Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Novemdiales Notebook

With the Vatican announcing that the conclave will start on May 7th, Rome is now well into the nine day official period of mourning for a Pope – the “Novemdiales”. The public queue to see the tomb of Pope Francis in the papal basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore – around three miles from Vatican City, not far from the Colloseum – opens at 7am each morning and the church stays open until 9pm. The line is monitored by uniformed Order of Malta medics and local carabinieri in full uniform.  

By the time I got there at 11am on Monday morning the line was already in the thousands, with the gelaterias and pizza/kebab bars in the fairly shabby tourist area of town doing brisk business from papal mourners wanting water and snacks as they queued for hours in the hot April sunshine. Many were American, with several I queued with having flown over from the US for the papal funeral on Saturday and for the chance to see the tomb of the 266th Holy Pontiff.

The very simple grey stone monument was lit up by a warm yellow spotlight and simply has the word “Francesco” carved into stone, with a single white papal rose laid on it. Mourners have about ten seconds to look at his burial place before being shuffled along by Vatican security guards. It stands close to a dark mahogany confessional box and next to the ornate neo-classical Regina Pacis sculpture group, which is dedicated to the peace initiatives of Benedict XV (1914-22) who was pope during the First World War.

In contrast to such ornate decoration, Francis chose simple greyish slate from Liguria, which was a nod to his great-grandfather, Vincenzo Sivori, whose Italian family moved to Argentina.  The burial spot involved knocking down a sidewall and a huge door with inlaid stones, something which Pope Francis’s critics in the saturnine conservative Catholic blog world seized upon as being indicative of his “destructive” church tendencies.

In fairness, the tomb is simple, austere and highly fitting to his papacy. Like many things about Pope Francis, it is in stark contrast to the very often over-the-top way other historic popes have chosen to be remembered with much more pomp, not to mention expense. In the Pauline Chapel stands the famous Marian icon, the Salus Populi Romani, which Francis used to pray to and bring flowers to before his papal journeys. The chapel, built by Sixtus V to house this most special of Roman papal treasures – with special significance to Jesuits – has several giant sepulchres of previous popes (Paul V and Clement VIII) commissioned to memorialise themselves in the grandest style. 

Some popes – such as Saint Pius V – are buried fully dressed inside ornate glass caskets still wearing all their finery, including their papal slippers, which Francis famously disposed of in favour of the sort of thick rubber-soled squeaky black shoes favoured by mid-level civil servants. Whether the next pope goes back to wearing the red papal slippers will be an early litmus test of what sort of papacy we can expect from the 267th pope.

On Monday evening I attended a Vaticanista talk and dinner at the Kolbe Hotel – fittingly where the patron saint of journalism, Saint Maximillian Kolbe, used to study and write when he lived in Rome before the war – hosted by CNEWA (the Catholic Near East Welfare Association) to honour Catholic Herald special correspondent John Allen. The evening began with an “Any Questions” style debate, chaired by CNEWA Trustee Amanda Bowman, on the conclave, and a discussion on the likely runners and riders to be the next pope.  

Despite being hailed by the American media as almost the only member of the Vatican press corps to “pick” Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires in 2013 as a likely possible pope, Allen himself would not be drawn specifically on his own prediction for the May conclave despite him now being a seasoned veteran of the conclave process. He also added that he wasn’t much of a fan of the “Conclave” film which bore almost no relation to reality and was truly a “work of fiction”. 

Instead of yelling matches over dinner behind the closed walls of the Casa Santa Marta papal hostel, specially designed to house voting cardinals, Allen expects there to be a much more conciliatory approach. Allen also expects a shorter conclave as he thinks the cardinals will be nervous that a long and protracted one might send out a message to the world’s journalists that the Catholic church is bitterly divided and can’t agree on anything.   

Allen thought it possible that the papacy might return to an Italian again, based on thinking that the many rookie new-boy Cardinals from obscure or peripheral countries – such as Timor or Mongolia – may be inclined to “follow the leader” when voting, having no previous experience of the dark voting arts of the conclave with its political and foreign language voting blocks. 

The main contender, he said, was likely to be Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin, who is the ultimate Curia insider. From the Vatican gossip picked up at the dinner and drinks reception to honour Allen, it was clear that negotiations are now underway to form a wide group to push for a “moderate” compromise candidate, hence why Parolin is emerging as the clear front runner.  

Indeed the Italian paper Il Messaggero has reported that Parolin has already secured around 50 votes in the geo-political chess game that the conclave is going to be. The paper also reports that the strongest conservative candidate is looking to be Péter Erdő of Hungary. Allen did give an outsider nod to Cardinal Jean-Marc Noël Aveline, the Archbishop of Marseille, who it is claimed was Pope Francis’s “favourite” cardinal to succeed him, rather than Parolin whom Francis supposedly did not want. Aveline is thought of as a heterodox-leaning prelate with broad appeal who is especially dedicated to interfaith dialogue and migration. So you read it here first if the Herald’s special correspondent is right again. 

This week in Rome is called “American Week”, due to the number of wealthy American Catholic patrons who fly into Rome to attend such glitzy events as the annual Rector’s Dinner of the North American Pontifical College. Alas this year the event has been cancelled leaving even more time for idle Vatican gossip in restaurants about who the next pope might be. John and Elise Allen live in a beautiful Roman apartment with a huge roof terrace that doubles up as a playground for the Allens’ two black pugs. 

John once kindly gave me a copy of his authoritative book, Conclave: The Politics, Personalities and Process of the Next Papal Election, published in 2002 to work as a “form guide” to who would be the pope to succeed John Paul II. It is well worth reading and does not suffer from the awkward problem facing the authors of the The Next Pope by Edwin Pentin and Diane Montagna, which is that of the 19 papabile they have researched and profiled over the last five years, several names now being considered are not in their book – such as the Italian Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, which I think is a fabulous name for a future pope. Alas, his young age of only 60 will count against him. 

Incidentally, Allen writes his brilliant Catholic Herald dispatches from a tiny cell-like study that can only be described as a broom cupboard, decorated with a few photos of himself and Elise with the pope, no larger than Pope Francis’s burial wall niche. 

 (Photo by Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images)

The post Novemdiales notebook: non-stop conclave speculation first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Novemdiales notebook: non-stop conclave speculation appeared first on Catholic Herald.

ROME – As cardinals meet in Rome ahead of a conclave to elect the next pope, a Peruvian cardinal accused of sexual abuse and whose ministry was restricted by Pope Francis has joined private meetings with his fellow red-hatters.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said April 28 that during a morning session of pre-conclave general congregations that day, cardinals discussed “issues of relevance for the future of the Church”.

These topics, he said, included “the relationship with the modern world and some challenges that are highlighted, such as evangelisation, relations with other faiths, and the issue of abuse. They spoke about the qualities the new pontiff will have to possess in order to respond to these challenges.”

The discussion on abuse and who will be up to the task of credibly tackling it by the roughly 180 cardinals present, over a 100 of whom are eligible to vote in the conclave, came the day after a cardinal who had been sanctioned by Pope Francis for sexual abuse was seen at a public event with his fellow prelates paying homage to the late pontiff, and after he was seen leaving the hall where the meetings are taking place.

For decades, Peruvian Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani, 81, was among the most prominent and influential prelates for the Catholic right in Peru and throughout Latin America, especially during his two decades as archbishop of Lima, where he served from 1999-2019.

In January it was revealed publicly in Spanish newspaper El Pais that Cipriani had been accused of sexually abusing an adolescent boy and sanctioned by Pope Francis in 2019, with restrictions on participation in a conclave and on donning cardinal attire.

An individual who chose to remain anonymous claimed that in 1983, between 16-17 years of age, he was sexually assaulted by Cipriani in the confessional and remained silent for years before finally deciding to make a complaint to the pope in 2018.

A previous complaint made against Cipriani to the Vatican in 2002 apparently came to nothing, while the 2018 complaint resulted in Cipriani’s prompt retirement in January 2019, shortly after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75, and restrictions on his ministry.

These restrictions apparently barred him from wearing his red cardinal robes and other symbols associated with the cardinalate, from returning to Peru without permission, and from participating in a future conclave. He is now 81, over the age limit for cardinals to participate in a conclave.

RELATED: Once powerful Peru cardinal denies allegations of sexual abuse

However, Cipriani is currently in Rome and was seen visiting Pope Francis while lying in state, and at an April 27 Vespers service in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, where Francis is buried, after visiting his tomb.

He was also seen leaving the hall where general congregations are taking place, dressed in his cardinal attire despite having been banned from doing so.

After news of the allegations against Cipriani went public in January, Bruni confirmed the restrictions on Cipriani’s ministry to media, saying that after the accusation was made in 2018, and after the acceptance of his resignation as archbishop of Lima in 2019, “the cardinal was imposed a penal precept with some disciplinary measures”.

These measures, Bruni said, were “related to his public activity, place of residence and use of insignia,” and were “signed and accepted” by Cipriani himself.

Bruni at the time clarified that the restrictions “appear to still be in force”.

Cipriani has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling them “completely false” and saying he never committed any crime, arguing that the alleged victims’ claims were a misunderstanding of his efforts to be pastorally close to the young man after he lost his father.

While acknowledging the restrictions on his ministry, imposed directly by Pope Francis, he also argued that the pope had not followed due process and compared himself to Australian Cardinal George Pell, who was imprisoned after being accused of sexual abuse only to be acquitted later.

RELATED: Peruvian bishops back pope, accuser of once powerful cardinal

In the wake of Cipriani’s denials and the backlash that the allegations against him created, Cardinal Carlos Castillo of Lima, Cipriani’s successor as archbishop of Lima, issued a statement supporting the alleged victim and the pope.

Two months later, on March 28, Cipriani published another statement in which he asked the Peruvian bishops to rectify their communique announcing the restrictions on him, which they said were imposed after “the proof of the facts was ascertained”.

He said there was no formal process with a presenting of proofs or a right to defense, no witnesses, and no judgement. He called the communique defamatory, especially given his status as a cardinal, and said it was the bishops’ responsibility to rectify their mistake.

In an April 7 communique responding to Cipriani’s statement, the Peruvian Episcopal Conference (CEP) said the pope in his decision to impose sanctions on Cipriani in the manner in which he did exercised “pastoral charity” and justice.

They said the restrictions against Cipriani “remain in force” and had been agreed and signed off on by Cipriani himself.

“While Cipriani has every right to affirm his innocence, since guilt is proven in a criminal trial, however, it is no less true that a penal precept exists; for this reason, he should not forget the exquisite pastoral charity of the Holy Father,” the CEP said.

Despite Cipriani’s insistence on a lack of due process, the CEP’s confirmation that a penal precept exists, presumably with additional penalties for failure to comply with the restrictions imposed on his ministry, raise serious questions about his proximity to cardinals ahead of the conclave, especially in light of discussion on abuse.

Bruni during Monday’s press conference did not confirm whether Cipriani was participating in the general congregation meetings, and did not offer indications on whether the sanctions against Cipriani for sexual abuse barred him from participating.

“All cardinals are able to participate” in the general congregations, he said, saying the Vatican constitution outlining the rules of a conclave, Universi Dominici Gregis, is clear in this regard.

In a statement following Monday’s general congregation, victims’ advocacy group Bishop Accountability condemned Cipriani’s presence at the meetings.

“The inclusion of a credibly accused cardinal in this week’s important pre-conclave meetings exposes the disconnect between the Church’s words and actions on abuse,” the statement said, saying Cipriani’s presence “mocks the cardinals’ statement about the supposed importance of the abuse issue”.

His participation “reassures abusive bishops of their colleagues’ continuing support even as it sends a distressing message to abuse victims. It revives the haunting idea that the church is safer for accused clergy than for children,” the organisation said.

Bishop Accountability said that even more concerning than Cipriani’s participation in the pre-conclave discussions is “the dysfunction of the Vatican even when it does the right thing”.

They questioned why Cipriani would be allowed to participate, after having been sanctioned by Pope Francis for sexual abuse, and questioned the logic of referring to Universi Dominici Gregis as a justification.

According to paragraph seven in chapter two of the document, all cardinals are summoned “who are not legitimately impeded”.

“If punishment imposed by the pope himself for a cardinal’s sexual assault of a child doesn’t constitute a ‘legitimate impediment,’ what on earth does?” the organisation asked.

While they applauded the cardinals’ commitment to tackling abuse as a priority in electing the next pope, Bishop Accountability said, “including an alleged abuser in their meetings discredits their words”.

“The cardinals must show that they mean what they say, and that means immediately banning Cipriani…and any other culpable church leader from the rest of their meetings,” they said.

This article was updated with a statement from Bishop Accountability. 

Follow Elise Ann Allen on X: @eliseannallen

(Photo by VINCENZO PINTO/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Controversy erupts as sanctioned Cardinal attends pre-conclave meetings first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Controversy erupts as sanctioned Cardinal attends pre-conclave meetings appeared first on Catholic Herald.

When planning for retirement, securing a reliable income stream is a top priority. Many retirees turn to annuities for retirement income as a way to guarantee financial stability. Guaranteed income strategies help retirees maintain cash flow throughout their lives, reducing the risk of outliving their savings.

However, while annuities offer security and predictability, they also come with limitations, fees, and liquidity restrictions that should be carefully considered. In this guide, we’ll explore what annuities are, the different types available, their benefits and risks, and when they make sense in a retirement income plan.

What Are Annuities?

An annuity is a financial product designed to provide a steady stream of income in exchange for an upfront investment. Insurance companies typically offer annuities, which can be customized based on payout schedules, growth potential, and risk preferences.

Retirees often use annuities as part of their guaranteed income strategies, ensuring financial stability throughout their lifetime.

Types of Annuities

There are several types of annuities, each offering different benefits and risk levels.

1. Fixed Annuities

• Provide a guaranteed fixed interest rate over a set period.
• Offer predictable income with low risk.
• Ideal for conservative investors seeking stability.

Best for: Retirees who want secure and steady payments without market exposure.

2. Variable Annuities

• Funds are invested in mutual fund-like subaccounts, which fluctuate with market conditions.
• Income potential is higher, but payments are not guaranteed.
• Fees can be high due to investment management costs.

Best for: Investors willing to accept market risk for higher potential returns.

3. Indexed Annuities

• Earnings are tied to a stock market index (e.g., S&P 500) with a guaranteed minimum return.
• Offer some growth potential with downside protection.
• Typically have caps on returns and complex fee structures.

Best for: Retirees who want market-linked returns with some level of downside protection.

The Benefits of Annuities for Retirement Income

1. Guaranteed Lifetime Income

One of the primary advantages of annuities is their ability to provide lifetime income, reducing the risk of outliving savings. Payouts can last for life, depending on the contract terms.

2. Tax-Deferred Growth

Earnings within an annuity grow tax-deferred until withdrawals begin, allowing for potentially greater accumulation over time.

3. Customizable Payout Options

• Immediate annuities begin payments soon after the initial investment.
• Deferred annuities allow funds to grow before withdrawals start at a later date.
• Payouts can be structured for life, a set period, or joint spousal coverage.

4. Protection Against Market Volatility

Unlike stocks and bonds, fixed annuities are not affected by stock market downturns, providing stable income regardless of economic conditions.

5. Can Supplement Other Retirement Income

Annuities can complement Social Security, pensions, and investment withdrawals, creating a well-rounded retirement income plan.

The Risks and Drawbacks of Annuities

While annuities offer security, they also come with limitations that should be carefully evaluated.

1. High Fees and Expenses

• Variable and indexed annuities can have high management fees.
• Surrender charges may apply if you withdraw early.
• Riders and additional features often increase costs.

2. Limited Liquidity

• Many annuities lock funds for years, making it difficult to access cash.
• Withdrawals beyond contract limits can trigger penalties and taxes.

3. Inflation Risk

• Fixed annuities provide stable payments, but they may lose value over time due to inflation.
• To combat this, some contracts offer inflation-adjusted payout options.

4. Complex Terms and Conditions

• Annuity contracts can be complicated, with varying rules on withdrawals, payouts, and fees.
• Understanding the fine print is crucial before committing.

When Do Annuities Make Sense in a Retirement Income Plan?

Annuities are not for everyone, but they can be a valuable tool when used strategically.

You May Benefit from an Annuity If:

• You need guaranteed income beyond Social Security and pensions.
• You are risk-averse and want a predictable cash flow.
• You are concerned about outliving your savings.
• You won’t need immediate access to the invested capital.

Annuities May NOT Be Ideal If:

• You prefer investment flexibility with higher growth potential.
• You need liquidity for unexpected expenses.
• You have other guaranteed income sources that cover your needs.

Should You Consider an Annuity?

Annuities can be a valuable addition to a retirement income strategy, offering stability, predictable income, and tax advantages. However, they also come with fees, liquidity restrictions, and potential inflation risks.

Before purchasing an annuity, it’s essential to understand the different types, weigh the benefits and risks, and determine if it aligns with your financial goals.

At RIA Advisors, we help retirees evaluate annuity options and build customized income strategies for long-term security. Contact us today to discuss whether an annuity is right for you.

FAQs

What is the biggest advantage of annuities for retirement income?

The primary benefit is guaranteed lifetime income, ensuring retirees won’t outlive their savings.

Are annuities better than traditional investments?

It depends on your financial goals. Annuities provide stability, while stocks and bonds offer higher growth potential but more risk.

Can I access my money in an annuity?

Annuities typically have withdrawal restrictions and surrender charges if accessed early. Some contracts offer limited penalty-free withdrawals.

How are annuities taxed?

Earnings grow tax-deferred, but withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income. Annuities purchased with after-tax dollars may have tax advantages.

Who should consider an annuity?

Annuities are best for retirees seeking stable, predictable income with little market exposure. They are not ideal for those needing immediate liquidity.

The post Understanding the Benefits and Risks of Annuities for Retirement Income appeared first on RIA.

Nearly 60% of those surveyed negatively assessed the billionaire’s role in US President Donald Trump’s administration

The majority of Americans disapprove of Elon Musk’s performance of his role within the US government, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the Washington Post, and Ipsos. Musk recently announced plans to scale back his involvement as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Of the respondents, 57% said they disapprove of Musk’s job performance in the administration led by Donald Trump, while 35% said they approve of what has been done so far, ABC News reported on Monday. The outlet noted that opposition to the administration’s efforts to shrink the federal government – spearheaded by DOGE – is a key driver of the negative ratings.

In recent months, the White House, through DOGE, has implemented widespread federal spending cuts. Under the department, which was established by Trump shortly after taking office in January, roughly 280,000 federal employees have reportedly been laid off in an effort to balance the US federal budget.

Earlier this month, thousands of Americans took to the streets across the country to protest what they described as an “illegal power grab” and “coup” by Trump and Musk, claiming that the economic and social policies enacted by the president and his ally have plunged the country into a full-blown crisis.

READ MORE: White House to evaluate officials’ loyalty to Trump – WSJ

Last week, Musk stated he would scale back his involvement as head of DOGE and refocus on his business interests, saying that the “major work” to establish the department had been completed. The world’s richest man clarified, however, that he has no plans to step away from government work entirely, and that he would still devote “a day or two per week to government matters.”

Musk’s role as a special government employee is expected to conclude by late May. After that, he is expected to return his focus to his private ventures, which include Tesla, the rocket company SpaceX, and the social media platform X, among others.

By the time I was nearing high school graduation in the 1970s, my friend Jimmy Patridge, a young Marine, had already returned from Vietnam—missing both of his legs. The sexual revolution of the 1960s was in full swing, abortion had been legalized, and the Church seemed as confused as I was. At the same time, I became aware of two opposing forces: a dark presence in the world, and the voice of my…

Source

The Zweig Breadth Thrust, a rare technical indicator, triggered a bullish signal on Friday. The signal indicates rapid and significant changes in momentum. The calculation is based on the 10-day moving average of the percentage of stocks that were positive on a daily basis. The Zweig Breadth Thrust signal occurs when the moving average rises from below 40% to above 61.5% within 10 days. It is trying to capture the final capitulation in a downward trend.

A Zweig bullish thrust signal is rare. But it's been a great predictor of positive forward returns when triggered, as shown below. Since 1950, the bullish indicator has only triggered 16 times, not including last Friday. The graph and table below show that in every instance the rare Zweig bullish thrust signal has occurred, it has consistently produced positive returns in the six-month and one-year periods. The shorter-term returns are positive in almost all cases. While this doesn't guarantee the downward trend is over, it does provide optimism that those willing to hold through more volatility and potentially lower lows will ultimately be rewarded.

Check out the Tweet of the Day below. It shares Jason Goepfert's analysis of triggering the even rarer Super Zweig. The Zweig Breadth Thrust and Jason's Super Zweig show average one-year returns, post trigger, in the mid-20s percentage range.

What To Watch Today

Earnings

Economy

Market Trading Update

Yesterday, we discussed the recent breakout above the 20-DMA and the downtrend from the February peak. Last week, saw a strong rally from the recent lows, which put markets back into a short-term overbought condition. As Goldman Sachs noted:

"On April 3, the S&P 500 opened at 5462 (when we got our first look at the now (in)famous tariff board after the close on April 2. Four days later, on April 7th, the S&P 500 made its one-year low of 4835. On Friday, after four consecutive positive trading sessions (S&P 500 gained 735bps during this stretch), we closed at 5525."

It should be unsurprising that after such a strong rally from the lows, and completely retracing the entire tariff decline, markets gave back a bit of the advance yesterday. What is crucial is that the recent breakout of the downtrend holds, without violating the rising trend line from the recent lows as shown. A violation of those levels would suggest a retest of recent lows. Such a decline would likely require either bad news on the tariff front or a collapse in economic data suggesting rising recession risks. Both are likely events at this juncture, and we must remain cautious.

This snippet from yesterday's blog encapsulates our current concerns.

"As the current correction continues, the market has violated the 40-week moving average. This has only happened a handful of times since 2008, namely during:"

• The Euro crisis in 2012
• Brexit in 2015
• The Fed Taper Tantrum in 2018
• COVID in 2020
• Russia/Ukraine War in 2022
• And currently.

"Each one of those corrections ended without a confirmed violation below the 200-week moving average, but each lasted a few months before the bull market returned. As the correction continues, the violation of the 40-week moving average puts us in the position of needing reduced equity risk in portfolios until we begin to see more bullish price action take shape."

Such is why we remain risk-averse for now and added to a short S&P 500 hedge last week.

Correction Continues- The Value Of Risk Management

Despite the recent rally, the correction continues. While wanting to “buy the dip” is tempting, there has been enough technical damage to warrant remaining cautious in the near term. As we have discussed, managing risk requires discipline and the emotional ability to navigate more volatile markets until a more straightforward path for risk-taking emerges. The problem with this statement is that it often immediately gets translated to mean “being entirely out of equities,” which is the act of “market timing.” 

That is not what we mean by risk management. Repeated studies have evidenced that the problem with market timing is that individuals cannot successfully replicate the profitable timing of the buys and sells. However, individuals can increase and reduce exposure to risk during periods of higher volatility. This is because the most significant drawdowns tend to occur during periods of increased price volatility. As this correction continues, volatility remains relatively subdued. However, if the economy slips into a recession or some other event disrupts forward earnings expectations, there is undoubtedly a risk of a further increase.

READ MORE...

Market Breadth Normalizes

As we led, the Zweig Breadth gauge indicates the potential for resuming the bullish trend. The SimpleVisor graphic below also provides optimism that the recent market decline and significant volatility are ending. Whether this period is a rest bit before further downside pressure, or signals a healing process that will lead to eventual upside, is unclear. As we highlight with the red square, all but three sectors have absolute and relative scores near zero. This entails that most sectors are trading similarly to the market. The absolute scores indicate most sectors are no longer oversold and have room to the upside (become overbought), but they also have room to become oversold again. The second graphic showing factor scores tells a similar story, with many scores near zero.

Tweet of the Day

“Want to achieve better long-term success in managing your portfolio? Here are our 15-trading rules for managing market risks.”

Please subscribe to the daily commentary to receive these updates every morning before the opening bell.

If you found this blog useful, please send it to someone else, share it on social media, or contact us to set up a meeting.

The post A Rare Zweig Breadth Thrust Provides Optimism appeared first on RIA.

While I alternate between the use of the terms conservative and liberal for Church matters, I do think it is better to best to use orthodox and heterodox to describe the polarization in the Church that has existed since Vatican II and on steroids today because of the pontificate of the late Pope Francis, RIP.

Orthodoxy and heterodox give religious and theological significance to these two groups. 

For example, a papal candidate who embraces the social teachings of the Church that go back to the 1800’s is orthodox but in political terms would be seen as liberal or progressive. Orthodox Catholics must be careful about criticizing any Catholic who takes seriously the Church’s social teachings which are in fact, in political terms, progressive or liberal. These are orthodox.

Heterodox papal candidates who want to ordain women, active gays and so-called transgendered people and start processes of blessing LGBTQ couples, triads or polygamists, which will lead to accepting these as “sacramental marriages” are progressive and liberal in the political sense but clearly heterodox if not heretical. 

A papal candidate that forgoes the tradition of papal trappings can be very orthodox but appear as a liberal or progressive when if fact they aren’t.

Thus so-called traditional Catholics should be very careful about seeing papal candidates through a political lens. One can be very pastoral and have an outreach to those most in need of salvation but be very orthodox. 

The heterodox don’t care about the salvation of souls, only embracing the sinner and the sin.

 The heterodox don’t love sinners and can’t differentiate between the sin and the sinner. They might be traditional and conservative but they are still heterodox.  

The contentious campaign was dominated by the trade war with the US and Donald Trump’s “51st state” claims

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals are projected to form their fourth consecutive government following victory in the country’s federal election, according to CBC Decision Desk and CTV News.

Carney centered his campaign on attacking US President Donald Trump over tariffs and the foreign leader’s suggestion that Canada could become America’s “51st state.”

According to CTV, preliminary results from the snap election show the Liberals winning 89 seats in the House of Commons, while the Conservatives are projected to win 77. A total of 172 seats is required to form a majority government.

The elections were called after Justin Trudeau, the Liberal prime minister for nearly a decade, announced his resignation in January. Trudeau stepped down amid an internal crisis in his party, as his once-high approval ratings sank to historic lows.

Carney, a former financier who served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, used tough language to rebuke Trump’s “unjustified” tariffs on Canadian goods. “His strategy is to break us so America can own us,” Carney said at a campaign event in the weeks leading up to the election.

In his victory speech, Carney said he will deal with Trump in “full knowledge that we have many, many other options to build prosperity for all Canadians,” and pledged to maintain national independence.

In early March, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on most Canadian goods, citing concerns over trade imbalances and drug trafficking. Ottawa responded by introducing its own duties on US-made products.

Trump also argued that Canada would be better off as “the 51st state” of the US, provoking ire across the political spectrum in the run-up to elections.

Carney stated that during their phone call, he made it clear to Trump that Canada would, under no circumstances, become part of the US. “Absolutely not. Never. Move on,” he said.

Multiple media outlets argued that Trump’s tariffs and aggressive rhetoric had helped boost the Liberals’ popularity. “We were dead and buried in December. Now, we’re on track to form a government,” David Lametti, former Liberal Justice Minister, told CTV on Monday. “We’ve turned this around thanks to Mark,” he added.

On February 18, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes heard arguments surrounding the Trump administration’s executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” following a lawsuit from several current and would-be servicemembers who identify as transgender.

Section 2 of that executive order maintains that two factors stand at odds with the military’s “high standards for readiness, lethality, unit cohesion,” and other qualities. Those factors are, first, “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria,” and second, “the use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”   

Much of the early news coverage centered on pronouns and, in particular, on Judge Reyes’s skepticism that they affect military readiness. Addressing the administration’s lawyers, she said: “You and I both agree that the greatest fighting force that world history has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than one percent of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them.” In Judge Reyes’s view, a “military [that] is negatively impacted” because of transgender pronouns would be “incompetent.” She called the suggestion “frankly ridiculous” and said that “any common sense, rational person would understand that [pronoun use] doesn’t” affect military readiness.

The judge even issued the following challenge: “If you can get me an officer of the United States military to get on the stand and say that because of pronoun usage, we are less prepared, I will be the first to buy you a box of cigars.”

As an Air Force officer with a Ph.D. in philosophy who has personally struggled with the issue of transgender pronouns in the military, I am writing to meet this challenge. Importantly, I do so not out of “animus”—a common accusation surrounding this case—but with a sincere belief in the intrinsic worth of people who identify as transgender, with whom I have worked both personally and professionally, and whom I wish well. Nevertheless, the challenges that transgender pronoun use raise for our pluralistic military are real, and citizens need to understand them. 

The use of transgender pronouns creates a dilemma for military readiness. So long as the military permits such pronouns, it has two basic choices: require their use or leave that use optional. Yet either choice brings real costs.

Choice 1: Require Use

Suppose the military required the use of transgender pronouns. To see the consequences, consider the following facts.

First, there are many people among us who cannot in good conscience use transgender pronouns. These include people who, for religious or philosophical reasons, believe that calling a biological male “she/her,” a biological female “he/him,” or calling someone any of the various other preferred pronouns such as “zi,” “zem,” or “fae,” amounts to a falsehood. The conscientious abstainers believe that their use of such language actually harms all parties involved: the speaker, who must violate his commitment to truth or his duties to God; the person who identifies as transgender, who will be encouraged in what the speaker believes to be a falsehood; and any other listeners, who may feel added social pressure to join, or continue, in that supposed falsehood. 

Now, it is true that many people do not agree that transgender pronouns amount to a falsehood. This latter group sees the use of such pronouns as a mark of authenticity, even courage. But here I am focused on the former group, the conscientious abstainers. Their position gets little serious attention in most media coverage surrounding this issue, yet they need understanding too. 

According to recent survey data, this group is not small. A 2022 Pew Forum study found that “[t]he vast majority of Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth (86 percent),” along with “38 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners”—a massive number in a country of 340 million people, with a relatively even split between the parties. If you believe that biological sex determines one’s gender, then calling a biological male who identifies as a woman “she/her” (for example) will be for you direct participation in a lie. 

That may help to explain why, according to a PRRI study from 2023, 43 percent of Americans reported that they were “somewhat” or “very uncomfortable” using “pronouns like ‘he’ or ‘she’ that do not match your perception of their appearance.” That figure includes 68 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Independents, and 33 percent of Democrats—again, a massive number. 

Nor, for many of these people, will the supposed falsehood appear innocent. A study by Gallup in May 2024 found that a “steady 51 percent of Americans think changing one’s gender is morally wrong,” and many of those cited religious reasons, meaning their opposition is not surface-level but goes very deep, even into First Amendment territory. Although that study focuses on more extreme means of transition (puberty blockers and hormone treatments, for example), such treatments exist along a spectrum, and changing one’s pronouns surely falls along that spectrum.

Thus, were the military to require the use of transgender pronouns, it would alienate a substantial portion of eligible citizens, who may conclude that it is no longer safe to serve, since doing so exposes them to a not-insignificant chance of being forced to violate their conscience. This chance greatly increases when viewed over the course of a twenty-year career, with the myriad colleagues that will come into their path. Instituting such an obstacle to military service for so many citizens poses a clear readiness problem.

Choice 2: Leave Use Optional

Suppose instead that the military leaves it optional whether or not to use transgender pronouns. This too creates a readiness problem, in two distinct ways.

First, although many Americans cannot use transgender pronouns, others view that refusal as an existential threat, a “denial” of the transgender person’s “very existence.” Claims about this erasure of existence are numerous. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) As such people see it, to deny the requested pronoun (and the beliefs on which it is based) is to deny that the requesters are who they claim themselves to be; it is to deny the real them. The coexistence of these two groups—the pronoun abstainers and the pronoun requesters—provides a recipe for immense tension in a military unit, as one group demands what the other group cannot, in good conscience, give. It does so, at the very least, so long as such pronouns are optional, for then members can be found culpable for not using them.

That tension intensifies when we consider that many of today’s prominent voices portray all who refuse to use transgender pronouns—or to support other aspects of a transition program—as bigoted or hateful, even when abstainers state their reasons clearly and in gracious terms. (See, for example, the 2018 controversy surrounding Isabella Chow, a former UC Berkeley student senator—a case I explored in detail in my doctoral dissertation.)

Now because our military is pluralistic, it contains representatives of both groups: those who cannot use transgender pronouns, and those who either demand their use or who regard abstainers as bigoted or hateful. Thus, a portion of servicemembers declining to use transgender pronouns could easily undermine trust and cohesion in the unit, while alienating servicemembers who identify as transgender. This is hardly a recipe for success.

Those who wish to understand these two groups better, and therefore to engage in more productive dialogue about pronouns and related issues, might start by reading the entries on “gender identity” and “transgender” in the Red Blue Translator, a resource from the public benefit corporation AllSides. Such awareness can humanize opponents, while clarifying conflicts that seem inexplicable when one does not know the basic assumptions of the other side. 

There is a second way in which the optional use of transgender pronouns can damage military readiness. Certain aspects of military culture create immense pressure on servicemembers to use transgender pronouns, regardless of whether such pronouns are theoretically optional or whether they align with such servicemembers’ beliefs. Consider the following scenarios.  

A commander of an Air Force squadron has been asked to officiate the promotion ceremony of one of her airmen, a person who identifies as transgender. It is customary in the Air Force that the officiant make remarks on behalf of the promotee. These remarks are often personal, summarizing major milestones in the promotee’s life and career—they often last for ten minutes or more. The promotee’s family is usually present, along with his teammates. 

What, then, is our commander to do? All eyes (and ears) now rest upon her, with the expectation that she will help make the occasion special. And though she wishes to make it special, she belongs to that large group of people who object to using transgender pronouns.

Have you ever tried to omit pronouns when speaking about someone who identifies as transgender? Planned every sentence in advance? Heard the awkwardness as you repeat the person’s name again and again, rather than the graceful alternation between name and pronoun that our language affords? If so, then you can appreciate just how difficult our commander’s task is. Perhaps we can trust seasoned leaders with that challenge, but what about 18-year-old recruits or your average mid-level supervisor? Are they up to it? 

And if they fail, what then? Will they be subject to an Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint, or even a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on harassment grounds? This may sound far-fetched, but one military lawyer and professor at West Point has argued that EO law supplied such a basis as recently as last year. 

And what should that airman’s teammates in the audience infer from their commander’s abstention? That she is a bigot and full of hate, as many allege? So much for unit cohesion.

Next, take the case of a junior servicemember who serves under a civilian leader—a government service (GS) employee who identifies as transgender. How should our servicemember address the leader in question in all his interactions with that person?

This case is especially difficult for multiple reasons. Unlike in the previous scenario, where the commander could at least alternate between using the airman’s rank and his or her first name, the servicemember in our new scenario has no such option. There are no gender-neutral titles for civilian employees. You would not call someone “GS-15 Smith,” for example, whereas you can and do call someone “Colonel” or “Airman Smith.” In the civilian case, one uses “Mr.” or “Ms.,” “Sir” or “Ma’am,” a custom which leaves conscientious abstainers no way out. 

Unlike many civilian organizations, which are “flat” in nature, the military is strictly hierarchical, and it adheres to time-honored customs and courtesies. In our current system, many would consider it extraordinarily inappropriate for a junior servicemember to refer to civilian leaders by their first names, or to use titles like “boss.” This especially applies to major political appointees (service secretaries, for example). Were such people to request alternative pronouns, that could create a crisis of conscience for tens of thousands of their subordinates, who may either fear reprisal or the assumption of animus from many of their non-abstaining teammates.

In short, so long as the military permits transgender pronouns, it faces a dilemma. To require their use means alienating a substantial percentage of eligible servicemembers who cannot use them in good conscience. To leave them optional threatens unit cohesion, and it risks the continued alienation of those who, given the nature of military culture, see no genuine room for abstention. 

Judge Reyes, and all those holding authority over our nation’s armed forces, should take the real dangers posed by a culture of pronoun usage—whether mandatory or “optional”—seriously.

The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.

Image by roibu and licensed via Adobe Stock.