Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

 Italian Freemasons pay tribute to apostate Jorge Bergoglio

Francis the Beloved Son of Masonry, by Atila Sinke Guimaraes

Bergoglio is a member of the Masonic Rotary Club of Argentina since 1999

The Vatican

“Contra factum non valet argumentum”

Declaration of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the Secret Vatican Agreement with China | The Gateway Pundit | by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Liz Yore: “Pope Francis is virulently anti-American and communist”

Cardinal Zen: Pope Francis is Backing a “Fake Church” in China

   "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse." - Our Lady of La Salette

It is very disappointing that many Catholics are apparently disposing themselves to doubt the validity of the upcoming conclave before it has even begun. These doubts seem to be drivem by an overly legalistic readings of John Paul II's Universi dominici gregis, the late pontiff's 1996 Apostolic Constitution on choosing the successor of St. Peter.

Paragraph 79: No Plotting for the Pope's Succession

Paragraph 79 of Universi dominici gregis forbids Cardinals from establishing plans for the pope's succession while the pope is yet alive. The text states: 

The US president has ruled out seeking reelection in 2028, stating he would prefer “a great Republican” to carry forward

US President Donald Trump has ruled out running for office for a third term, suggesting he would like “a great Republican” to succeed him.

The president made the remarks on Sunday in an interview with NBC News when asked about repeated suggestions he might seek reelection. Such a move would require a major overhaul of the US electoral system, given the presidential terms are limited to two only by the US Constitution.

Trump claimed that while “many people” want him to run for office again, he will not seek reelection. He also appeared to question the nature of the restrictions on the number of terms.

“So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional, that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else,” he said.

The earlier remarks on the matter sparked fears that Trump could ultimately opt to rewire the whole US electoral system to try and stay in power. Multiple high-profile Republicans, however, have insisted the president was only joking about a third turn.

The concerns were reinforced by the emergence of a new line of ‘TRUMP 2028’ merchandise on his official campaign store last month. The store offers baseball caps and T-shirts, featuring ‘TRUMP 2028’ and ‘Rewrite the Rules’ slogans.

The US president appeared to distance himself from the merchandise despite its availability at his official store.

“There are many people selling the 2028 hat, but this is not something I’m looking to do. I’m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody. Ideally, a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we’re going to have four years and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular,” he said.

Asked about a potential successor, Trump said it was too early to endorse one. The US administration and the Republican Party have several prominent individuals to pick from, the president suggested.

“I think [the party is] so strong, and I think we have tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people. We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco. You look at J.D. Vance, who’s fantastic. You look at I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here,” he said.

The event marking the 80th anniversary of the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany has taken place in the US, China, and Latin America

Immortal Regiment marches in honor of World War II veterans have been held across the world this weekend, ahead of Victory Day celebrations on May 9 in Russia.

Around 1,000 people turned up for the event in the Chinese capital, Beijing on Saturday, with Russian Ambassador Igor Morgulov leading the procession. According to TASS, far more people took part compared to last year.

Immortal Regiment marches in Beijing to commemorate the USSR’s Victory over Nazism

Meanwhile, in the West, most countries outright forbid or try to prevent Immortal Regiment marches pic.twitter.com/KDr4B2oN2a

A similar rally took place in Washington, DC, with around 200 people carrying portraits of their veteran relatives and red flags. Among the marchers were Russian diplomats and other Russian nationals residing in the US, as well as citizens from former Soviet republics and Americans, TASS reported.

Soviet victory flags in HEART of Washington

WW2 heroes honored as Russian songs echo through streets of DC

Immortal Regiment before May 9 Victory Day https://t.co/TOIBOZJ3oh pic.twitter.com/m0gqt8yJ2w

The previous Immortal Regiment march held in Washington was in 2019. The following two years, the event was held online due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which was followed by a three-year hiatus amid tensions between the US and Russia over the Ukraine conflict.

READ MORE: Vucic expected at Moscow parade despite illness – Serbian deputy PM

Aleksandr Kim, a representative of the Russian Embassy, stated that while the “situation has improved a little, [it] remains uneasy,” as evidenced by “attempts at provocation and other undesirable actions” during the latest Immortal Regiment event in the US capital, as quoted by RIA Novosti.

Izvestia has published a video showing a group of pro-Ukraine activists confronting the marchers and chanting anti-Russian slogans.

In Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, more than 200 people, both Russian nationals and locals, as well as Venezuelan, Cuban, and Serbian diplomats, also paid homage to Red Army veterans.

Nearly 500 people took to the streets of Caracas, Venezuela as part of an Immortal Regiment rally, too.

Similar scenes played out in Istanbul, Türkiye, as well as several Italian cities, including Rome and Naples, over the weekend.

The Immortal Regiment is a large-scale event held in cities across Russia and other nations, in which people carry portraits of their relatives who fought against Nazi Germany in World War II. The idea was first conceived in the Russian city of Tomsk in 2012, and has since gained in popularity.

GOSPEL John 10:11-16.
At that time, Jesus said to the Pharisees: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

“My own know me.” The sheep know what’s what.

Why the 21st century might not be as post-imperial as we thought

Changes in the modern world suggest that the imperial order may not be so morally obsolete after all. Empires could return to world politics – not only as dark shadows of the past.

‘Empire’ may soon become a buzzword for discussing the direction in which the world’s political organization is heading. US President Donald Trump’s incessant talk of annexing Canada and Greenland to the US, the musings of Dutch politicians about splitting up Belgium – these are just the first sips of the great debate that will inevitably emerge as the order created in the second half of the 20th century unravels.

This order, it should be remembered, was based on granting independence to as many peoples as possible. The US, which promoted this concept, always assumed it was much easier to subjugate small and weak countries economically than to deal with large territorial powers.

The new ‘empire game’ is being launched by the West, while the rest of the world looks on – though not necessarily eager to join in. As always, Russia – whose supposed intent to restore an empire is a favorite thesis of US and European military propaganda – has acted with restraint, especially in relation to countries of the former Soviet Union. Russian observers, of course, have their own ideas when neighboring states look fragile or hostile powers try to exploit their territory to harm Russia.

In academic and popular literature, the concept of ‘empire’ is among the most compromised – largely thanks to American authors. In the popular imagination, it is associated either with the ancient world or with the era when aging European empires, including Russia, sought to impose their will on the rest of humanity. Ultimately, this culminated in World War I (1914-18), in which virtually every empire perished – physically or politically. Later, the US, which had rejected imperialism, and Russia, reborn as the USSR, rose to global prominence. They soon began calling each other empires, reinforcing the term’s negative connotation.

Even today, using the word ‘empire’ as a strategic foreign policy goal is considered the domain of political outliers. This is especially true because friendly nations in the Global South that are aligned with Russia view empires with deep suspicion. To them, empires represent European colonizers who brought nothing but plunder, followed by neocolonial domination through bribed elites and exploitative economic deals.

In this respect, Russia was never an empire in the European sense of the word. Its core principle was the integration of local elites into the Russian state and the development of new territories. A striking indicator is the demographic statistics of Central Asia since its incorporation into Russia, especially during its time in the USSR. There is reason to believe that the current demographic boom in the five republics of the region is still supported by the health and social policies of the 20th century. Whether that continues, as these countries gravitate towards a South Asian model with harsher climates, remains to be seen.

Even now, the concept of empire remains mostly negative. However, in recent decades, it has increasingly been applied to the US, and occasionally, to Europe. The ‘American empire’ has become a staple in public debate, referring to Washington’s ability to enlist many countries in its foreign policy ventures. As for Europe, it’s mostly rhetorical. While Western European powers maintain some influence over their former colonies, it can hardly be called imperial. Talk of the EU as an empire quickly turns into satire. A “blooming garden” may sound nice, but an empire – with its sense of unchallenged might and unchecked expansion – is something modern the bloc is ill-equipped to embody.

Yet there are now signs that empires may return to world politics – not just as echoes of the past. First, in a functional sense: As a way of organizing security and development in a chaotic world, both for the empire’s own people (Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ springs to mind) and for other nations under its wing. These discussions are becoming inevitable as old frameworks collapse and crises grow – whether we like it or not.

In the West, this discussion uses different language than history books do. But the idea is the same: Improve conditions at home by extending control abroad. Traditional economic partnerships no longer suffice. The competition from other great powers is too fierce. Trump often warns that if the US doesn’t take Canada or Greenland, China or Russia will. Russia, of course, has no such plans. But it’s becoming axiomatic that direct administrative control is seen as essential for future security.

There are good reasons for this, grounded in reality. International institutions are failing. The UN, hampered by Western sabotage, is becoming almost a symbolic organization. While Russia will continue to defend the UN’s role and international law – perhaps even successfully – the weakening of 20th-century institutions hasn’t led to credible replacements. BRICS is an impressive exception but does not aim to replace national governments in their core functions.

The EU, an old-style institution, is slowly drifting towards disintegration. Other international bodies have no real means to compel members to meet obligations. As a result, the major powers propping up these institutions are left disillusioned.

Even developments in science and tech fuel imperial discussions. While the author is no expert here, it’s clear that AI competition could lead to ‘digital empires’ – zones of dominance by tech giants from capable states. Another factor is the failure of some countries to maintain peace in their neighborhoods, reviving questions about whether imperial models are as obsolete as once thought.

But empires are hugely expensive. Even Western empires paid dearly to maintain their reach – remember Kipling’s grim lines about British soldiers’ fate after retirement in the likes of ‘Tommy’ and ‘The Last of the Light Brigade’? That’s why Britain and France happily shed their empires mid-century. Russia later realized it didn’t need vast territories, contributing to the USSR’s collapse. Still, in places like Tbilisi, some locals quietly express nostalgia for being part of a great power’s multicultural elite.

Another key obstacle is the contribution of new territories to the core state’s stability and prosperity. Russia isn’t trying to recreate an empire because it is now a different kind of state – combining imperial traits with principles unfamiliar to Europe, especially the equality of its citizens. True equality demands cultural cohesion, or at least a foundation for it. Russia and the USSR historically overextended this idea, often to their detriment. Today, Russia seeks new ways to ensure its neighbors’ security without harming its own interests.

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

The prime minister has engaged in a war of words with Vladimir Zelensky, who suggested that Hungarians would welcome Kiev into the bloc

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky have clashed over Kiev’s prospects of joining the EU. Orban reminded the Ukrainian leader that Kiev has no chance of becoming part of the bloc without Budapest’s approval.

The war of words started on Friday when Orban warned that Ukraine’s EU membership “would bankrupt the Hungarian economy,” describing Kiev’s potential accession as a “collective economic trap.”

The Hungarian leader also criticized the EU’s goal of admitting Ukraine by 2030, a target recently reiterated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “We know when they want to bring them in. It’s not some vague future; it’s here, knocking at our door,” he said. “Forget the fairy tales about when and how. They want to do it now, as fast as possible.”

Zelensky responded by citing domestic polling in Hungary. “70% support Ukraine joining the EU. That means people in Hungary are with us,” Zelensky claimed.

However, the poll conducted by the opposition Tisza Party to which Zelensky referred showed only 58% support. An earlier poll by the Hungarian newspaper Nepszava showed even lower figures, with 47% in favor and 46% against.

Orban fired back at Zelensky on X, writing: “What the Hungarian people think is not decided by the president in Kiev or the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is no Ukrainian EU accession without Hungary. Every Hungarian will have their say on this. Whether you like it or not. That’s how we do things here.”

All EU member states must unanimously approve any new country joining the bloc. Hungary has repeatedly cited widespread graft and minority rights issues as reasons to oppose Ukraine’s fast-track membership, with Orban at one point describing the nation as “one of the most corrupt countries in the world.”

Ukraine, which has designated EU membership as a national priority, formally applied to join the bloc in February 2022, just days after the escalation of hostilities with Russia. Despite support from several EU members, the timeline for Ukraine’s membership remains uncertain. Brussels has cited the need for Kiev to undertake significant legal, political, and economic reforms.

The bells of Rome have tolled. The See of Peter stands empty once more. With the death of Pope Francis, who reigned from 2013 to 2025, the Church finds herself again poised between grief and expectancy, with a conclave looming beneath the frescoed gaze of Michelangelo.

Smoke shall rise soon from the Sistine chimney, but before it turns white, the faithful must reckon with a subtler, deeper matter: how should a Catholic pray in this hour?

Not just for whom, but how.

For many, this question already surfaced in the final months of Pope Francis’ illness. Some, while more than willing to pray for his good, were unsure whether praying for his recovery was good for the Church. What were the lips of the faithful to ask of God in such a scenario?

Now, in the shadow of his passing, their prayers take sharper shape: a longing for clarity, a clamouring hope among many for Cardinal Sarah, a growing chorus joining Cardinal Burke’s novena for the conclave. But what does it mean to petition heaven with such specificity? Is it holy boldness – or dangerous presumption?

This is no idle question of piety for those inclined toward ecclesiastical sport. It is a spiritual question. It confronts the Catholic soul with a fundamental dilemma: when some feel a pontificate has confounded or wounded the Church, are they still to pray for its extension? Are we allowed to pray for specific outcomes at conclaves – and to avoid others? May we beg God for deliverance? Or must we content ourselves with a simple genuflection to providence, whispering only, fiat voluntas tua, while our hearts seethe with silence or grief?

These are questions now on many minds – relevant to all, yet particularly to those faithful who walked beside the figure of Pope Francis with more sorrow than solace.

The weight of a pontificate

For many, Francis will be remembered as the Pope of the peripheries – the smiling shepherd who disdained baroque flattery and reached out to the excluded. He was accessible, unpretentious, and, for millions, a healing presence. His mantra – todos, todos, todos – resonated with those long alienated by legalism or abstraction. He witnessed smelled, as they said, of his sheep.

But for others, his legacy remains difficult. The early mishandling of the McCarrick scandal and the Vatican’s response to grave allegations against Fr. Marko Rupnik cast long shadows. The lifting of Rupnik’s excommunication, and delayed restrictions, deepened the pain among victims of abuse who had hoped this reforming Pope would mark a new beginning.

Then there are the traditionalists: faithful Catholics who find spiritual nourishment in the Church’s ancient liturgy. Their advocates in the Curia – Cardinals Raymond Burke, Gerhard Müller and Robert Sarah – were quietly dismissed. For many, this felt less like reform than repudiation. Flourishing Catholic communities often found themselves under scrutiny rather than being supported. Harsh words, censure and even expulsions replaced pastoral encouragement.

The paradox was painful: a Church struggling to fill seminaries, led by a pope who seemed to often clamp down on, and make life harder for the faithful in, the very enclaves where vocations were growing.

Petition and the shape of hope

So again: how do we pray?

Are we permitted to ask for a specific man, a particular kind of pope? Is it factional to desire someone like Cardinal Sarah: a man of deep prayer, doctrinal clarity and liturgical reverence? And what of Cardinal Burke’s global novena? Is it boldness, or overstep?

Scripture does not leave us paralysed. Abraham bargained with God. Moses pleaded. The Syrophoenician woman was dismissed – then returned. Even Our Lord, trembling in Gethsemane, first prayed, “Let this cup pass.” Only then did He whisper the holiest words of all: “Yet not My will, but Thine be done.”

In other words, to pray for a specific outcome is not to be unspiritual. It is human. Scriptural. And when done in charity and submission, it is holy.

It’s wise to pray that the conclave elects a man of integrity and orthodoxy, a man who can speak clearly in today’s Babel of moral confusion, who can bind up wounds and re-establish confidence in the Church’s voice. The desire for Cardinal Sarah’s election, or another of similar stature, is not unseemly. It is, for many, profoundly reasonable.

And Cardinal Burke’s novena, now drawing thousands across the globe, is not factionalism. It is fidelity – an expression of sorrowful hope by those who love the Church and long to see the papacy filled by a man after God’s heart.

The Petrine office, not the man

What about acting popes? How are we to treat and pray for them?

When crowds gathered on Saint Peter’s Square in Rome from 24 February this year to pray the rosary for the Pope’s health – finishing with a beautiful sung Salve Regina in the Church’s historical universal tongue – were Catholics obliged to pray for his longevity?

Some are legitimately hesitant to voice any criticism of the late Pope. They rightly understand he was their spiritual father. After all, it’s not the behaviour of a good son to liberally parade the faults of their father around without delicacy, reserve, discretion or charity.

And yet, a father may have faults. Sometimes they are manifest. This does not nullify the need for discretion, but it allows space for honest acknowledgment.

It’s tempting in a polarised age to turn the papacy into a personality cult – whether of loyalty or loathing. But the Church does not venerate popes for their charm or ideology. We honour Peter because Christ chose him, not because he always lives up to the call.

Pope John XII is remembered as having turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel; Sixtus IV gave his encouragement to a (half-successful) plan to murder multiple political opponents in cold blood during Mass; Honorius I even made a statement later magisterially corrected and condemned as heretical. They did not nullify the papacy.

And to acknowledge the harm of Traditionis Custodes or the confusion caused by Fiducia Supplicans is not disloyalty – it is fidelity. Fidelity of the kind shown by Paul when he rebuked Peter, Catherine of Siena when she chastised Gregory XI, or Benedict lived towards a Church in ruins.

True fidelity is never venomous. But neither is it silent.

Being mindful of Saint Paul’s injunction “bless, and do not curse”, Catholics are not obliged to pray that a particular pontificate last indefinitely.

And yet there is a higher form of prayer. One which should always, ultimately, supersede.

The wisdom of Gethsemane

A fruitful answer to these contentions is found in an anecdote I was once given at university by a young Spanish cradle Catholic. When discussing times in our lives we had found prayer to be not only a source of comfort but directly efficacious, she shared with me a deeply personal story. It has stayed with me ever since.

This lady (let us call her Emilia) continued the habit of daily prayer taught to her by her parents. As a teen, she would pray daily for the intention of a young, terminally ill student, a few years younger than her and whom she pitied.

One day, after a severe episode, he was rushed to hospital. Emilia prayed desperately, and to everyone’s surprise, he pulled through.

But seeing his continual severe agony, Emilia discussed her prayers with her priest. Were her prayers keeping him alive? Was she being naïve? Should she feel guilt for his suffering?

Her priest advised her to change her prayer – not to pray only for survival, but for abandonment to God’s will. To pray for the deliverance of this individual’s soul, but also for the Lord’s will to be done.

It took her weeks to embrace this. But the night she changed her prayer, she learned the boy had died the next morning.

This is not to suggest that her earlier prayers were wrong. But there is a time for petition, and there is a time for Gethsemane.

Her story offers no easy lesson. But it teaches the necessity of abandonment to God’s will. The Church teaches that God has both an active will – which desires truth, beauty, holiness – and a permissive will, which allows suffering, even papal misgovernance, for a greater good. This mystery is writ large in history: wicked popes, schisms, confusion – permitted, but never beyond God’s sovereignty.

Praying with a clean heart

So how should we pray now?

First, we must pray for the soul of Pope Francis. That is an immediate duty of charity. However one views his papacy, we commend him to God’s mercy and Our Lady’s intercession.

Second, we pray for the cardinals. That in the Sistine Chapel, under the aegis of the Last Judgment, they will tremble, listen, and obey the Holy Spirit – not their ambitions, not the trends of the age.

But this must be wrapped in abandonment to providence. God sees the whole; we see in part.

If we do not get the outcome we desire, we must obstinately refuse despair. God is a loving Father. He will deliver Israel. Faithful, devoted priests are already coming from the seminaries as we speak. Observers have commented that it is only a matter of time before they inherit and amend the Church. But this will happen on God’s timeline, not ours.

Third, we may pray with clarity and boldness for the next pope. It is not wrong to desire a man of deep holiness, doctrinal fidelity and liturgical reverence. And yes – we may pray for a particular man. We may ask that Cardinal Sarah, or one like him, ascend to the Throne of Peter. We are not disqualified from grace by our hopes.

But our final and ultimate prayer must be Christ’s.

Not clenched. Not bitter. Not partisan. But open-handed, pierced-hearted.

Fiat voluntas tua.

RELATED: Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen

Photo: Gianni Crea, key keeper of the Vatican Museums, shows the key that opens the door to the Sistine Chapel, Vatican, 13 February 2024. (Photo by TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post From Pope Francis to conclave: How should a conflicted Catholic pray for the papacy? first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post From Pope Francis to conclave: How should a conflicted Catholic pray for the papacy? appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Recruiters in the city of Lutsk violently detained a deliveryman, according to a clip on social media

Elon Musk has drawn attention to a viral video showing Ukrainian military recruiters forcibly detaining a deliveryman in Lutsk, in the western part of the country. Kiev has pursued a violent mobilization campaign for months, often resulting in clashes between reluctant civilians and military personnel.

On Saturday, a media user on X shared a video showing three Ukrainian soldiers approaching a man on a bicycle carrying a large yellow bag and wearing a vest, who appears to be a delivery worker.

After a brief conversation, the soldiers attempt to drag him into a white van parked nearby, but he resists. Following a struggle, the recruitment officers manage to shove the man into the vehicle, which then drives off. The fate of the detainee is unknown.

Reacting to the video, Musk posted “!!” on his social media platform. The X owner and close ally of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on the Ukrainian leadership to sign a ceasefire with Russia to avoid further casualties. Last November, he also criticized reported calls by the US government for Ukraine to lower the minimum conscription age to 18, writing: “How many more need to die?”

On Friday, another mobilization video from Lutsk surfaced on social media, with recruitment officers – potentially driving the same van as in the first clip – forcibly detaining a man riding a scooter.

Ukraine announced a general mobilization following the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, barring most men 18 to 60 years old from leaving the country. In 2024, faced with manpower shortages and mounting losses, Kiev lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25, while introducing stricter penalties for draft evasion and tightening other mobilization rules.

READ MORE: Ukraine won’t win – Vance

As the mobilization drive continues, numerous videos have emerged on social media showing Ukrainian officials trying to forcibly recruit reluctant civilians, often leading to violent clashes.

A few minutes by foot from where I presently write in Rome is the Basilica of St. Peter on the Vatican Hill. This was the traditional Roman Station for this Sunday in ancient times. The present church replaced the original built by the Emperor Constatine in the 4th century. It soars with its vast vaults and dome over the originally humble grave of the first Vicar of Christ, the Pastor Ovium…

Source

This is US Representatie Marjorie Taylor Greene: the Firebrand Republican Member of the house: 

https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1918351681374581181 

She says Trump is losing support.

It does seem that Trump’s peace promises have been elbowed off the agenda by Israel and the US armaments industry.

Washington has approved a $310 million F-16 support package for Ukraine, and Trump threatens more sanctions for Russia. https://www.rt.com/news/616689-us-approves-f16-support-ukraine/  It appears that the deal Trump wants does not coincide with the one Zelensky wants or the one that Putin wants.  Will coercion take the place of negotiation?

The peace negotiations with Iran seem even less favorable.  The terms specified by the US Secretary of State are unacceptable to Iran, and Washington has returned to war threats.  

The analysis below is from a realist, not a narrative supporter, and it is grim.  Make of it what you will:

Following the last (third) meeting between the US and Iran held a week ago, a “senior US official” reported that “The talks in Muscat were positive and productive. There is still much to do, but further progress was made on getting to a deal.” The Omani Foreign Minister also stated, “U.S-Iran talks today identified a shared aspiration to reach agreement based on mutual respect and enduring commitments. Core principles, objectives and technical concerns were all addressed.”  My impression was that the talks were focusing on the same principles that the previous JPCOA agreement (which Trump abrogated) had embodied, which would have resulted in Iran forgoing the production of weapons-grade uranium (and the elimination of Iran’s current stockpile of 60% enriched uranium). 

Statements made on May 2 by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (copied below) reveal that, once again, the negotiating position of the US on Iran appears to have radically changed. The US has reinstated the Zionist list of demands that go far beyond limiting the production of weapons-grade uranium: Iran must (1) eliminate all capacity to enrich uranium (which it is allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for uses in its civilian nuclear energy program), (2), eliminate its arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles (which are essential for Iran’s defense against Israel et al), and (3) stop all support of the Houthis in Yemen.  

Rubi’s comments came as the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, set to take place in Rome today (May 3), were postponed indefinitely. An Iranian official cited by Reuters said a new date for the talks would be set “depending on the US approach.”  Iran has been quite clear that its uranium enrichment and its defense capabilities are non-negotiable. In other words, the latest US demands — which have resulted in the cancellation of further talks with Iran — are designed to be unacceptable and create the excuse to launch major attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

When he took office, Trump had the opportunity to immediately stop the flow of munitions, arms, and money to both Israel and Ukraine, which would have quickly ended the ability of both nations to continue supplying their respective armed forces, bringing a relatively quick end to the Ukraine War and the ethnic cleansing in Gaza. But Trump quickly abandoned his campaign promises to avoid entangling the US in any more foreign wars, which for decades have wasted trillions of dollars that could have been used to rebuild the US crumbling infrastructure and de-industrialized economy.

Trump instead accepted the Zionist neocon demands that the US continue its unconditional support of the ongoing Israeli slaughter and starvation of the Palestinians, and as a result, he has started a new war with Yemen, because — in defense of the Palestinians — the Yemeni Houthis dared to blockade all ship traffic going to and from Israel in the Red Sea.  Under Trump, the US “Operation Rough Rider Protect Genocide” has carried out 1000 bombing raids against Yemen, which have killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians but have failed to break the blockade.

Considering the abject failure of the current military attacks on the Houthis, it makes absolutely no military sense for the US to launch a similar air campaign against Iran — a nation like Yemen that has spent decades preparing for just such an attack. Iran has a multitude of deeply buried missile cities, which include underground military bases and silos where Iran stores and deploys its missile arsenal. These missile cities are strategically located throughout Iran, and they include large, deeply buried underground tunnels, storage facilities, and launch silos for missiles. The US and Israel may know the location of many of these sites (especially the nuclear sites), but they cannot use conventional weapons to effectively destroy them. 

Only an attack with nuclear weapons has the capacity to thoroughly destroy nuclear facilities that are buried deep inside a mountain or underground (this would not assure the destruction of the 60% enriched uranium supplies that Iran has already produced, as it may have already been moved elsewhere). The US is highly unlikely to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

But would the current Israeli leadership shy away from using nuclear weapons against the Iranian nuclear facilities? Israel has already had no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons that can be “delivered” by planes, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles — including submarine-launched cruise missiles carried by their 4 German diesel subs. An Israeli nuclear strike against Iran would trigger a full-scale Iranian attack on Israel, and all-out war would ensue.

Even if a US-Israeli attack on Iran was initially limited to the use of conventional non-nuclear weapons, there has been public discussion that such an attack would target Iranian political and military leaders. This type of attack would involve hitting Iranian cities as well as Iranian military bases. It would be a huge strike, and one that would almost guarantee that Iran would retaliate against US bases in the Middle East, US naval forces that participated in the attack — as well as against Israeli military bases, military leaders, and Israeli political leaders. The three largest cities of Israel (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa, which hold at least 20% of the total population of Israel) would be struck.  After such an attack, I think Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons against both civilian and military targets in Iran. 

In other words, regardless of whether or not the initial strike on Iran would include nuclear weapons, it is almost inevitable that nuclear weapons would be used in the war that would result. 

The Israeli propaganda is that Iranian air defenses have already been destroyed, making a large air attack against Iran quite feasible (a “cakewalk”).  I think this is a false assumption, created by Israel to help draw the Americans into a joint attack. The idea is that once the air defenses are completely taken out, and the Iranian political and military leaders have been killed, the scenario recently seen in Syria (with the utter collapse of the Assad government) will play out again, this time in Iran. The incredible hubris of the Trump White House seems to lend itself to accepting this idea. The latest change in the US “negotiating” position via Iran suggests that Trump will succumb to the Zionist pressure to wage war against Iran.

If the reports from Alastair Crooke are correct, the Russian and Iranian air defense systems are in good working order and actually fended off the last attempt by Israel to take them out (in October 2024). If this is the case, I think the US and Israeli forces will suffer major losses if they send their air forces to attack Iran military and nuclear sites. Russia will be providing real-time intelligence to Iran; the Russian air base in Tartus, Syria, has S-400 radar systems that can detect an Israeli attack; Iran also has an over-the-horizon radar system that could provide an early warning of an aerial attack. Will the US be able to effectively pierce Russian and Iranian air defense systems?  If not, then I suspect that under such circumstances, as the desperation levels of the attackers increase, the use of nuclear weapons becomes even more likely. 

Let us hope that the reports copied below — in which the US Secretary of State Rubio has announced the latest US demands on Iran — are simply one more flip flop in Trump’s bizarre manner of threatening extreme action against any nation that doesn’t follow his latest diktats.  If not, then all Hell is going to break loose in the Middle East sometime in the near future.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/may/2/marco-rubio-says-iran-must-abandon-uranium-enrichment-program/ 

Rubio says Iran must abandon its uranium enrichment program

By Vaughn Cockayne – The Washington Times – Friday, May 2, 2025

A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran must “walk away” from all nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile programs, taking a public hard line as negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue.

In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Mr. Rubio said there can be no long-lasting deal between the U.S and Iran if Tehran is unwilling to give up several initiatives.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis, they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Mr. Rubio said Thursday

Mr. Rubio went on to suggest that Iran could import enriched uranium, so it would not have to abandon its domestic commercial nuclear industry completely. He added that the U.S. must be allowed to inspect Iranian nuclear and military facilities regularly.

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear enrichment program is for civilian and commercial use and has denied seeking a nuclear weapon. Its foreign ministers have asserted repeatedly that it will not give up its nuclear sovereignty during negotiations.

Nuclear watchdogs and U.S. officials say Iran’s level of nuclear enrichment is far higher than what would be necessary for purely civilian purposes. During the past month’s talks, some have floated the possibility of Iran transferring ownership of its enriched uranium to a foreign ally like Russia. Iran’s foreign ministry has publicly declined to accept such an offer.

“If you have the ability to enrich at 3.67%, it only takes a few weeks to get to 20%, then 60% and then the 80 and 90% that you need for a weapon,” Mr. Rubio said Thursday.

Mr. Rubio’s comments on Thursday detail the deep divisions still in play during negotiations. The U.S. seeks limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile program in exchange for sanctions relief.

However, President Trump has repeatedly said that if Tehran and Washington are unable to come to a deal, he would launch bombing raids on Iran with Israel’s help. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a firm warning to Iran on Thursday, urging the Islamic Republic to halt its funding of Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Negotiators were expected to meet again in Rome on Saturday, but Omani mediators announced Thursday that talks had been postponed over logistical issues.

Iran must ‘walk away’ from all uranium enrichment, Rubio says

https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-must-walk-away-all-uranium-enrichment-rubio-says-2025-05-02/

May 2 (Reuters) – Iran has to ‘walk away’ from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development and it should allow Americans to inspect its facilities, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday as a round of nuclear talks was postponed.

Rubio’s comments underscore the major remaining divisions in talks between the countries to resolve the long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme, with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to bomb Iran if there is no agreement.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis (in Yemen), they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Rubio said in an interview on the Hannity programme on Fox News. Iran has repeatedly said it will not give up its missile programme or its uranium enrichment – a process used to make fuel for nuclear power plants but which can also yield material for an atomic warhead.

On Thursday a senior Iranian official told Reuters that the scheduled fourth round of talks due to take place in Rome on Saturday had been postponed and that a new date would be set “depending on the U.S. approach”.

The Bell Tolls for All White Gentile Ethnicities

Paul Craig Roberts

The Vice President and Secretary of State of the United States have called attention to the tyrannical behavior of the current German government, a corrupt anti-democratic government, controlled by Israel,  that is holding on to power by designating its rival, AfD, the rapidly growing second largest party as “extremist.”  Recent polls indicate that the AfD has pulled even and perhaps a bit ahead of the government that is trying to suppress it.

By applying the “extremist” label to its rival, the government gives itself the power to use its spy agencies to keep the AfD under surveillance. This permits the current corrupt government to know in advance the AfD’s electoral plans while demonizing the AfD as so extreme that it must remain under surveillance. 

On what grounds is the AfD designated extremist?  The German Domestic Security Service BfV explains:  The AfD represents ethnic Germans.  Representing “people based on ethnicity and descent” disregards the human dignity of immigrant-invaders and is “incompatible with the democratic basic order.”  https://www.rt.com/news/616710-german-fm-response-rubio-afd-tyranny/ 

Here we have it stated clearly just as Jean Raspail put it in The Camp of the Saints. It is anti-democratic for a government to represent the citizens from whose ethnicity the name of the country is derived. Democracy requires representation of those who entered the country illegally or under false pretenses.  All government enforcement measures are then directed against the ethnic citizens who are coerced to accept the invasion. As Jean Raspail showed, this is a formula for the extinction of white ethnicities. President Trump’s effort to restore power to ethnic Americans is being blocked by an anti-American judicial system that represents immigrant-invaders, not American citizens.     

Hanne Herland of the Herland Report tells us accurately that this is the situation all over Western Europe, the UK and Ireland:

“In Europe, non-Western immigrants were given the victim card, and the current discrimination against the indigenous native Europeans by their own leaders began. Instead of listening to their needs, they demonized their views and attacked their own populations.

“Europeans were told to step aside and allow immigrants to behave however rudely they wanted, since they came from poor countries and ‘didn’t know any better.’ They were to be excused from law-breaking behavior such as violent rapes, murders or entering the country illegally.”  In other words, the immigrant-invaders weren’t civilized sufficiently to know any better, and it is all the fault of racist white ethnicities. https://hannenabintuherland.com/currentaffairs/how-racism-against-whites-was-legitimized-by-marxist-multiculturalism/  

What representing immigrant-invaders means in the EU is the loose enforcement, if any enforcement at all, of criminal and rape laws against immigrant-invaders,

Holding immigrant-invaders accountable would be racism, like what the  Germans did to Jews.  In effect, what is happening all over Europe and in Britain is that immigrant-invaders are becoming overlords over the ethnicities that comprise the former nations, now towers of babel.

So, on top of their Israeli overlord, Europeans have immigrant-invaders as another overload.

What a joke that Europeans and British and Irish are “free people.”  They are the most enslaved in history.  Even their tongues have been cut out.  They cannot speak.

The entire Western World is a dead man walking.  Every person who rises to the defense of Western civilization is demonized, arrested, fired, dismissed from his university, framed in a false prosecution and imprisoned.

The Insouciant West was insouciant for too long,  It has lost its life.

Both geographically and historically, the region of Andalusia in Spain is a crossroads of humanity. Bordering both the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, it’s physically part of Europe but for six centuries it was known as al-Andalus and formed a key outpost of the Islamic world.

It’s perhaps fitting that Andalusia therefore would give birth to a papal candidate who seems to unify three different worlds in his own biography: 72-year-old Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, who currently serves as the Archbishop of Rabat in North Africa and who’s also spent considerable portions of his career in Paraguay and Bolivia.

It’s not, by the way, as if López is campaigning for the papacy; he recently quipped that if he sees any serious danger of that happening, he’ll start running from Rome and not stop until he hits Sicily. He also told a Spanish journalist that anyone desiring to be pope has problems, either of the head or the heart.

Whether he wants it or not, however, many people, including not a few of his fellow cardinals, can’t help looking at the bearded, jovial Salesian, who exudes an informal style coupled with a deep intelligence, and seeing a potential Successor of Peter.

Spanish cardinal Cristóbal López Romero during a ceremony inside St Peter’s Basilica following the procession of the late Pope’s coffin from the chapel of Santa Marta to St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican, 23 April 2025. (Photo by TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images.)

López was just twelve years old when he decided to enter the Salesians of Don Bosco, the second-largest men’s religious order in the Catholic Church after the Jesuits, which is known for its doctrinal orthodoxy, its pastoral work with youth, and its commitment to schools. He professed his first vows at the age of 16 in 1968, during a period in Europe marked by student riots in which the idea of a religious vocation probably seemed a deeply counter-cultural act.

López was ordained to the priesthood in 1979 following studies at the diocesan seminary in Barcelona, and three years later he graduated with a degree in information science – with, let the record reflect, a specialisation in journalism – from the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

Not long afterwards, López began the missionary journeys that would form the heart of his priesthood and his episcopal service.

In 1984 he departed for Paraguay, where he would remain for the next 20 years. Initially he was responsible for pastoral service with young people in the capital city of Asunción, eventually becoming the Salesian provincial director for work with youth. After two years as a parish priest in Asunción, López was then elected superior of the Salesians in Paraguay, which would not be the last time his leadership abilities came to the fore.

After finishing his term as superior and serving in a few other capacities for the Salesians in Paraguay, López’s life took a significant turn when he was asked to relocate to Morocco, where he ran a centre of formation in the city of Kénitra from 2003 to 2011. That experience put him in the country during the initial stirrings of the 2011-2012 Moroccan protests, part of the broader Arab Spring, which eventually led to the King conceding a series of constitutional reforms allowing for democratic elections.

Unusually, López was asked to go back to Latin America in 2011 to take up the post of superior of the Salesian province in Bolivia. Usually leadership would be elected from the members of the order already in the country, but clearly there were challenges in Bolivia that the community judged an outsider, someone with deep experience and a reputation for good judgement, was needed to address.

After three years, López returned to Morocco to become superior of the Salesian community there, his third leadership position in the community. He held that post until 2017, when Pope Francis named him the Archbishop of Rabat, making him the leader of the small Catholic community – less than one per cent of the national population of 31 million – in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

In the post, López became a major proponent and architect of interfaith dialogue, especially Christian/Muslim relations. In March 2019, he hosted Pope Francis on a two-day visit to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the historic encounter between St. Francis of Assisi and Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil during the Fifth Crusade. The pontiff was obviously appreciative, naming López a cardinal in a consistory he staged later that year in October.

During his term in Rabat, López has also emerged as an important voice on behalf of migrants and refugees who often set out from North Africa in search of a better life in Europe. During the course of a 2020 summit on the Mediterranean region in Bari, Italy, López insisted that immigration is “not a problem, but the consequence of many problems”.

“Poverty, wars, famines and climate change, an economic system which, as Pope Francis says, crushes entire populations: These are the problems that give rise to the migratory phenomenon,” he said.

López then offered a personal touch.

“I suffer a lot when, in Spain, some people, after having participated in the Eucharistic celebration, ask me, in a spiteful tone, not to send any more migrants from Morocco,” he said. “I ask myself: how is it possible to go to Mass and feel almost no compassion for the men, women and children who are suffering?”

López took part in Pope Francis’s two Synods of Bishops on Synodality, endorsing in general terms the push for a more dialogic and participatory Church, but he steered clear of taking positions on any of the controversial questions in those summits, from the ordination of women deacons to the blessing of persons involved in same-sex unions.

The case for López Romero?

To begin with, he has global appeal. Latin Americans tend to see him as one of their own, but he also has strong relationships with many African bishops, who, among other things, appreciate his pastoral care of migrants from their countries who arrive in Morocco trying to cross the Mediterranean into Europe.

The fact of being Salesian is reassuring to some voters, who see it as a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that he won’t rock the boat too much. In that sense, a vote for López could be seen as a choice for the social and cultural portions of the Pope Francis agenda, but without the more doctrinally adventurous elements.

Further, at a time when many cardinals believe it’s important the next pope be a strong governor, especially in terms of Vatican administration, the varied experience López brings in leadership positions is seen as an asset.

Finally, López Romero is one of those rare figures who just seems to radiate contentment and serenity, a pastor with a keen sense of humour and also a deep spiritual streak. If the lead item on the job description of a pope is to the Church’s Missionary-in-Chief, then López might well strike many as an attractive option.

The case against?

The lack of a clear record on intra-ecclesial disputes may hurt López in some quarters. A few cardinal electors may feel they took a spin on a Latin American with a somewhat ambiguous platform twelve years ago, and they’re not really in the humour to do it again, even if the candidate was technically born in Spain.

In addition, López Romero’s résumé may come off to some electors as compelling and impressive, but perhaps a little too singular. The challenges of being the chief shepherd of Rabat, after all, no doubt are daunting, but how much real relationship do they bear to the ordinary circumstances of Catholic life in most of the rest of the world?

It may be a small point, but it’s also worth noting that it’s been almost 325 years since the Catholic Church was last led by a bearded pope – Innocent XII, who reigned from 1691 to 1700. On the other hand, Innocent was a reformer, fighting the practice of nepotism in Church offices, so perhaps López would bring the same spirit into the office.

In any event, his thick beard is all white – perhaps a nice bit of color coordination with the vestments he could be wearing in just a matter of days, should the choice fall upon the Man from Morocco.

Photo: New cardinal, Spanish prelate Cristobal Lopez Romero, following his appointment by the Pope, during an Ordinary Public Consistory for the creation of new cardinals, Vatican, 5 October 2019. (Photo by TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post Papabile of the Day: Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, ‘the Man from Morocco’ first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Papabile of the Day: Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, ‘the Man from Morocco’ appeared first on Catholic Herald.

The previous vote was annulled on grounds of alleged “Russian interference,” with the leading candidate barred from running again

Romania is holding a rerun of its presidential election on Sunday after the previous vote was annulled on grounds of alleged Russian interference and electoral violations. Moscow has denied all claims of interference.

The annulled election in late November saw independent right-wing candidate Calin Georgescu, known for his NATO-sceptic stance, unexpectedly prevail in the first round with 23% of the vote. However, the Constitutional Court later invalidated the results, citing electoral “irregularities.” The country’s officials claimed that the candidate’s campaign had utilized undeclared funds, and that Russia was behind “hybrid” attacks, including in the cyber realm.

In March, Georgescu was barred by the Central Electoral Bureau from running again, citing his alleged “anti-democratic” and “extremist” stance as well as a failure to comply with electoral procedures.

In the current election, a total of 11 candidates are competing for the presidential post. The key contenders include George Simion, the leader of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), who is known for his opposition to the EU, and criticism of military support to Ukraine. He is leading the polls with approximately 30% support.

Other prominent candidates include Crin Antonescu, representing the governing Social-Democrat and National Liberal coalition, and Nicusor Dan, the mayor of Bucharest, both of whom support pro-EU agendas.

If no candidate wins an absolute majority, a run-off between the two leading candidates will be held on May 18.

Ahead of the rerun, meanwhile, Romanian detained RT journalist Chay Bowes, who had traveled to Bucharest from Dublin, Ireland, to cover the election. According to the reporter, he was presented with a paper – of which he was not given a copy – alleging that he was “a threat to the security of the state” and therefore should be deported. Bowes, a EU citizen, has insisted that he entered Romania “completely legally… to do [his] job.”

Commenting on the detention, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the Romanian election had turned into a “meme.” She added that “the situation around the election in Romania is so scandalous. It’s so dead-ended and it discredits the level of that pseudo democracy in Romania.”

There is an old idiom at universities in the United States: “Sophomores act sophomoric.”

It means young people in their late teens often do stupid things, usually because they think they are funny. Often, members of a college Republicans’ group or the university’s Democrats’ group will say or do things with the intention of outraging their opponents, all in “good fun”. People expect the kids grow out of it, it is hoped, before they graduate.

In today’s world, with new technologies mixed with social media, one could excuse a 19-year-old trying to get a laugh on the eve of a big event like a papal conclave – say by using AI to mock up an image of himself as the next pope.

One questions what reason a 78-year-old man may have to do it, though, especially if he is the President of the United States. It is more perplexing if he then puts it on the official White House pages on X and Instagram. But that’s what Donald Trump did.

Trump’s original picture was published on his own platform, Truth Social, which was then shared on the White House’s social media sites.

But still, why do something like this less than two weeks after Pope Francis died and during the official nine-day mourning period of the Catholic Church?

The late pontiff had a somewhat complicated relationship with Trump, disagreeing with him on immigration and refugees. Francis even once said a “man is not Christian” if he had said some of things that Trump was reported to have said.

Was the US president really just acting like a college sophomore?

In any case, he managed to outrage lots of people, not all of them his natural political opponents.

The post has tens of thousands of replies, most of them negative. Both liberal and conservative Catholics have complained about it, calling it offensive and disrespectful.

US President’ Donald Trump’s picture on his official Truth Social social media account.

At the same time, over 100,000 people have “liked” it.

In many ways, the picture doubled down on a previous statement Trump had made to reporters last week. “I’d like to be pope,” the president said. “That would be my number one choice.”

Trump was joking that time, and later said he had no preference in the election, before pointing out the cardinal in New York – Timothy Dolan – who “happens to be very good,” Trump said.

Trump’s AI picture stunt, however, may not be mere sophomoric banter, which also raises the question about the seemingly “jesting” pope-related comments made by JD Vance, the US vice-president.

On 2 May, Vice-President JD Vance – who converted to Catholicism in 2019 – responded on X to a post by someone speaking about the huge demands being made of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who happens to be a practising Catholic.

“I think he could take on a bit more. If only there was a job opening for a devout Catholic…” Vance wrote.

On 3 May , the vice-president then answered Bill Kristol, the US neoconservative writer and commentator, raising the question, “Hey, @JDVance, you fine with this disrespect and mocking [by Trump] of the Holy Father?”

Vance replied: “As a general rule, I’m fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen.”

Of course, Vance had his own exchanges with Pope Francis.

A few months ago, Vance spoke to Fox News about his interpretation of the Christian teaching on the order of love, and how it related to the immigration question.

“There’s this old school – and I think it’s a very Christian – concept by the way, that you love your family, and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world,” the vice-president said.

Soon after, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the US government, refuting Vance, though the Pope’s letter wasn’t addressed to Vance personally.

“Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups,” the pontiff wrote.

“The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’…by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception,” Francis said.

This was then followed by Vance acknowledging the Pope’s criticisms at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, at the end of February, before going to the Vatican at Easter, where he met with Francis the day before the pontiff died.

Trump has been president for less than four months and has had an interesting relationship with the Catholic Church in that short time.

He has had strong support from weekly-Mass-going Catholics, who praise the president for his actions against abortion and promotion of keeping transsexual persons from using same-sex facilities and school sports.

At the same time, he has faced opposition from many bishops for his attacks on immigrants and those seeking refuge in the United States, and especially for his mass deportations, to which there are legal challenges pending that observers say could produce a full-fledged constitutional crisis.

Trump could be just making a sophomoric joke, or he might be testing how far he can push the Catholic electorate while he is in office.

Photo: An AI picture of ‘Pope Donald Trump”]’ is put on the official White House page on X and Instagram. (Credit: Official White House X page.)

The post What on earth was Trump thinking posting a picture of himself as pope? first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post What on earth was Trump thinking posting a picture of himself as pope? appeared first on Catholic Herald.