trying to fathom exactly what Francis was thinking, and often finding ourselves half-defending him in the spirit of constructive criticism rather than focusing on stories that celebrated the real meaning of the living faith of the Catholic spirit today, as interpreted through the Gospel and scriptures. We spent too much time, inevitably, on Pope Francis’s politicisation of faith.

Pope Francis will not be easily forgotten; he made his mark on the world, and worked to the very end, defying doctors’ orders. But he has left the Church – and the next Successor of Peter – with a range of challenges that are unenviable in their complexity. He was an agent of change, and saw himself as a force for spiritual good, driven by his Jesuit missionary zeal. He had a great passion for the poor and relinquished the red shoes.

It was almost impossible not to be moved when, at the end of the Requiem Mass, the Canticle of the Blessed Virgin Mary was said and we heard the fitting lines: “He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.” But let us pray that the next pope will take the Church in a more conciliatory and less polarising direction.

(Photo by Tiziana FABI / AFP)

The post Requiem for a Pope first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Requiem for a Pope appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an “industrial concern” infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).

The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America’s industrial base, so as to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.

Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks – not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The Yellen debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump’s support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt – maturing imminently – can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is Yellen-Democrat’s little trip wire for the Trump agenda.

So far, the general context seems plain enough. Yet, on the minutiae of how exactly to re-balance the economy; how to manage the “debt bomb;” and how far DOGE should go with its cuts, divisions in Trump’s team are present. In fact, the tariff war and the China tussle bring into contention a fresh phalanx of opposition: i.e. those (some on Wall Street, oligarchs, etc.) who have prospered mightily from the golden era of free-flowing, seemingly limitless, money-creation; those who were enriched, precisely by the policies that have made America subservient to the looming American “debt knell.”

Yet to make matters more complex, two of the key components to Trump’s mooted “re-balancing” and debt “solution” cannot be whispered, let alone said aloud: One reason is that it involves deliberately devaluing “the dollar in your pocket.” And secondly, many more Americans are going to lose their jobs.

That is not exactly a popular “sell.” Which is probably why the “re-balance” has not been well explained to the public.

Trump launched the Liberation “Tariff Shock” seemingly minded to crash-start a restructuring of international trade relations – as the first step towards a general re-alignment of major currency values.

China however, wasn’t buying into the tariff and trade restrictions “stuff,” and matters quickly escalated. It looked for a moment as if the Trump “Coalition” might fracture under the pressure of the concomitant crisis in the U.S. bond market to the tariff fracas that shook confidence.

The Coalition, in fact, held; markets subsided, but then the Coalition fractured over a foreign policy issue – Trump’s hope to normalise relations with Russia, towards a Great Global Reset.

A major strand within the Trump Coalition (apart from MAGA populists) are the neocons and Israeli Firsters. Some sort of Faustian bargain supposedly was struck by Trump at the outset through a deal that had his team heavily peopled by zealous Israeli-Firsters.

Simply put, the breadth of coalition that Trump thought he needed to win the election and deliver an economic re-balance also included two foreign policy pillars: Firstly, the reset with Moscow – the pillar by which to end the “forever wars,” which his Populist base despised. And the second pillar being the neutering of Iran as a military power and source of resistance, on which both Israeli Firsters – and Israel – insist (and with which Trump seems wholly comfortable). Hence the Faustian pact.

Trump’s “peacemaker” aspirations no doubt added to his electoral appeal, but they were not the real driver to his landslide. What has become evident is that these diverse agendas – foreign and domestic – are interlinked: A set-back in one or the other acts as a domino either impelling or retarding the other agendas. Put simply: Trump is dependent on “wins” – early “wins” – even if this means rushing towards a prospective “easy win” without thinking through whether he possesses a sound strategy (and ability) to achieve it.

All of Trump’s three agenda objectives, it turns out, are more complicated and divisive than he perhaps expected. He and his team seem captivated by western-embedded assumptions such as first, that war generally happens “Over There;” that war in the post Cold War era is not actually “war” in any traditional sense of full, all-out war, but is rather a limited application of overwhelming western force against an enemy incapable of threatening “us” in a similar manner; and thirdly, that a war’s scope and duration is decided in Washington and its Deep State “twin” in London.

So those who talk about ending the Ukraine war through an imposed unilateral ceasefire (ie, the faction of Walz, Rubio and Hegseth, led by Kellogg) seem to assume blithely that the terms and timing for ending the war also can be decided in Washington, and imposed on Moscow through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats.

Just as China isn’t buying into the tariff and trade restriction “stuff,” neither is Putin buying into the ultimatum “stuff”: (“Moscow has weeks, not months, to agree a ceasefire”). Putin has patiently tried to explain to Witkoff, Trump’s Envoy, that the American presumption that the scope and duration of any war is very much up to the West to decide simply doesn’t gel with today’s reality.

And, in companion mode, those who talk about bombing Iran (which includes Trump) seem also to assume that they can dictate the war’s essential course and content too; the U.S. (and Israel perhaps), can simply determine to bomb Iran with big bunker-buster bombs. That’s it! End of story. This is assumed to be a self-justifying and easy war – and that Iran must learn to accept that they brought this upon themselves by supporting the Palestinians and others who refuse Israeli normalisation.

Aurelien observes:

So we are dealing with limited horizons; limited imagination and limited experience. But there’s one other determining factor: The U.S. system is recognised to be sprawling, conflictual – and, as a result, largely impervious to outside influence – and even to reality. Bureaucratic energy is devoted almost entirely to internal struggles, which are carried out by shifting coalitions in the administration; in Congress; in Punditland and in the media. But these struggles are, in general, about [domestic] power and influence – and not about the inherent merits of an issue, and [thus] require no actual expertise or knowledge.

The system is large and complex enough that you can make a career as an ‘Iran expert,’ say, inside and outside government, without ever having visited the country or speaking the language – by simply recycling standard wisdom in a way that will attract patronage. You will be fighting battles with other supposed ‘experts,’ within a very confined intellectual perimeter, where only certain conclusions are acceptable.

What becomes evident is that this cultural approach (the Think-Tank Industrial Complex) induces a laziness and the prevalence of hubris into western thinking. It is assumed reportedly, that Trump assumed that Xi Jinping would rush to meet with him, following the imposition of tariffs – to plead for a trade deal – because China is suffering some economic headwinds.

It is blandly assumed by the Kellogg contingent too that pressure is both the necessary and sufficient condition to compel Putin to agree to an unilateral ceasefire – a ceasefire that Putin repeatedly has stated he would not accept until a political framework was first agreed. When Witkoff relays Putin’s point within the Trump team discussion, he stands as a contrarian outside the “licensed discourse” which insists that Russia only takes détente with an adversary seriously after it has been forced to do so by a defeat or serious setback.

Iran too repeatedly has said that it will not be stripped naked of its conventional defences; its allies and its nuclear programme. Iran likely has the capabilities to inflict huge damage both on U.S. forces in the region and on Israel.

The Trump Team is divided on strategy here too – crudely put: to Negotiate or to Bomb.

It seems that the pendulum has swung under intense pressure from Netanyahu and the Jewish institutional leadership within the U.S.

A few words can change everything. In an about face, Witkoff shifted from saying a day earlier that Washington would be satisfied with a cap on Iranian nuclear enrichment and would not require the dismantling of its nuclear facilities, to posting on his official X account that any deal would require Iran to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program … A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal.” Without a clear reversal on this from Trump, we are on a path to war.

It is plain that Team Trump has not thought through the risks inherent to their agendas. Their initial “ceasefire meeting” with Russia in Riyadh, for example, was a theatre of the facile. The meeting was held on the easy assumption that since Washington had determined to have an early ceasefire then “it must be.”

“Famously,” Aurelien wearily notes, “the Clinton administration’s Bosnia policy was the product of furious power struggles between rival American NGO and Human Rights’ alumni – none of whom knew anything about the region, or had ever been there.”

It is not just that the team is insouciant towards the possible consequences of war in the Middle East. They are captive to manipulated assumptions that it will be an easy war.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.

This year, we celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday just one day after Pope Francis is laid to rest.

Pope Francis taught that mercy is essential for Christian life and happiness. He insisted that mercy is not just a theological concept, but the lived experience of God’s closeness to us.

It is said that Pope Francis truly placed the theme of mercy at the heart of his papacy.

Through Saint Faustina, Our Lord gifted humanity with several channels to access the timeless message and incredible graces found in His Mercy.

Below are the five forms of devotion to Divine Mercy and a few bonus facts!

7 Things to Know About Divine Mercy

1) THE DIARY OF SAINT FAUSTINA

Jesus appeared to a poor Polish nun, Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, and charged her with spreading His message of Mercy to the world.

Her more than 600 diary pages hold the message and devotion to Jesus as The Divine Mercy. The release of her diary sparked a movement that led to the spreading of the official image and devotion.

Note from Author: I will reference excerpts from the diary numerous times in this article. You can purchase your own copy on the EWTN Religious Catalogue.

2) THE DIVINE MERCY MESSAGE

The Lord’s Mercy is greater than our sins, and He desires for us to turn to Him with trust and repentance before our judgment.

The message of Divine Mercy is not new to Church teaching. Pope Benedict XVI described it as the center of the Gospel.

3) THE DIVINE MERCY IMAGE

The image was the first element of devotion revealed by Jesus on Feb. 22, 1931, and referred to as a vessel of grace!

Jesus said to Saint Faustina:

*Remember, the physical image itself is not to be worshiped! It’s a vessel/reminder of the source and reality of this image.

4) THE DIVINE MERCY CHAPLET

The Chaplet of Divine Mercy was given to Saint Faustina in 1935 during a private revelation.

It is a powerful way to meditate upon His Passion and is prayed using ordinary Rosary beads (five decades). You can find a full how-to guide here.

Jesus revealed promises attached to praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

5) THE HOUR OF MERCY

The hour of mercy starts at three o’clock, which is the hour Jesus died on the Cross.

Jesus explained to Saint Faustina:

6) THE FEAST OF THE DIVINE MERCY

Jesus requested the solemn celebration to be the first Sunday after Easter:

It was Saint Pope John Paul II who officially established Divine Mercy Sunday as a feast day for the entire Church.

You can find details on receiving a plenary indulgence on Divine Mercy Sunday here.

,

The Divine Mercy Novena begins on Good Friday, nine days before Divine Mercy Sunday.

The Lord said:

In giving us the Divine Mercy novena, Jesus also provided us with special intentions for each day:

The full instructions can be found here and in the Diary of Saint Faustina (1210-1229).

How are you celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday?

Francis in Full(press for full article)

Bishop Robert Barron became quite frank about Pope Francis' papacy. He begins his critique with listing the great things Pope Francis accomplished, especially being a pastoral pope and a pope of the streets with the language of the streets.

But then he turns to what needs to be refined and reset:

And yet, what one reads in almost every assessment of the late pope is that he was, at the very least, “controversial,” “confusing,” “ambiguous.” Some commentators would go so far as to say that he was heretical, undermining the ancient traditions of the Church. I do not at all subscribe to that latter position, but I sympathize to a degree with the former characterizations. Pope Francis was a puzzling figure in many ways, seeming to delight in confounding expectations, zigging when you thought he would zag. He famously told the young people gathered for World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro to “hagan lío” (make a mess), and sometimes he appeared to take pleasure in doing just that. 

One of the messier moments of the Francis pontificate was the two-part Synod on the Family, which took place in 2014 and 2015. The fact that Walter Cardinal Kasper, a long-time advocate of allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, spoke at the outset of the gathering indicated rather clearly the direction that Pope Francis wanted the synod to take. But he was met with stiff resistance from bishops, especially from the developing world, and when the final document appeared, the famous Amoris Laetitia, the question seemed oddly unresolved, open to a variety of interpretations. When the pope’s apologists pointed to an obscure footnote buried deep in the document as providing the requisite clarity, many in the Church were, to say the least, incredulous. And when four cardinals petitioned the pope to resolve a number of puzzles (dubia­, in the technical jargon) that Amoris Laetitia had raised in their minds, they were basically ignored. 

There are indeed many beautiful insights in Amoris Laetitia, but they were largely overlooked due to the controversy and ambiguity that accompanied the document. Indeed, in the wake of its publication, a sort of “doctrinal anarchy” was let loose, as various bishops’ conferences gave the document varying interpretations, so that, for example, what remained a mortal sin in Poland seemed permissible in Malta. If a primary responsibility of the pope is to maintain unity in doctrine and morals, it is hard to see how Pope Francis met that obligation throughout that synodal process and its aftermath. 

And he oddly did not seem to learn from this situation. In 2023, after the first round of the Synod on Synodality (more on this anon), Pope Francis’s doctrinal chief, Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, issued the statement Fiducia Supplicans, which allowed for the possibility of blessing those in same-sex unions. To say that a firestorm broke out in the Catholic world would be an understatement, and the opposition was led, once again, by Catholic leaders from the non-Western sphere. In an astonishing display of unity and courage, the bishops of Africa said that they would not enforce the teaching of Fiducia in their countries, and the pope backed down, permitting them to dissent from the document. That all of this unfolded immediately after a gathering of four hundred leaders from around the Catholic world, who were never consulted on the matter, simply beggars belief. Once again, the pope struggled to maintain the unity of the Church.

At times, too, the pope’s admirably generous instincts appeared to lead him into saying doctrinally imprecise things or countenancing problematic behaviors. An example of the first would be his endorsement, on a number of occasions, of the proposition that all religions are legitimate paths to God, like differing languages speaking the same truth. Now, given his clear enthusiasm for evangelization, I want to be generous in my interpretation of his words, construing them perhaps along the lines of the Second Vatican Council’s assertion that there are elements of truth in all religions. But I think it is fair to say that the pope at least gave the strong impression of religious indifferentism.  

As an example of his countenancing of problematic behaviors, I would point to the (in)famous Pachamama incident at the Synod on the Amazon in 2019. Though there remains a good deal of confusion about the purpose of the placement of the Pachamama statue in the Vatican Gardens during a prayer with the pope, it is certainly fair to say that it generated much controversy and that the various attempts to explain it only made matters worse. Once more, the pope found himself in the middle of a self-created and completely unnecessary kerfuffle, the man supposed to guarantee unity at least implicitly undermining it.

No one doubts that Pope Francis was rhetorically gifted, not in the academic manner of John Paul II or Benedict XVI to be sure, but in the manner of a parish priest adept at popular homilizing. And his speech very often had an edge. Here are a few of his gems: “Mr. and Mrs. Whiner”; “liquid Christian”; “pickled-pepper-faced Christian”; “weak to the point of rottenness”; “Church who is more spinster than mother.” And I believe it is fair to say that his rhetorical venom was, more often than not, directed at conservative Catholics. Here are a few more zingers: “the closed, legalistic slave of his own rigidity”; “doctors of the letter!”; “Rigidity conceals the leading of a double life, something pathological”; “professionals of the sacred! Reactionaries”; and, most famously, “­backwardists.” 

I know that these withering criticisms often deeply discouraged orthodox Catholics, especially young priests and seminarians, whom the pope once referred to as “little monsters.” On one occasion, during the first session of the Synod on Synodality, the pope spoke to the assembled delegates. This sort of direct papal intervention was extremely rare, for, to his credit, the pope did not want excessively to sway or dominate the discussion. He spoke, in a sarcastic tone, of young clerics in Rome who spend too much time at the clerical haberdashery shops, trying on hats, collars, and cassocks. Now, there may indeed be some immature priests and students who are preoccupied with such things, but it struck me as exceedingly strange that this was the topic the pope chose for this rare opportunity to address some of the top leadership of the Church. 

To me, it indicated a curious fixation on, and demonization of, the more conservatively minded. And what made matters even more mystifying is that Francis had to have known that the Church is flourishing precisely among its more conservative members. As the famously liberal church of Germany withers on the vine, the conservative, supernaturally-­oriented church of Nigeria is exploding in numbers. And in the West, the lively parts of the Church are, without doubt, those that embrace a vibrant orthodoxy rather than those that accommodate the secularist culture. Many of the pope’s expressions and stories were indeed funny, but one would be hard pressed to characterize them as invitations to dialogue with conservative interlocutors. 

By way of conclusion, I would like to say a few words about synodality, which I believe Francis himself would identify as his signature theme. I was privileged to be an elected delegate to both sessions of the Synod on Synodality. For two months, I listened to and spoke with representatives from all over the world, and I learned a lot about how Catholics respond to challenges in remarkably diverse cultural milieux. I very much enjoyed the conversations, both those formal exchanges around the table, and even more so, the informal chats during coffee breaks. I came to understand the pope’s Jesuit-inspired process of prayerful discernment. 

I also came, I must admit, to appreciate the limits of synodality. Though every dialogue was lively and informative, very few of them moved toward decision, judgment, or resolution. Most were stuck at what Bernard Lonergan would call the second stage of the epistemic process, namely, being intelligent or having bright ideas. They didn’t move to Lonergan’s third level, which is the act of making a judgment, much less to his fourth stage, which is that of responsible action. So respectful were we of the “process” of conversation that we had almost a phobia of coming to decision. 

This is a fatal problem for Christians entrusted with the evangelical command to announce Christ to the world. The upshot is something that I believe is repugnant to what Pope Francis has consistently said he wants the Church to be: extroverted, mission-oriented, not stuck in the sacristy. I wondered at times during the two rounds of the synod whether synodality represented a tension within the mind and heart of Francis himself. 

Of all of the popes in my lifetime, Francis is, by far, the one I knew the best. I was with him for three Octobers: the two already mentioned, and a third for the Synod on Young People in 2018. During those wonderful months, I saw him practically every day and had a few occasions to speak to him. I also encountered him on an ad limina visit and at a handful of other audiences. I always found him gracious, funny, and approachable; once we had a short but intense spiritual conversation. I considered him my spiritual father and sincerely mourn his passing. Requiescat in pace.

A Peace Deal or a Deception

Is Putin Again Being Deceived, or Are Putin and Trump Deceiving Their Own Populations?

Paul Craig Roberts

The details of the peace deal presented  by US special envoy Steve Witkoff are consistent with the report in the Financial Times discussed in my previous article and with Larry Sparano in the posted interview.  Putin will halt the Russian advance prior to driving Ukrainian soldiers out of all of the territory that has been reincorporated into Russia.  It appears to be the case that the borders between Russia and Ukraine will be the current front line, so Putin is withdrawing Russia’s claim to the Russian territories still under Ukrainian occupation.

In exchange Washington will give de jure, that is legal, by right, recognition to Crimea as a constituent part of Russia, and Washington will give de facto, that is accept the facts on the ground whether legal or not, recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye, and Kherson as provinces of Russia according to the present boundaries in the conflict.

By withholding de jure recognition of Russia’s battlefield gains, Ukraine can continue to claim, and demand return of, Russia’s battlefield gains. In other words, the agreement evades the central issue.

According to the agreement, Ukraine must renounce all NATO aspirations.  But Putin’s other demands, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine are apparently not included in the agreement.

Washington will lift the sanctions against Russia, and there will be US-Russia economic cooperation, which seems to mean that Russia will open aspects of its economy to foreigners for exploitation, a disastrous Russian decision.

This is what the Russian oligarchs and Atlanticist Integrationists, who have never supported the war, want.  How the Russia’s military feels about victory being shoved aside by a negotiated settlement is unknown.

But is it a settlement?  Zelensky’s latest statement at this time of writing is that he will not concede a square inch of territory to Russia.  If Zelensky has to be coerced, and as he is not legally or constitutionally the current president of Ukraine as his term of office has expired, successive Ukrainian governments can legitimately claim that the agreement is not valid.

Moreover,  Ukraine and Europe have placed themselves behind an alternative agreement.  In their proposed agreement, Ukraine will consent to begin talks with Russia, Europe, and the US about the territorial issues. Moreover, Ukraine will be granted US security guarantees similar to Article 5 in the NATO treaty.  In other words, Ukraine becomes essentially a de facto member of NATO.  Additionally, there will be no restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces or on the operations of foreign forces on Ukrainian territory, and Russia will compensate Ukraine for war damage.

Clearly, the two proposals have nothing in common.  Unless Europe gives in to Trump, a split is implied between the US and NATO, a split that could leave the US and Russia in an alliance that excludes Europe.  I have no explanation why Europe is taking this risk.

As we can see from the facts, only two of the four parties agree to the deal. Moreover, even if there is a deal, in the absence of de jure recognition of Russia’s territorial claims, the deal amounts to little more than kicking the can down the road.

In fact, John Helmer says that the deal is just a mechanism, a cover, for moving Russia aside so that Washington can get on with its war with China.

Here is how Helmer describes the situation:

“The politico-military strategy driving the US negotiators and prompting Trump’s tweets, is not a peace deal with Russia, nor even US withdrawal from the war in Europe. It is a strategy of sequencing one war at a time – the war in Europe to continue in the Ukraine with rearmed Germany, Poland and France in the lead, supported by Trump; and the US war against China in Asia.

“Sequencing these wars so as not to fight both enemies simultaneously – that’s the formula devised for Trump by Wess Mitchell, a former State Department appointee in the first Trump Administration,  and his business partner Elbridge Colby, now the third-ranking Pentagon official as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.   ‘The essence of diplomacy in strategy,’ Mitchell has just declaimed in Foreign Affairs, ‘is to rearrange power in space and time so that countries avoid tests of strength beyond their ability.’ . .

“Mitchell and Colby have convinced Trump and his negotiators that Russia has been badly damaged by the Ukrainian war which the Obama and Biden Administration have fought. Russian weakness, especially the perception that President Putin is both politically vulnerable and personally susceptible to US business inducements, is Trump’s strong card, and he should play it now.”

The goal is not peace, but to make money off of two wars: Europe and Ukraine’s war with Russia, and Washington’s war with China.  And perhaps a war with Iran for Israel thrown in.

Readers can listen to Helmer’s presentation of what he says is actually occurring in his discussion with Ray McGovern on Nima Alkhorshid’s program ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgG4ZmTZQww ), and they can read it in several of Helmer’s recent articles in Dancing with Bears ( https://johnhelmer.net/one-war-at-a-time-and-plenty-of-money-to-be-made-in-the-meantime-this-is-trumps-game-as-the-russian-and-chinese-general-staffs-understand/ ).

Helmer’s source for his explanation of what is really happening is an article in Foreign Affairs by West Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia in the first Trump term.  Mitchell is currently working with Trump’s current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby to sequence America’s wars with Russia and China as the US lacks the power to take on both simultaneously. Mitchell’s article was published on April 22, 2025, in the May/June 2025 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Mitchell writes that the process of sequencing the wars with Russia and China should  begin “by bringing the war in Ukraine to an end in a way that is favorable to the United States. That means that when all is said and done, Kyiv must be strong enough to impede Russia’s westward advances” [for which no evidence exists, showing Mitchell’s mind to be controlled by the false narrative]. Washington should use the Korean War formula: “prioritize an armistice and push questions about a wider settlement into a separate process that could take years to bear fruit, it it ever does.”  This, of course, is what Washington’s de facto recognition of Russia’s territorial claims ensures.

Mitchell carelessly then reveals the intended deception of Babe-in-the-Woods Putin: “The United States should pursue a defense relationship with Ukraine akin to the one it maintains with Israel: not a formal alliance, but an agreement to sell, lend, or give Kyiv what it needs to defend itself. But it should not grant Ukraine [ de jure ] NATO membership. Instead, the United States should push European states to take responsibility for Ukraine—and for the security of their continent more generally.” This strategy capitalizes “on Putin’s special relationship with the Russian oligarchs” and dupes Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s negotiator, ” into pressing the Kremlin to accept a short-term military armistice which stops well short of the demilitarization and denazification goals of the Special Military Operation.”

So, as Mitchell describes it, the “peace agreement” is a Washington deception to set up, yet again,  “Babe-in-the Woods Putin” for the eventual destruction of Russia.

Can I believe this?  Yes, I can.  Helmer has  been watching things for a long time and reporting on them.  This scenario is not a product of Helmer’s imagination.  It is spelled out in an article in Foreign Affairs, long the arbiter of American foreign policy. The author, West Mitchell, a former Trump high official, clearly holds to the neoconservative policy stated by Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfwitz that the purpose of American foreign policy is hegemony over the world. If American hegemony requires war, war it is.

The Russians, with a large part of the mindless Russian establishment so desirous of being part of the West, have never paid any attention to the implication for Russian sovereignty of the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony. This doctrine has not been denounced by President Trump. Consequently, Russia will be destroyed as the Russian government stupidly walks into deception after deception. Under Putin and Lavrov it will be one Minsk Agreement after another.

The question I have is:  Is Trump a part of the deception not only of Putin but also of the American people, or is this a deal he has accepted without realizing its consequences because he is desperate to end the conflict as he promised?  If Trump himself is part of the deception, then we have the explanation why the American Establishment did not prevent his reappearance in the Oval Office.

“The Return of Great-Power Diplomacy, How Strategic  Dealmaking Can Fortify American Power, by A. West Mitchell, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2025,  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-great-power-diplomacy-strategy-wess-mitchell?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=article_link&utm_term=article_email&utm_content=20250424 

In the post-Conciliar calendar this is the “Second Sunday of Easter”. In the 1962 Missale Romanum and in previous editions this Sunday is labelled: Dominica in Albis in Octava Paschae… Sunday in white garments on the Octave of Easter. In traditional parlance today is called “Low Sunday” or sometimes “Thomas Sunday” because of the Gospel reading about the doubting Apostle. It is called “Quasimodo…

Source

The EU must now deal with Russia without the old American myths

Recent statements from senior American officials have raised eyebrows. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington is beginning to better understand Russia’s position as Ukraine negotiations proceed. Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth declared the era of the US serving as Europe’s sole security guarantor is over.

Is this a diplomatic victory for Russia? Not yet. There is still a long road ahead. But these signals from Washington should not be dismissed as mere tactical maneuvers. Rather, they suggest the growing possibility of a strategic compromise – the very goal Russia sought with its European security initiatives in December 2021. Tragically, many lives have been lost to bring the international system to this point, a grim reminder that significant change in global affairs rarely comes peacefully.

For 80 years, the European security order has been biased against Russia. Even when the USSR or Russia formally participated, it was merely a mechanism for limiting Russian influence. The entire postwar ‘legitimacy’ of the international order, as the late Henry Kissinger observed, rested on containing Russia. After 1945, Western countries prioritized Russia’s containment above even their own autonomy. To abandon this principle would acknowledge the collapse of the old order and the necessity of constructing a new one.

Today’s political upheavals in the US make this shift conceivable, although certainty remains distant. Washington’s erratic policy toward Ukraine is merely a symptom of deeper changes in Europe’s political architecture. It would be naive to believe that earlier American hostility toward Russian interests stemmed from ignorance. Americans have often been stereotyped as crude ‘nouveaux riches’, but the truth is that states act based on calculations of power and interest, not emotions or misunderstandings.

For all its peculiarities, America remains a sovereign power. And now, its relative decline forces a reassessment of priorities. Washington no longer has the luxury of fulfilling endless foreign obligations. Its voters – who ultimately foot the bill – demand that their leaders focus on domestic concerns. In such circumstances, the need to freeze the conflict with Russia becomes paramount.

Faced with a rising China and diminishing global influence, Washington sees little value in clinging to outdated commitments. Support for European satellites or the Kiev regime has become an unaffordable luxury. In reality, American ‘guarantees’ to Europe were always more myth than substance. Their primary purpose was psychological – to convince Russia that the West is invincible, thereby deterring challenges without having to justify the US military presence in Europe.

Even during the Cold War, after the mid-1950s, the USSR had no intention of attacking Western Europe. After 1991, all Russia sought from Europe was commerce and leisure. There was never any real need for an external ‘protector’ on the continent.

Moreover, American politicians prioritize their own people. No US government would sacrifice the lives of its citizens to fulfill formal pledges to foreign nations. Even during the past three years, the greatest danger of escalation between the US and Russia stemmed not from a hypothetical defense of Europe, but from direct security risks involving American interests.

Western Europeans, of course, have long understood that US security guarantees are a convenient fiction. Even the most Russophobic regimes in the Baltics know this. But for decades, the EU states relied on this myth to justify hostile policies toward Russia while avoiding the burden of real defense expenditures. It became the ideological glue holding the European project together. Without it, they are at a loss: They have no alternative vision for a common order that isn’t based on enmity toward Russia.

The likely retreat of American leadership from Europe does not mean Russia should rush forward aggressively. On the contrary, it should proceed with cold-blooded calculation. War has never been the preferred tool of Russian foreign policy. Throughout history, Russia has favored diplomacy, even when progress was slow and interrupted by conflict. Patience has been its great strength.

Thus, Russia’s response to American disengagement will be measured and cautious. We are even prepared to assist our American colleagues in ‘explaining’ their evolving position to their allies. After all, a sudden epiphany regarding Russian interests requires careful handling.

In the emerging world, change will not be defined by grand declarations, but by the steady reassertion of sovereignty and the quiet death of the illusions that once governed international relations.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

European officials believe that Ukraine “may be willing to endure” acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over Crimea, the report says

European officials are pressing Ukraine to accept the likelihood that it will be forced to agree to certain territorial concessions to Russia as part of a peace agreement, the Washington Post reported on Friday, citing sources.

The issue was reportedly discussed during talks in London involving European and Ukrainian officials, which were, however, downgraded after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he would not attend. Despite this, one official told the WaPo that the talks “made progress” in terms of convincing Kiev that concessions may be unavoidable.

Western negotiators are said to have a sense that Ukraine “may be willing to endure effective Russian control of Crimea,” provided Kiev is not required to legally recognize this reality. The peninsula overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.

Many Ukrainians, however, are reluctant to renounce future claims to Crimea, viewing any territorial compromise as setting a “dangerous precedent” for potential formal recognition of Moscow's control over four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022.

This comes as the US has clashed with European nations and Kiev over their vision for a Ukraine peace arrangement, with the sides presenting different proposals on the terms for ending the conflict, according to a Reuters report, which was confirmed by the WaPo.

In particular, US envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly proposed that Washington recognize Crimea as Russian and accept Moscow’s de facto control over large parts of the other four regions. Meanwhile, Ukraine and its European supporters, however, reportedly continue to resist any mention of territorial recognition in the proposed agreements. Their version of a peace framework postpones territorial issues until after a ceasefire and emphasizes the necessity of strong security guarantees for Kiev.

For Europe and Ukraine, “it is not only reasonable but necessary to push back on some elements of the US proposal, as it gives Ukraine practically very, very little. And Russia a lot,” a Western official told the WaPo. The report also noted that Europe is trying to “edge Washington toward a more reasonable agreement,” including the recognition that a ceasefire must be an essential first step.

The WaPo report comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks on Friday with Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday. Presidential adviser Yury Ushakov described the meeting as “constructive and very useful” in nature,” adding that the talks included the idea of possibly resuming direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev.

Trump, commenting on the state of the negotiations, said Ukraine and Russia “should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to.”

Inside This Week's Bull Bear Report

• How Being Like Spock Can Help You Win The Investing Game
• How We Are Trading It
• Research Report - Speculator Vs Investor
• YouTube - Before The Bell
• Market Statistics
• Stock Screens
• Portfolio Trades This Week

Market Finds Some Hope

Last week, we discussed the issue with the spat between President Trump and the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. As noted then:

"While the markets await the next Federal Reserve meeting, the uncertainty over monetary policy weighs on markets as much as the uncertainty about tariffs. This past week, the market reversed some of its gains from the massive "tariff reprieve" surge. With the MACD back on a buy signal and money flows turning positive, buyers are tepidly stepping back into the market. The 20-DMA continues to act as overhead resistance, defining the current downtrend. While there is undoubtedly a risk of another test of recent lows, which should be expected and why caution remains advisable, a break above the 20-DMA would lead to a rally to the 50-DMA. (Monday's article addressed the "Death Cross" and what it means for investors.)"

The market rallied above the 20-DMA this past week as investors found some "silver linings" to the ongoing tariff dispute. Despite China saying "no negotiations" had started with the U.S., comments from both President Trump and Scott Bessent suggested that the Administration would "be nice" to China and that a "very good deal" could be done between the two countries. As we have noted previously, given the more extreme oversold condition of the market, any "good news" would allow investors to push stocks higher.

As stated, the market cleared initial resistance at the 20-DMA, but there is a heavy band of resistance just ahead at the level where the market was trying to bottom ahead of the tariff announcements. Just above that is the confluence of the 50- and 200-DMAs. While markets are not overbought yet, sellers will likely re-emerge if the market pushes further into those resistance levels. As we have suggested over the last two weeks, we are likely in for a rather protracted consolidation action as the market digests ongoing trade negotiations, slower economic growth, and reduced earnings expectations. Therefore, we should expect continued pullbacks and rallies until the market resolves the seller imbalances.

What is very interesting about the recent market decline is that while professional and "older investors," who are presumably more experienced, are very "bearish" about their investment outlook, retail investors have been "buying the dip" at the most on record going back to early 2023.

However, while you may shake your head in disbelief, buying markets when they are down has been an essentially winning strategy for dip buyers over the last decade. Of course, such should be unsurprising given repeated rounds of monetary and fiscal interventions. As previously discussed, the Fed has engendered an entire generation of young investors with a sense of "moral hazard." To wit:

"From a market perspective, the liquidity flows from the Federal Reserve increased speculative appetites and investors piled into “zombies” with reckless abandon. Why?  Because of a lack of incentive to guard against risk as investors believe the Fed is protecting them from the consequences of risk. In other words, the Fed has “insured them” against potential losses."

Will this time be different? Maybe. There will be a point where taking on excessive speculative risk in leveraged ETFs and options leads to poor outcomes. However, that may not be today. As such, we need to be mindful that buyers and sellers drive markets. Until the markets change investors' speculative attitudes, we will likely continue to find support in markets even though we may think there shouldn't be.

Such is the message of today's discussion: learning to be "unemotional" when managing our money.

Need Help With Your Investing Strategy?

Are you looking for complete financial, insurance, and estate planning? Need a risk-managed portfolio management strategy to grow and protect your savings? Whatever your needs are, we are here to help.

Spock And The Vulcan Approach To Investing

In "Is Risk Off Positioning Signaling A Market Low," we discussed the extremely oversold market conditions that are beginning to suggest the market may be approaching a near-term low. That analysis was based on various indicators, including extremely negative investor sentiment, positioning, and technical oversold conditions. As we stated, the current market environment is much like 2022. The first chart below shows the 2022 market correction versus 2025. The rally that began this past week could certainly rally further. Still, as we have warned, any rally in the near term will likely be met with sellers until there is a resolution on tariffs, monetary policy, and more certainty around recession risks.

The following chart compares our weekly Technical Composite Index. You will note that the market bounced or bottomed when the technical composite reached below 20.

The current conundrum is whether the extremely low technical readings preceding this week's rally were a technical bounce or a market bottom. Unfortunately, we won't know until after the fact. Still, our gut instinct suggests that given the depth of the decline and the technical damage to the market overall, any significant bounce will be met with sellers. Historically, the first market low during a correction phase is not usually a bottom. Regardless, the market continues to follow the 2022 playbook closely this year, but I would not expect the rest of the year to be an exact match.

The optimistic view is that while there are never any guarantees when it comes to investing, history suggests that after such a volatile period, we tend to perform better in the future, barring the onset of a recession or credit-related event. The bad news is that these increases in volatility tend to lead investors to make many emotionally driven investment mistakes. We rationalize, try to avoid losses, fail to take action when needed, or take action when we shouldn't—all driven by our emotions. Yet being unemotional about your money is crucial to long-term investment outcomes.

As Howard Marks once stated:

“If I ask you what’s the risk in investing, you would answer the risk of losing money. But there actually are two risks in investing: One is to lose money, and the other is to miss an opportunity.

You can eliminate either one, but you can’t eliminate both at the same time. 

So the question is how you’re going to position yourself versus these two risks: straight down the middle, more aggressive or more defensive.

I think of it like a comedy movie where a guy is considering some activity. On his right shoulder is sitting an angel in a white robe. He says: ‘No, don’t do it! It’s not prudent, it’s not a good idea, it’s not proper and you’ll get in trouble’.

On the other shoulder is the devil in a red robe with his pitchfork. He whispers: ‘Do it, you’ll get rich’. In the end, the devil usually wins.

Caution, maturity and doing the right thing are old-fashioned ideas. And when they do battle against the desire to get rich, other than in panic times the desire to get rich usually wins. That’s why bubbles are created and frauds like Bernie Madoff get money.

How do you avoid getting trapped by the devil?

I’ve been in this business for over forty-five years now, so I’ve had a lot of experience.  In addition, I am not a very emotional person. In fact, almost all the great investors I know are unemotional. If you’re emotional then you’ll buy at the top when everybody is euphoric and prices are high. Also, you’ll sell at the bottom when everybody is depressed and prices are low. You’ll be like everybody else and you will always do the wrong thing at the extremes.

Therefore, unemotionalism is one of the most important criteria for being a successful investor. And if you can’t be unemotional you should not invest your own money, period. Most great investors practice something called contrarianism. It consists of doing the right thing at the extremes which is the contrary of what everybody else is doing. So unemtionalism is one of the basic requirements for contrarianism.”

If you didn't read that quote carefully, I would reread it.

During periods of market volatility, investors often let emotions drive decisions. However, the investors who perform best under pressure tend to think less like adrenaline-fueled traders and more like Spock from Star Trek. Emotionless, logical, and consistent, Spock's mindset offers guidance for navigating turbulent markets. As he once said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger.” That mindset is exactly what investors need when fear or greed threaten sound decision-making. Here are some points to consider.

Emotion Is The Enemy of Reason

Market volatility heightens stress, which in turn amplifies emotional responses. As a result, investors often chase rallies or panic-sell during drawdowns. Spock’s detachment offers a counterpoint.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Investing means cutting through noise, avoiding speculation, and relying on data. For example, the media is jammed with emotionally charged headlines about tariff-induced trade wars, recessions, and de-dollarization. In reality, those events rarely occur. As we discussed in "Probabilities vs Possibilities:"

"The chart below is a normally distributed “bell curve” of potential events and outcomes. In simple terms, 68.26% of the time, typical outcomes occur. Economically speaking, such would be a normal recession or the avoidance of a recession. 95.44% of the time, we are most likely dealing with a range of outcomes between a reasonably deep recession and standard economic growth rates. However, there is a 2.14% chance that we could see another economic crisis like the 2008 Financial Crisis. But what about “economic armageddon?” That event where nothing matters but “gold, beanie weenies, and bunker.” That is a 0.14% possibility."

This concept of possibilities versus possibilities is crucial to navigating investment outcomes. Spock never claimed to predict the future. Instead, he calculated the probabilities of potential outcomes. That approach mirrors sound portfolio management. Rather than trying to guess what markets will do tomorrow, successful investors assess various outcomes and plan accordingly. As Spock once stated

“Change is the essential process of all existence.”

In other words, if your current reaction to recent market volatility is to expect it to continue indefinitely, you will likely be disappointed. This is why we continually suggest managing risk, rebalancing, taking profits, and focusing on allocations. Building portfolios that account for downside risks, multiple economic scenarios, and margin of safety allows investors to remain calm when markets shift. The only thing investors need to fear is fear itself.

Emotional decisions typically underperform disciplined ones. Investors can’t eliminate volatility, but can control their reactions to it. Behavioral finance confirms this. Loss aversion, herd behavior, and recency bias drive many of the worst investment decisions.

Discipline Outperforms Reactivity

Reacting emotionally to short-term moves often destroys long-term returns. Spock’s strength was never his speed, but his steadiness.

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

The ability to step back, re-evaluate with clarity, and follow a predetermined investment process keeps portfolios aligned with goals. Legendary investor Charlie Munger confirmed this view when he stated:

“The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting.”

Patience is a strategic advantage. During volatile markets, as we have currently, it is crucial to step back and focus on the broad performance of the portfolio relative to your goals. A disciplined approach before volatility sets in is the key to navigating outcomes. Spock’s analytical mindset lends itself to rigorous risk assessment. He didn’t avoid danger; he quantified and prepared for it. Likewise, investors must separate perceived risk from actual risk. Volatility may feel like danger, but it is often simply price movement around a trend. Actual risk lies in permanent capital loss, overconcentration, or misalignment with one’s time horizon and objectives.

As we discussed previously, volatility begets volatility. Periods of low volatility always lead to high volatility, like now. However, the opposite is also true. The trick is navigating the periods of high volatility well enough to participate in the extended periods of low volatility.

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, advocates for a similar analytical approach to risk:

“If you’re not worried, you need to worry. And if you’re worried, you don’t need to worry.”

In other words, constant vigilance and preparation are more productive than panic. Investing during periods of uncertainty can be dangerous; however, there are some steps to take when investing in uncertain markets.

• Have excess emergency savings, so you are not “forced” to sell during a market decline to meet obligations.
• Extend your time horizon to 5-7 years, as short-term stresses can take time to resolve.
• Don’t obsessively check your portfolio.
• Consider tax-loss harvesting (selling stocks at a loss) to offset those losses against future gains.
• Stick to your investing discipline regardless of what happens.

Spock would agree.

Emotions Cloud Opportunity Recognition

Lastly, one overlooked cost of emotional investing is the inability to recognize opportunity during downturns. As Spock once said:

“Fear is the enemy. It is the great destroyer of logic.”

One mistake that investors make when volatility strikes is to assume that since the market is going down, EVERYTHING is going down simultaneously. That is rarely the case.

"The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system's internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. This also results in the observation that, in an externally isolated system, even with internal changes, the sum of all forms of energy must remain constant, as energy cannot be created or destroyed."

In the financial markets, money is not created or destroyed; it merely changes form. As the old Wall Street adage states, "There is always a bull market somewhere." In other words, as capital is extracted from one asset, that capital is reinvested into another asset. Eventually, that same flow of capital will reverse, and the asset that rose previously will become a source of liquidity to return to what was sold off. A good recent example of this is Gold versus the S&P 500 index. As shown, there is a very high negative correlation between the 36-month rate of change of the two assets. Simply put, when one rises, it becomes a source of liquidity for the falling asset.

This doesn't mean that one asset is good or the other is bad, it just means that money is changing form.

Crucially, when volatility strikes, prices disconnect from fundamentals. Investors with emotional discipline can identify undervalued assets while others flee. Such is why the best buying opportunities occur during maximum pessimism, but few are brave or logical enough to act. As Warren Buffett put it plainly:

“Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

That kind of contrarian thinking requires emotional restraint. Spock would likely view investor sentiment as a signal to be observed and discounted, not followed.

Conclusion: Adopt A Vulcan Framework

As an investor, you can take a page from Spock’s playbook and approach volatility not as a crisis but as a condition. Here are some basic steps:

1. Rely on process, not prediction;
2. Focus on probabilities, not possibilities.
3. Discount possibilities that fall well outside historical norms.
4. Question assumptions, most importantly your own.
5. Suppress reactive behavior,
6. Manage risk with calm precision.

In short, do what great investors have always done: stick to a disciplined, rational approach while others lose their heads.

I realize that you are not a Vulcan and are not afforded the luxury of being raised to be devoid of emotions. Fortunately, you don’t need to be Vulcan to benefit from the mindset. But you do need to recognize that emotions, while natural, often do more harm than good in investing. So while the market has declined this year, and headlines are screaming panic, remember Spock’s most crucial wisdom:

“Live long and prosper.”

That’s the goal, after all.

How We Are Trading It

We continue to manage our portfolios with an above-normal level of caution. On Friday, we added to our short-market hedge and slightly increased the duration of our bond portfolio as the "basis trade" crisis we discussed two weeks ago seems to be under control. However, that risk is not entirely over.

As noted above, there is a tremendous amount of risk ahead, and as we approach those levels, there will be a large supply of stock for sale. While we don't expect the market to crater to new lows, unless there is another tariff or trade shock, and a surge in recessionary data, a retest of recent lows would be unsurprising. As such, we are carrying an overweight position in cash and reduced equity allocations for now. We will likely reduce equity allocations a bit further next week.

Our primary goal is to "survive" the correction phase so that we are in a strong position to benefit from stronger equity markets. While we run various portfolio models, the most popular model is the 60/40 allocation, which is slightly positive for the year, while the S&P 500 is down 6%. Yes, the portfolio is down from its peak, which should be expected given the drag from equities, but managing risk, taking profits, and rebalancing allocations has kept volatility largely suppressed. (You can view the model and its holdings at SimpleVisor.com)

It is worth noting that the market is back to overbought on a very short-term basis. While markets can stay overbought for some time, we are likely getting closer to the point where "trapped longs" will look for an opportunity to exit. If you have not already done so, next week will likely be a good opportunity to begin rebalancing risk, increasing cash levels, and adding hedges.

(Note: The allocation below contains a 3.5% short S&P 500 position in the ETF allocation.)

Feel free to reach out if you want to navigate these uncertain waters with expert guidance. Our team specializes in helping clients make informed decisions in today’s volatile markets.

Research Report

Subscribe To “Before The Bell” For Daily Trading Updates

We have set up a separate channel JUST for our short daily market updates. Please subscribe to THIS CHANNEL to receive daily notifications before the market opens.

Click Here And Then Click The SUBSCRIBE Button

Subscribe To Our YouTube Channel To Get Notified Of All Our Videos

Bull Bear Report Market Statistics & Screens

SimpleVisor Top & Bottom Performers By Sector

S&P 500 Weekly Tear Sheet

Relative Performance Analysis

As we stated last week, "While risk is subsiding in the near term, there is a lack of a catalyst to move stocks higher. Some good news on the tariff front or better-than-expected earnings over the next two weeks could provide relief. However, by the end of the month, stock buybacks return, which will give some support to equities headed into May."

That good news came this past week, along with "not-as-bad-as-expected" earnings announcements, which supported last week's rally. That support could continue into the end of the month, with the stock buyback window opening after next week's earnings from MSFT, AAPL, and AMZN. However, as noted in the discussion above, many investors are trapped in the recent selloff looking for an exit, and with markets short-term overbought (lower left panel), a return of selling pressure will be unsurprising. Trade accordingly.

Technical Composite

The technical overbought/sold gauge comprises several price indicators (R.S.I., Williams %R, etc.), measured using “weekly” closing price data. Readings above “80” are considered overbought, and below “20” are oversold. The market peaks when those readings are 80 or above, suggesting prudent profit-taking and risk management. The best buying opportunities exist when those readings are 20 or below.

The current reading is 38.76 out of a possible 100.

Portfolio Positioning “Fear / Greed” Gauge

The “Fear/Greed” gauge is how individual and professional investors are “positioning” themselves in the market based on their equity exposure. From a contrarian position, the higher the allocation to equities, the more likely the market is closer to a correction than not. The gauge uses weekly closing data.

NOTE: The Fear/Greed Index measures risk from 0 to 100. It is a rarity that it reaches levels above 90.

The current reading is 42.79 out of a possible 100.

Relative Sector Analysis

Most Oversold Sector Analysis

Sector Model Analysis & Risk Ranges

How To Read This Table

• The table compares the relative performance of each sector and market to the S&P 500 index.
• “MA XVER” (Moving Average Crossover) is determined by the short-term weekly moving average crossing positively or negatively with the long-term weekly moving average.
• The risk range is a function of the month-end closing price and the “beta” of the sector or market. (Ranges reset on the 1st of each month)
• The table shows the price deviation above and below the weekly moving averages.

As noted last week, the rally this past week was unsurprising given the large number of markets and sectors trading well below the monthly risk ranges. However, given that most markets and sectors are trading with "bearish" crossovers, the correction process has likely not ended. Historically, when most markets and sectors are trading in bearish trends, the correction process is more entrenched and lasts longer than normal market pullbacks. As such, continue to manage risk exposures, take profits in overbought and deviated sectors, and look for opportunities forming in deeply beaten-up areas. Gold started a correction this past week, but remains exceedingly overbought and deviated from long-term averages.

Weekly SimpleVisor Stock Screens

We provide three stock screens each week from SimpleVisor.

This week, we are searching for the Top 20:

• Relative Strength Stocks
• Momentum Stocks
• Technical Strength W/ Dividends

(Click Images To Enlarge)

RSI Screen

Momentum Screen

Technically Strong With Dividends

SimpleVisor Portfolio Changes

We post all of our portfolio changes as they occur at SimpleVisor:

Apr 25th

"As discussed previously, we continue using counter-trend rallies in the market to reduce risk, hedge, and rebalance exposures. In both models, we are using the bond sell-off, now that the “basis trade” seems to be calming down, to shift 2% of the portfolio in 3-7 Treasury Holdings (IEI) back into Extended Duration Bond (EDV). Also, we add 1% of the portfolio to our current short S&P 500 (SH) holding in both models.

IMPORTANT NOTE: We manage an IRA account for our models, so we don’t have to worry about tax issues. If trading in a taxable account, use TLT rather than EDV to avoid negating the tax loss benefit."

Equity Model

• Sell 2% of IEF and add 2% of the portfolio into EDV
• Add 1% of the portfolio to SH

ETF Model

• Sell 2% of IEF and add 2% of the portfolio into EDV
• Add 1% of the portfolio to SH

Lance Roberts, C.I.O., RIA Advisors

The post Spock And The Logic Based Approach To Volatility appeared first on RIA.

A formal agreement should have been sealed three weeks ago, the US president has said

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is “three weeks late” in signing a minerals deal with the US, President Donald Trump has said. In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he demanded the agreement be signed “immediately.”

Washington and Kiev have been negotiating a deal for weeks that would grant the US access to Ukraine’s natural resources, including rare-earth minerals that are vital for high-tech industries.

Ukraine hopes the deal will secure the US as a lasting security partner, a commitment that the Trump administration has so far declined to make. Washington insists the deal should compensate America for past aid in the conflict with Russia. Kiev, however, claims the assistance was provided unconditionally.

A preliminary Memorandum of Intent was signed last week, according to Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Sviridenko. Trump, however, has complained that the process is dragging on too long.

“Ukraine, headed by Vladimir Zelensky, has not signed the final papers on the very important Rare Earths Deal with the United States. It is at least three weeks late. Hopefully, it will be signed IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote.

The deal was expected to be signed in February during a visit by Zelensky visit to the White House. The event, however, devolved into a heated spat between the leaders, with Trump accusing Zelensky of disrespecting America and showing ingratitude for US aid, while being reluctant to seek peace with Russia and “gambling with World War III.” Trump later said Zelensky was “trying to back out” of the deal, warning that he faces “big, big problems” if he does.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said White House officials were “still working on the details” of when and where the signing would take place, but expected that negotiations would be completed by April 26. The Memorandum of Intent also outlines this timeline.

In his post on Friday, Trump also commented on Ukraine peace efforts, saying “work on the overall Peace Deal between Russia and Ukraine is going smoothly” and that “success seems to be in the future.” In another post, he indicated plans to meet with Russian and Ukrainian representatives on Saturday in Rome, where he is attending Pope Francis’ funeral, which Zelensky also plans to attend.

“They are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to finish it off. Most of the major points are agreed to,” Trump wrote.

READ MORE: Zelensky contradicts Trump on deal with Russia

While the details have not been officially disclosed, the agreement proposed by Washington reportedly includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, a “freezing” of the conflict along the current front lines, acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia, and formal opposition to Ukraine’s NATO bid.

I am looking at a couple of random lines lifted from a bleak little poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J., written at a sad time near the end of a short and, by his own reckoning, unfulfilled life. He was quite mistaken about that, by the way. His last words, whispered aloud about how happy he was to be going home to God, certainly put that misconception to rest. Nevertheless, the lines he wrote…

Source

The Kremlin suspects that the assassination of Yaroslav Moskalik was orchestrated by Ukraine

US President Donald Trump has promised to look into the assassination of a senior Russian general outside Moscow on Friday, telling reporters “That’s a big one.” The incident took place as Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Moscow for high-level talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yaroslav Moskalik, the deputy chief of operations of Russia’s General Staff, was killed in a car bomb explosion outside his residence in Balashikha, a suburb east of Moscow.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova suggested there is “reason to believe that Ukrainian intelligence services were involved in the assassination,” noting that Moskalik was involved in talks to resolve the Ukraine crisis before the conflict escalated in 2022.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also blamed Ukraine, saying: “The Kiev regime once again shows its essence,” while accusing the country of continuing to “engage in terrorist activities” inside Russia.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump, who apparently had not known about the incident until he was asked, said, “That’s hitting close to home, right? That’s a big one.” He added: “I’ll look at it. If I hear anything, I’ll let you know.”

The assassination occurred as Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Moscow for high-level talks with Putin. Russian presidential adviser Yury Ushakov described the three-hour meeting as “constructive and very useful in nature”, saying discussions focused on restarting direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev which have been frozen since the spring of 2022.

Commenting on the talks, Trump said Russia and Ukraine “are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to.”

The agreement proposed by Washington reportedly includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, as well as “freezing” the conflict along the current front lines and acknowledging Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia. The deal would also reportedly prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and initiate a phased removal of the sanctions on Russia.

Zelensky, however, has ruled out any territorial concessions to Moscow, stressing that Kiev will not even discuss recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.