In the final stage of his earthly journey, Pope Francis was entombed on Saturday in the papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major, a sign of his deep devotion to Mary and his desire to remain accessible to the people.

Some 150,000 people lined the streets to bid a final farewell as Pope Francis’s coffin was carried in an open popemobile during a historic procession from St Peter’s Basilica to the Basilica of Saint Mary Major.

Described by veteran Vatican reporter and analyst Elisabetta Piqué as “the last surprise of a pope of surprises”, the popemobile was an unexpected addition to the funeral procession, as many had anticipated a dark hearse or similar vehicle to carry the coffin to its final resting place.

Upon arrival at Saint Mary Major, the pope’s coffin was welcomed by a group of poor and homeless people, symbolising those whom he prioritised throughout his life and ministry.

Children placed roses on the altar inside the Pauline Chapel of the basilica, which houses the famed icon Maria Salus Populi Romani (Mary, Health of the Roman People) – an image Pope Francis visited after his election, and before and after every international trip.

On each visit, Francis would leave a bouquet of roses as a sign of his devotion to Mary and gratitude for the graces he had received. His final visit to the chapel took place on April 12, shortly before Holy Week and just over a week before his death. After being discharged from Rome’s Gemelli Hospital on March 23, he drove to the basilica, delivering flowers but remaining in the car.

Francis’s tomb is located just outside the chapel, in a niche previously used for storing candelabra.

Irish-American Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the Vatican Camerlengo, sealed Pope Francis’s coffin during the burial ceremony in the Basilica of Saint Mary Major on April 26, 2025. He was entombed at 1pm local time during a 30-minute rite presided over by Cardinal Farrell, who governs the Holy See during the sede vacante, along with a small number of senior members of the College of Cardinals.

The tombstone, bearing the simple Latin inscription Franciscus, is made of greyish slate from Liguria, honouring his maternal great-grandfather, Vincenzo Sivori, who emigrated from Italy to Argentina in the 19th century.

For a pope who once said he felt confined behind Vatican walls and who thrived on closeness to the people, his burial in Saint Mary Major – far more accessible than St Peter’s – is deeply symbolic.

Francis, known for shunning tradition and maintaining a cautious mistrust of the Vatican’s governing structures, chose to be buried outside that context, in a place of popular devotion open to all. It is a fitting conclusion to his impactful papacy.

The basilica, constructed in 435, has long housed the beloved Maria Salus Populi Romani, an ancient Byzantine icon of Mary and the Child Jesus, traditionally believed to have been painted by St Luke and brought to Rome in the 6th century.

A favourite among Jesuits, the icon is one of Rome’s most venerated images, credited over the centuries with miraculous interventions, including ending the Black Death, halting a cholera epidemic, and securing victory at the Battle of Lepanto.

Pope Francis’s devotion to the icon began on March 14, 2013, the day after his election, when he visited the basilica to entrust his papacy to Mary. From then on, he visited the image frequently – often 10 to 15 times a year – though less so towards the end of his life.

These visits began with his first international trip to Rio de Janeiro in July 2013 and became a hallmark of his pontificate.

First canonically crowned in 1838 by Pope Gregory XVI and again in 1954 by Pope Pius XII, the Salus, as it is affectionately known, resides in the Pauline Chapel, also called the “Borghese” Chapel.

According to tradition, the basilica was built following a miraculous snowfall in August, after Mary appeared in a dream to Pope Liberius and a devout couple, requesting a church be erected where snow would fall that night. When snow did fall, Pope Liberius marked the church’s outline, and construction was completed a century later by Pope Sixtus III after the Council of Ephesus declared Mary the Mother of God.

The dedication of the basilica is commemorated annually with a three-day celebration, culminating in a Mass during which white flower petals fall from the ceiling to recall the miraculous snow.

Pope Francis led Vespers for this feast for the first time in 2024, praying silently as rose petals showered down, before visiting the Salus icon once more.

Legend holds that when St Helen discovered the icon in the 4th century and brought it to Rome, miracles began to occur. Pope Gregory the Great is said to have carried it in procession during a deadly plague in 590, after which the Archangel Michael was seen sheathing his sword atop what is now Castel Sant’Angelo, signalling the plague’s end.

Another plague was said to have ceased when Pope St Pius V processed with the Salus to St Peter’s Basilica in the late 16th century.

The current chapel was commissioned by Pope Paul V in 1605. Pope Pius XII visited in 1950 after proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption and crowned the icon again in 1954.

Pope Francis joins a long line of pontiffs devoted to the icon, but his bond was notably profound.

In many ways, the icon and the basilica encapsulate Francis’s papacy – from the “miracle” he spoke of at its outset, to his Marian devotion, emphasis on a maternal Church, and his desire to remain close to the people in prayer and solidarity.

Now, he has ensured that this spirit will accompany him not only in death but for generations to come.

(Photo by DIMITAR DILKOFF/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Francis, ‘the people’s pope’, entombed in his favourite Roman basilica first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Francis, ‘the people’s pope’, entombed in his favourite Roman basilica appeared first on Catholic Herald.

This is the first of a three-part series on the history of NATO and US European Command military exercises with Ukraine. This shows how the West, acting like a camel, slipped its big nose under the Ukrainian tent as part of a long-term strategy to defeat Russia. While many of these exercises were touted as peacekeeping in nature, the real purpose was to train and equip Ukraine with the ultimate goal of fighting and defeating Russia. In July 1998, for example, NATO’s Sea Breeze maritime exercise included anti-submarine warfare. WTF??? That ain’t peacekeeping. That is preparation to fight Russia in the Black Sea.

The process of making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO started in 1992, one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 1994 marked the first year that Ukrainian forces participated in NATO exercises, although these were held in Poland and the Netherlands. The following year, 1995, witnessed the creation of Ukraine’s Yavoriv military base as the NATO training center, although this was not formalized until 1999.

1999 was no coincidence… it was the year that NATO expanded to the East by accepting the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland as new members on March 12, 1999. This provoked alarm in Russia because it obliterated the promise of former US Secretary of State James Baker, that NATO would not move one inch to the East. President Bill Clinton broke that promise.

Part 2 will cover the period, 2000 – 2010. Part 3 will cover 2011 – 2021. The plan to use Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia was born in the 1990s and matured into war in 2022. I hope you find this informative.

1992

NATO-Ukraine Relations in 1992 — In 1992, Ukraine formally established relations with NATO by joining the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in March 1992. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was established by NATO in December 1991 as a forum for dialogue and cooperation between NATO member states and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states, in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War.

The NACC ostensibly was created to foster political consultation and build confidence between former adversaries, reflecting NATO’s “hand of friendship” to the newly independent and transitioning states of Central and Eastern Europe, which also included Russia. The NACC’s activities paved the way for deeper cooperation, notably leading to the launch of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 1994, which allowed for more practical and individualized cooperation between NATO and partner countries.

In 1997, the NACC was succeeded by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), which expanded the partnership framework to include more countries and provided a more sophisticated forum for dialogue and cooperation, reflecting the evolving security environment and the deepening relationships between NATO and its partners. Russia also joined EAPC, but was suspended from the organization in 2014 after the people of Crimea voted to reunite with Russia.

• Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO began in March 1992 when it joined the newly established NACC, marking the start of formal relations and opening the door for future military cooperation .
• The first concrete participation of Ukraine in a NATO-linked military exercise did not occur until September 1994, when Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and participated in joint training exercises such as “Cooperation Bridge” in Poland .

1993

In 1993, Ukraine began its military cooperation with the United States and NATO, although it had not yet joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace (which happened in 1994). The most significant development in 1993 was the initiation of the U.S.-Ukraine State Partnership Program (SPP), established between the California National Guard and Ukraine. This program laid the groundwork for ongoing joint training, military exchanges, and exercises.

The U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) advocated for establishing a Military Liaison Team (MLT) in Kyiv as early as 1993, but the deployment was delayed due to diplomatic considerations. Nonetheless, military cooperation and engagement activities were ongoing under the Defense Attaché Office. The cooperation in 1993 set the stage for more formal and larger-scale military exercises such as “Peace Shield” and “Sea Breeze,” which began after Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994.

1994

Cooperative Bridge 94

• In September 1994, Ukraine participated in its first NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) joint training exercise,
  “Cooperative Bridge 94,” held at the Biedrusko military training area near Poznan, Poland, from 12 to 16 September 1994 .
• This exercise involved approximately 600 soldiers from 13 NATO and Partner nations, including Ukraine, and focused on basic unit and individual peacekeeping tasks and skills.
• The aim was to share peacekeeping experience, develop a common understanding of operational procedures, and improve interoperability among NATO and Partner military forces .
• The exercise was conducted under the supervision of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and was jointly planned with Polish military authorities.

Spirit of Partnership

Later in 1994, a Ukrainian air-mobile unit participated in another PfP training exercise called “Spirit of Partnership,” held in the Netherlands.

1995

Peace Shield 1995:

The primary NATO/USEUCOM military exercise conducted with Ukraine in 1995 was “Peace Shield,” a joint US-Ukrainian exercise held at the Yavoriv training area near Lviv from May 23 to May 27, 1995. This exercise was part of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which aimed to increase interoperability and cooperation between NATO and partner countries, including Ukraine.

Autumn Allies 95:
Another notable exercise was “Autumn Allies 95,” which involved approximately 400 U.S. Marines and 200 Ukrainian soldiers. The exercise focused on promoting interoperability in peacekeeping operations and was conducted later in 1995.

The Partnership for Peace program was central to these activities, providing a framework for joint exercises, training, and defense planning between Ukraine, NATO, and USEUCOM.

1996

Cossack Step-96:

In 1996, Ukraine hosted a military exercise called “Cossack Step-96” in cooperation with Great Britain. This exercise was conducted “in the spirit of Partnership for Peace (PfP),” NATO’s program for building trust and
interoperability with non-member countries, including Ukraine at the time. The exercise involved approximately 140 participants from Ukraine and Great Britain.

During this period, Ukraine was actively increasing its military cooperation with NATO through the PfP framework, which included joint training and exercises aimed at enhancing Ukraine’s ability to participate in multinational operations with NATO forces. The U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) was involved in
developing security cooperation with Ukraine, focusing on familiarization activities, military professionalism, and closer ties to NATO.

1997

Cooperative Neighbor-97:

In July 1997, Ukraine hosted the Cooperative Neighbor-97 joint exercise at the Yavoriv training grounds in western Ukraine. The exercise involved approximately 1,200 soldiers from the United States, Greece, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, and Macedonia. Cooperative Neighbor-97 was conducted under NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which aimed to build
trust and interoperability between NATO members and partner countries. The exercise focused on joint training and cooperation, and was observed by U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksandr Kuzmuk.

Sea Breeze 1997:

Sea Breeze 1997 was a multinational maritime exercise cohosted by the United States and Ukraine in the Black Sea region. The exercise included U.S. Marines and Ukrainian forces and was initially planned to simulate an intervention in a fictional ethnic conflict, but the scenario was changed due to Russian
sensitivities. The revised scenario focused on providing humanitarian aid after an earthquake. The land-based segments were moved from Crimea to the Ukrainian mainland to avoid local protests and Russian
opposition. While conducted “in the spirit of NATO’s Partnership for Peace,” NATO itself maintained a hands-off approach, with only Turkey among NATO members sending ships to participate directly.

Significance:

Both exercises were part of the broader NATO-Ukraine cooperation established by the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, signed in July 1997, which set the framework for ongoing military and political collaboration. These exercises marked early steps in Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and were designed to enhance interoperability, readiness, and mutual understanding between Ukraine, NATO, and U.S. European Command forces.

1998

Cossack Express 1998 (May 1998)

• Location: Ukraine (multiple sites).
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S., and other PfP nations.
• Focus: Disaster response, humanitarian aid, and crisis management.
• Significance: Aimed at improving civil-military coordination in emergencies.

Peace Shield 1998 (June 1998)

• Location: Yavoriv Training Area, Ukraine (near Lviv).
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S., and other Partnership for Peace (PfP) nations.
• Focus: Command post exercise (CPX) focused on peacekeeping operations, crisis response, and interoperability with NATO standards.
• Significance: Part of the “Peace Shield” series, which began in 1995 to prepare Ukrainian forces for potential NATO-led peacekeeping missions.

Sea Breeze 1998 (July 1998)

• Location: Black Sea (near Odesa, Ukraine)
• Participants: Ukraine, the U.S., and other NATO partners.
• Focus: Maritime security, search and rescue (SAR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and naval interoperability.
• Significance: Part of the annual “Sea Breeze” series (started in 1997), enhancing Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO in Black Sea operations.

Cooperative Nugget 1998 (September 1998)

• Location: Hohenfels Training Area, Germany (part of the Cooperative Partner series).
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S., and other NATO/PfP countries.
• Focus: Peacekeeping operations, joint command structures, and multinational coordination.
• Significance: Helped Ukrainian forces train alongside NATO troops in a simulated UN/NATO-style peacekeeping mission.

The U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and other U.S. military entities were actively engaged in planning and executing military-to-military contacts and exercises with Ukraine in 1998, focusing on familiarization, confidence building, and demonstrating U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty . The annual planners’ conference for military contacts was held in April 1998 in Stuttgart, Germany, to develop the 1999 plan, indicating ongoing and planned engagement. The transition of responsibility for U.S. military engagement in Ukraine from the Joint Staff to USEUCOM was underway in 1998, further institutionalizing these activities. The establishment of a Regional Training Centre at the Yavoriv training area in Ukraine was discussed as a future initiative for multinational training and exercises.

1999

Peace Shield 99 (May 1999)

• Location: Yavoriv Training Area, Ukraine (near Lviv)
• Participants: Ukraine, NATO members (including the U.S.), and Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries.
• Focus: Command post exercise (CPX) focused on peacekeeping operations, interoperability, and crisis response.
• Significance: One of Ukraine’s major annual multinational exercises under the PfP framework.

Cooperative Partner 99 (June–July 1999)

• Location: Ukraine (Odesa and Myrhorod regions)
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S. (USEUCOM), and other NATO/PfP nations.
• Focus: Maritime and air operations, including search and rescue (SAR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and naval interoperability.
• Significance: Part of the Cooperative Partner series, enhancing Black Sea security cooperation.

Sea Breeze 99 (July–August 1999)

• Location: Black Sea (Odesa and Crimea)
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S. Navy (6th Fleet), NATO allies (including Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria), and PfP countries.
• Focus: Maritime security, amphibious operations, and crisis response.
• Significance: Part of the annual Sea Breeze series, which began in 1997 and continues today.

Cossack Express-99 (September 1999):

Held at the Yavoriv training grounds in Ukraine starting September 18, 1999, this NATO-sponsored exercise involved British and Ukrainian motorized infantry units of battalionsize. The exercise focused on rehearsing joint actions in UN authorized peacekeeping operations under NATO command, modeled after operations in the Balkans.

Cossack Steppe-99:

Conducted at the Nowa Deba training range in Poland beginning September 20, 1999, this exercise included company-sized motorized infantry units from Ukraine, Poland (a new NATO member at the time), and Britain. It also rehearsed joint peacekeeping operations under NATO command, with participation from the Ukrainian-Polish joint battalion.

Black Sea Partnership-99:

From September 20–25, 1999, the Ukrainian navy’s flagship Hetman Sahaydachny participated alongside NATO and partner country warships in this exercise, which was held mostly in Turkish waters. The aim was to practice joint naval operations and naval support for NATO-led peacekeeping operations on land.

CONCLUSION:

I spent 23 years scripting military exercises for US Special Forces. While I was not involved in the scripting of any of these NATO/US military exercises, I understand the purpose and process of them. These were not harmless games. They were designed to train and equip the Ukrainian military to fight Russia, potentially with NATO’s direct involvement. We have seen that come to fruition since the start of the Special Military Operation in 2022. It is no coincidence that Russia hit the Yavoriv NATO military facility on March 13, 2022.

Reprinted with permission from Sonar21.

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.

Images of President Zelensky and Donald Trump having a private conversation at the funeral of Pope Francis have emerged.

The relationship between the US and Ukrainian presidents has been marked by a series of complex interactions, beginning with a controversial phone call in 2019 and evolving through various meetings and diplomatic engagements.

In July 2019, Trump held a phone conversation with newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky. During this call, Trump urged Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in relation to Ukraine. This conversation became the centrepiece of the Trump–Ukraine scandal, leading to Trump’s first impeachment by the US House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

On February 28 this year, a now infamous conversation took place between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office. The meeting was notably contentious, with reports indicating a heated exchange between the two leaders. Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticised Zelensky for what they perceived as a lack of gratitude for American support in Ukraine’s fight against Russia.

Today, both leaders attended the funeral of Pope Francis at the Vatican and met in private. Zelensky posted a photo of the exchange on X, stating: “Good meeting. We discussed a lot one on one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out. Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results. Thank you @POTUS.”

This week, it seems that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine may be close to being reached. Reports have suggested that under a US proposal, Ukraine would be expected to give up a large portion of land, and Trump has signalled his support for Russia keeping Crimea, which was illegally occupied by Russian forces and annexed in 2014. Zelensky has told the BBC that territorial issues could be discussed if a “full and unconditional ceasefire” were agreed upon, though he has rejected the idea of Russia keeping Crimea.

Trump and Zelensky were among 130 official delegations, comprising 50 heads of state and 10 reigning monarchs, along with representatives from various Christian denominations and other faiths, and a quarter of a million mourners who attended the funeral of the late Pontiff.

(Photo by Office of the President of Ukraine via Getty Images)

The post Trump and Zelensky have heart-to-heart inside the Vatican first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Trump and Zelensky have heart-to-heart inside the Vatican appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Leaders from across the world have gathered in St Peter’s Square to attend the funeral of Pope Francis.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is representing the British Government, while Prince William is representing the United Kingdom.

Francis’s native Argentina is represented by President Javier Milei, who is seated in the front row according to Vatican protocol. President Milei had initially been hostile towards the Pontiff; however, following his election at the end of 2023, he sought to mend the fractured relationship. Milei visited Pope Francis at the Vatican during the canonisation of Argentina’s first female saint, María Antonia de Paz y Figueroa, and enjoyed an hour-long conversation described as “very good and very friendly.” Upon the death of Francis, Milei declared a seven-day national mourning period in Argentina.

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump are present. Former President Joe Biden and former First Lady Jill Biden are also attending. Trump has been accused of making the event political by saying his attendance is in part due to him winning the Catholic vote. When asked about his attendance, the president said: “You know, I won the Catholic vote, and I think it’s the first time that ever happened where a Republican won the vote, and I won it by a lot.” The claim is incorrect. The Catholic vote nearly always aligns with the winning candidate, and George W. Bush relied on it to win the 2004 election. Trump is seated in the third row.

Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni are seated in the second row, as Vatican protocol grants precedence to Italy.

King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain are leading the Spanish delegation in paying their respects to the late Pontiff, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and First Lady Janja Lula da Silva are leading the Brazilian delegation.

King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden, and Prince Albert II of Monaco are also present. Other heads of state and government, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Indian President Droupadi Murmu and Irish President Michael D. Higgins, are seated in subsequent rows. European Union leaders, including Ursula von der Leyen, António Costa and Roberta Metsola, are also present.

The Vatican’s seating protocol for world leaders is guided by a combination of diplomatic tradition and symbolic significance. Priority seating is accorded to the Pope’s homeland and the host nation, followed by royalty and subsequently heads of state and government officials. Within each category, dignitaries are seated based on the French alphabetical order of their countries’ names.

The post World leaders at Pope Francis’s funeral: who is there and where are they seated? first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post World leaders at Pope Francis’s funeral: who is there and where are they seated? appeared first on Catholic Herald.