Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Since Wednesday, the remains of Pope Francis are lying in state inside St. Peter’s Basilica until his funeral Mass on Saturday.

Francis’s simple coffin, based on his specifications, was laid at the Altar of the Confessio, a sacred space in front of the main altar, above the tomb of St. Peter, the first pope. Francis decreed that his coffin would not be exhibited on a raised platform known as a catafalque, and would not be comprised of the usual triple casket of cypress, lead and oak.

The following video shows images of people filling St. Peter’s Square to await their turn to pay their final respects to Pope Francis, along with other related scenes and events. It gives a sense of this extraordinary time for Rome, for the Catholic Church and for the world at large:

Photo: Pope Francis lies in state inside St Peter’s Basilica as people pay their respects, Vatican, Vatican City, 24 April 2025. (Photo by Antonio Masiello/Getty Images.)

The post VIDEO: Scenes from Rome as the world pays its last respects to Pope Francis first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post VIDEO: Scenes from Rome as the world pays its last respects to Pope Francis appeared first on Catholic Herald.

The Roman Catholic Church is still waiting for a genuinely third-millennium pope. All three of the last popes—John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis—were men very much shaped by the 20th rather than the 21st century. When Benedict XVI died, I reflected that both JPII and Benedict were members of what we in America refer to as “The Greatest Generation”—those who survived the horrors of…

Source

Editor’s Note: This essay is part of a week-long series of essays at Public Discourse reflecting on Pope Francis’s pontificate, his legacy, and the Catholic Church’s future.

On the day of Pope Francis’s election, I spoke with a respected Jesuit professor, offering him my congratulations on a Latin American Jesuit’s becoming pope. To my surprise, he looked dour. This was bad news, he said. Fr. Bergoglio had had a reputation for being an authoritarian provincial; the Jesuits in Argentina had a lot of trouble with him.

In time, the professor’s premonition proved correct. The man who had been a difficult superior became a difficult pope. As I have reflected on Pope Francis’s words and actions over the years, I realized that if I treated my sons the way Francis treated my fellow believers and me, I would rightly be considered a bad father. This remains the best hermeneutical key I know for explaining Francis’s pontificate: he was a man whose tragic flaws undermined the good he sought to do and the duties of the office that he bore. When such a father dies, it is fitting to mourn his passing. But it is also fitting to name the damage done and lament the growth and closeness that could have been there. Perhaps a reflection on fatherhood can serve as a diagnosis of the recent pontificate, and provide some counsel for the next one. 

A good father loves his children by keeping order in the home. Children need to know what they can expect from their parents. Parents, in turn, need to treat their children fairly and not play favorites. Discipline should be clear and regular, firm but not harsh, edifying without being humiliating or insulting. Parents should explain why they are acting as they do in terms that children can understand. By this common standard, Pope Francis was a deeply flawed father. His remarks frequently stung, whether or not they were intended as insults: large families that breed like rabbits, priests who cling to grandma’s lace, seminaries with too much “frociaggine.” Then there were the actions taken to undermine the faithful who should have been his most loyal followers, most notably the restrictions on the Latin Mass. Too often during his pontificate, the faithful were left waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Or not drop, as the case may be. For, as J. D. Flynn and Ed Condon have amply documented, Francis undermined the rule of law in the Church and made its application deeply personal. Their report concludes: “When instability replaces the rule of law, the law no longer becomes the tool protecting human dignity that Pope Francis praised; rather, it becomes an instrument that can be wielded arbitrarily, to the harm of that same dignity.” Flynn and Condon offer numerous cases of this, but the most infamous are connected to sexual predation and are well known: Marko Rupnik, Gustavo Zanchetta, Juan Barros, and Ariel Alberto Principi. If Pope Francis had “a pontificate of the heart,” it was unfortunately a heart too wedded to its own judgment and preferences.

A similar dynamic played out in his teaching magisterium. A good father teaches his children the truth about themselves and the world around them. He hands on skills, lore, and family traditions. But most importantly, he tells children their own story, from the way their parents met to the fact that God has created them to love him and the world that he ordered well. He leaves room for them to question and discern, but provides a bedrock of belief on which they can build their lives. He teaches them right from wrong and inspires a vision of what the moral life looks like when lived well. 

Unfortunately, Pope Francis sowed confusion where clarity was much needed, inasmuch as his teachings on certain issues seemed to contradict the Church’s tradition and practice. This was a matter of both form and content in many of the documents of his pontificate. Too often his writings exhibited a disregard for rigorous, clear thinking rooted in the Church’s tradition, or framed such thinking as the enemy of real pastoral work. Too often they seemed to create ambiguities that allowed for work-arounds to the universal call to holiness. Take the case of Amoris Laetitia. As I noted when it was published, the document treats Christ’s teaching about marriage in three different ways: “exhorting it as an ideal—noble to be sure but too difficult for many (298, 307); repeating it as a doctrine or a duty (134); and stressing it as a moral issue without regard for the consciences we might be burdening in the process (37).”

Francis cited Thomas Aquinas to argue that general principles may be necessary in pastoral discernment, but they break down as we descend into particular cases (AL 304; ST I-II q. 94 a. 4). The passage comes from the Summa’s discussion of natural law. But Christ clarified that the indissolubility of marriage is part of the divine law, whose purpose is to lead us to communion with God forever. And the new law of Christ is the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, in part by means of the sacraments, including “indissoluble matrimony” (ST I-II q. 106 a. 1–2). In short, I concluded, “Thomas corrects how Amoris Laetitia tends to speak about indissolubility. The New Law Christ teaches is not just a matter of natural law, a duty, a moral issue, or an ideal. It is life-giving, perfect; it revives the soul and giving joy to the heart (cf. Psalm 19:7–8). Christ’s teaching about marriage clarifies the path of perfection God desires for us. But it also turns that path into a sacrament, a vehicle by which the Holy Spirit fills our hearts with love and realizes that perfection in us.” 

Or take the case of Francis’s second social encyclical, Fratelli Tutti. Chapter 2 offers a moving exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and later Francis reminds his readers of the connection between the right to private property and the universal destination of goods. Unfortunately, other parts employ argumentation that becomes embarrassing. Francis exceeds his predecessors’ condemnation of capital punishment by calling life imprisonment “a secret death penalty,” but never gives a sense of what to do with unrepentant, dangerous criminals. As I observed after its publication, “He concludes by writing that Christ’s command to Peter to sheathe his sword (Matt. 26:52) is an echo of the ancient warning: ‘I will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed’ (Gen. 9:5–6). An echo may be there, but Francis ends multiple paragraphs against capital punishment with the first of many divine commands for it.” 

Capital punishment proved to be a sample case for Francis’s approach to the theological tradition. As Ed Feser has ably argued, the Catholic Church has repeatedly taught throughout its history that capital punishment is permissible. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI made it clear that they believed as a prudential matter that it should very rarely be used. But Francis changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to say that the death penalty was “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and made statements that clearly implied the death penalty per se violates the natural law and the law of the gospel.

However, Feser argues: “If capital punishment is wrong in principle, then the Church has for two millennia consistently taught grave moral error and badly misinterpreted scripture. And if the Church has been so wrong for so long about something so serious, then there is no teaching that might not be reversed, with the reversal justified by the stipulation that it be called a ‘development’ rather than a contradiction.” Hence Cardinal Avery Dulles, who was personally opposed to capital punishment, argued that “the reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium.” In this matter as in others, Francis was more concerned with getting to the answer he wanted than with the impact that would have on the Church’s doctrine as a whole.

Later in Fratelli Tutti, Francis dismisses the entire just war tradition in a footnote. He writes that “war can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses.” True enough, although John Paul II called for exactly such intervention to stop atrocities in Yugoslavia. He claims that “every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil.” But then one thinks of Great Britain, which Benedict XVI thanked for “courageously resisting the forces” of Nazi tyranny. Francis concludes by arguing that military spending should be redirected to “establish a global fund that can finally put an end to hunger and favor development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more dignified life.” We should not be surprised that a few years later, the people of Ukraine would find his response to their plight frustrating.

In sum, Francis was much more interested in solving pastoral problems than in theological doctrines. But his responsibility was to safeguard the Church’s doctrine and to cherish and promote its theological reasoning. It is a cause of enduring sadness that he failed to do so. His successor should take this task up again with renewed vigor. And he should remember that in the Church, theological reasoning outlasts politics. Francis made a mess, but messes can be unmade.

During Pope Francis’s final days, numerous outlets reported an increasing number of conversions to Catholicism in the U.S., France, and Britain. Francis and his inner circle had a complicated relationship with converts, especially American ones. He appeared not to understand how beauty and tradition are important and attractive to young people, how justice and order are for the Church’s good, and how doctrinal clarity and stability make the Church a shelter in the midst of the storms of our age. As Ross Douthat recently put it, we live in “an age of extinction” in which technology-driven change puts pressure on social institutions and inherited beliefs. Catholicism will flourish insofar as it is chosen and practiced, not inherited and taken for granted. It will require spiritual fathers who give persuasive answers to the question “Why should I become Catholic?” Let us pray that the next pope can do so, joyfully.

Image by JoniVideography and sourced via Wikimedia Commons.

Breaking News

According to the Financial Times Russian President Putin Has Signaled His Readiness to Sell Out His Country

Paul Craig Roberts

This morning I wrote that Putin had so badly mishandled the Ukraine conflict that his only choice was surrender or military victory, a victory he has been avoiding for more than three years. If the Financial Times can be believed, Putin has chosen surrender, or perhaps more accurately, partial surrender or semi-surrender.

The Financial Times reports that “Vladimir Putin has offered to halt his invasion of Ukraine at the current front line as part of efforts to reach a peace deal with US President Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.” [The Financial Times continues to display its ignorance or its partisanship by designating Russian military action limited to the Russian territories as an “invasion of Ukraine.” The Financial Times has proven so unreliable in its coverage that I cannot say I have confidence in this report.]

Moreover, the Financial Times reported that Putin told President Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine, Steve Witkoff, that Moscow could sweeten the deal by relinquishing Russia’s claims to areas of the four regions currently considered by the Kremlin to be part of Russia. This concession despite Putin himself having introduced constitutional amendments barring Russia from relinquishing claims to any of its territory.

Putin has yet again shown that nothing he says in defense of Russia means anything. All along Putin has said he would not accept any peace deal unless Ukraine withdrew its troops from the front lines and gave Moscow full control over the four provinces. Now suddenly Putin is willing to piss away a military victory and, perhaps, give back battlefield gains of Russian populated areas for a deal. This point is not clear.

The Financial Times says Putin has stepped back from his demands. When you refuse to play your winning cards, what kind of deal can you expect? By showing such desperation for a deal while winning on the battlefield, Putin has further enhanced his reputation as a person irresolute in war. The consequence for Russia will be another disastrous agreement, such as the Minsk Agreement, that will not be kept and that will evolve into worse conflict.

What Trump wants is not a Great Powers Agreement, but a settlement that lets Trump claim success in ending the conflict. Any agreement will not last beyond Trump’s term of office.

Here is the Financial Times report:
Vladimir Putin offers to halt Ukraine invasion along current front line
https://www.ft.com/content/5d848403-4a15-4592-888b-eb7b754ecb3a

This is an amazing Financial Times news report for there not to be anything about it on RT, Sputnik, BBC, CNN, Los Angeles Times.

At 7:35 on Easter Monday, 21 April 2025, the soul of Jorge Mario separated from his mortal body to present itself for Divine Judgement. Only on the day of the Universal Judgement will we know what sentence Pope Francis has been given by the Supreme Tribunal at which each of us must one day present […]

The post The death of Pope Francis (2013–2025): end of an era? appeared first on Voice of the Family.

“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater.” Since last Sunday, we have been celebrating the Resurrection of our Lord from the dead. On Low Sunday, we can think about another resurrection — one that’s still to come, and of which Christ’s Resurrection is the guarantee — I mean, our […]

The post The general resurrection: sermon on Low Sunday appeared first on Voice of the Family.