Author: Joseph D’Hippolito 

  • Pope Leo is following in Francis’s footsteps

    Pope Leo is following in Francis’s footsteps

    Since Pope Leo XIV’s election in May, Catholics have wondered whether he would continue Pope Francis’s radical agenda or ignite a more conservative reaction. After five months, the verdict appears clear. Leo will not only promote the principal policies in Francis’s agenda, but work to solidify them. This includes suppressing traditionalist theology and liturgy while bolstering activism on the environment, migration and same-sex relationships.

    Traditionalists initially viewed Leo with hope. They noted his ability to recite the Latin Mass, his choice of papal livery favored by Pope Benedict XVI and his meeting with Cardinal Raymond Burke, who supports maintaining the Latin Mass.

    But the new pope refuses to discipline bishops who move against traditionalists. On May 23, just two weeks after Leo’s election, Bishop Michael Martin announced he would end the Latin Mass at four traditionalist parishes in his Charlotte, North Carolina, diocese. The diocese would build a centrally located chapel for the Latin Mass, a lonely new location that would create a two-hour trek for many communicants. More importantly, Catholics would not receive six of the church’s seven sacraments there.

    In Knoxville, Tennessee, Bishop James Mark Beckman went further. On October 7, he said Latin Masses would be discontinued by the end of the year.

    In July, Detroit Archbishop Edward Weisenburger made the most arbitrary move, dismissing three theologians from the archdiocese’s seminary for criticizing Pope Francis. One, Edward Peters, a renowned canon lawyer, said on X he had “retained counsel.”

    When Ralph Martin, another of the three, asked Weisenburger for an explanation, “he said he didn’t think it would be helpful to give any specifics but mentioned something about having concerns about my theological perspectives.”

    Martin, Peters and Eduardo Echeverria questioned Francis’s commitment to orthodoxy, his tendency to stir theological confusion and his refusal to confront clerical sex abuse. Weisenburger, appointed by Francis in February, supports the late pope’s stances on traditionalist worship and migration.

    Detroit’s new archbishop limited the Latin Mass to four chapels in his archdiocese and suggested “canonical penalties” – including excommunication – for Catholics who work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, or even support harsh immigration policies.

    Leo provided the velvet glove for Weisenburger’s and Martin’s iron fists in a homily during an October 12 Mass: “Some forms of worship do not foster communion with others and can numb our hearts. In these cases, we fail to encounter the people God has placed in our lives. We fail to contribute, as Mary did, to changing the world…”

    “Changing the world” to reflect Pope Francis’s image describes Leo’s political agenda. The new pope reinforced the commitment to environmental activism while commemorating Francis’s environmentalist encyclical, Laudato si’. He also quoted Francis’s apostolic exhortation, Laudate Deum, to disparage opponents. That entreaty, said Leo, “noted that ‘some have chosen to deride’ the increasingly evident signs of climate change, to ‘ridicule those who speak of global warming’ and even to blame the poor for the very thing that affects them the most.” As part of the festivities, Leo blessed a block of ice.

    On migration, the new pope imitates Francis’s position down to the melodramatic rhetoric. In his October 5 sermon, Leo decried “the coldness of indifference” and “the stigma of discrimination” awaiting migrants with “eyes filled with anguish and hope.”

    Francis denounced “the globalization of indifference” toward migrants during a pastoral visit in 2013 to the Italian island of Lampedusa, where thousands fleeing Libya’s civil war were detained. Ten years later in Marseille, he criticized the “fanaticism of indifference” shown by European governments restricting migration. When it comes to his native land, the Chicago-born pope slammed Donald Trump’s “inhuman treatment of immigrants” being deported in an interview on September 30 and told immigration advocates visiting him on October 8 that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops must become involved: “The church cannot be silent.”

    Leo’s embrace of same-sex relationships appears similar to his predecessor’s, as he showed in late summer. On August 28, Leo met with Sister Lucía Caram, a backer of homosexual marriage. “I would be in favor of homosexuals getting married in the church because God always blesses love,” she said back in 2023.

    Three days later, Leo received the Revd James Martin, the editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America, founder of the Catholic LGBTQ ministry Outreach and a papal communications advisor. Martin promotes LGBTQ ideology, endorses transgender medical procedures for children and opposes biblical teaching against homosexuality.

    On X, Martin wrote he was “moved to hear the same message I heard from Pope Francis on LGBTQ Catholics, which is one of openness and welcome. For me, it was a deeply consoling meeting.”

    Then on September 6, Leo opened St. Peter’s Basilica to LGBTQ pilgrims for a Mass marking the Holy Year Jubilee. More than 1,000 pilgrims participated, with rainbow regalia everywhere. By contrast, the Vatican prohibited another Catholic organization supporting homosexuality, Dignity-USA, from the 2000 Holy Year Jubilee.

    Leo’s most important divergence concerns finances. Unlike Francis, Leo will permit outside agencies to manage the Vatican’s investments to reduce an annual deficit of between €50 million and €90 million. But that divergence generates minimal passion.

    Leo’s papal name offers insight into his agenda. When the College of Cardinals elected Jorge Bergoglio in 2013, the archbishop of Buenos Aires named himself “Francis” to honor St. Francis of Assisi. Leo was that Italian saint’s most devoted acolyte.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • King Charles and Pope Leo share the same religion

    King Charles and Pope Leo share the same religion

    The historic meeting October 23 between Pope Leo XIV and King Charles III – the first between a pope and an English monarch since before the Reformation – goes beyond the obvious religious significance. It suggests future cooperation in promoting an entirely different religion, one favored by most of the world’s elites.

    That religion preaches environmental sustainability through draconian measures that demand humanity’s submission at the expense of common sense and science. Not for nothing did Leo and Charles meet less than three weeks before the start of COP30, the United Nations’ annual conference on climate change.

    Throughout his public life, Charles positioned himself as Defender of the Environment. His portfolio supports replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources, farming without nitrogen-based fertilizers and instituting carbon taxes and carbon credits. His Majesty even advocates radically changing international economics to achieve environmentalist goals.

    “We must recognize that our economic system is at the heart of the problem precisely because it is at odds and not in harmony with nature’s own economy,” Charles said in 2022. “This situation is indeed dire and the consequences of inaction and business as usual are unimaginable. However, this same economic system of ours, if retargeted, is key to the solution.”

    Charles’ rhetoric and actions match what Pope Leo’s predecessor produced. Pope Francis made environmental activism his papacy’s hallmark when he wrote in 2015 the encyclical Laudato Si, in which he demanded radical, immediate change to avert an environmental collapse that would devastate social and political systems and wreak havoc on the poor.

    “Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster,” Francis wrote. “Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress. A technological and economic development which does not leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered progress.”

    Francis solidified his agenda in 2021. On May 14, the Vatican held a one-day conference on environmental and economic issues. John Kerry delivered a keynote address for a panel on “Integral Ecological Sustainability” regarding energy and food.

    Eleven days later, Francis announced the Laudato Si Platform, a seven-year campaign to implement the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Francis described it as belonging to a thrust toward what he called “green economics,” “green education” and “green spirituality.”

    Francis and Charles thus forged a close relationship. In 2017, Francis hosted Charles and his wife Camilla for a papal audience In April, the king and queen made an informal visit to Francis 12 days before his death.

    Most importantly, both backed the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, part of its Agenda 2030. Charles lent his voice to a video introducing the WEF’s program in 2020.

    “We need nothing short of a paradigm shift, one that inspires action at revolutionary levels and pace,” Charles said. “We simply cannot waste anymore time, and the time to act is now.”

    Four months after issuing Laudato Si, Francis addressed the UN. He called Agenda 2030 “an important sign of hope” because “a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged.”

    Tellingly, the Vatican entitled its 2021 conference on environmental and economic issues, “Dreaming of a Better Reset.”

    Leo intends to continue Francis’ activism. The new pope indicated that commitment clearly as the Vatican commemorated Laudato Si’s 10th anniversary October 1.

    “We inhabit the same planet, and we must care for it together,” Leo said. “I therefore renew my strong appeal for unity around integral ecology and for peace! We must shift from collecting data to caring; and from environmental discourse to an ecological conversion that transforms both personal and communal lifestyles.”

    But the European Union’s focus on solar and wind power makes it dependent on energy sources that are more expensive, less reliable and counterproductive to economic growth. Italy, Britain, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark pay the highest electric bills yet the EU wants to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2040.

    Meanwhile, such developing nations as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia invest heavily in fossil fuels despite emissions.

    “This climate crusade is a masterclass in self-sabotage, chaining its economy to ruinous policies while preaching moral superiority,” said environmental analyst Bjorn Lomborg. “It is economic suicide dressed in eco-virtue.”

    Even Bill Gates believes the panic ranges beyond overstatement.

    “Although climate change will have serious consequences – particularly for people in the poorest countries – it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” Gates wrote. “People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

    Given such problems as clerical sex abuse and the breakdown of societal order due to unchecked Muslim immigration, St. Peter’s and Buckingham Palace, respectively, abandon their responsibilities and identities for the sake of intellectual fashion.

  • Flight 93 heroes deserve the Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Flight 93 heroes deserve the Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Twenty-four years ago, Muslim terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 innocent civilians – the vast majority of them Americans – by hijacking three passenger aircraft and ramming them the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in suburban Washington, DC.

    But a fourth, United Airlines Flight 93, failed to reach its target thanks to the bravery of the passengers and flight attendants, who sacrificed themselves to save who-knows-how many.

    Twenty-four years later, those heroes have yet to receive their country’s highest civilian award.

    The Presidential Medal of Freedom, instituted by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, can be given to anyone “who has made an especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” The medal can be awarded posthumously; such recipients include Kennedy, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Babe Ruth.

    Given that the award can be given posthumously for “an especially meritorious contribution” to national security, the 40 passengers and crew members of Flight 93 obviously qualify – especially given the details of their heroism.

    On September 11, 2001, Flight 93 left Newark, New Jersey for San Francisco at 8:42 a.m. At 9:28 a.m., four al-Qaeda terrorists commandeered the Boeing 757. Wielding knives, they claimed to have a bomb, forced passengers to the back of the aircraft and breached the cockpit. In the process, the hijackers stabbed pilot Jason Dahl, co-pilot Leroy Homer Jr., flight attendant Deborah Walsh and passenger Mark Rothenberg. Walsh and Rothenberg immediately died from their wounds.

    “Uh, is the captain,” Ziad Jarrah, the terrorist flying the plane, said over the intercom. “Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board and (we) are going back to the airport and to have our demands… Please remain quiet.”

    Flight 93 was traveling over Ohio when it turned east toward the Capitol, the intended target. Meanwhile, passengers were calling their loved ones to explain what was happening. Through those calls, they learned about the World Trade Center.

    “It’s Lynn,” passenger Linda Gronlund told her sister. “I’m on United 93 and it’s been hijacked… Apparently, they’ve flown a couple of planes into the World Trade Center already and it looks like they’re going to take this one down as well.

    “Mostly, I just wanted to say I love you… and… I’m going to miss you… and… and please give my love to Mom and Dad, and (sigh) mostly, I just love you and I just wanted to tell you that. I don’t know if I’m going to get the chance to tell you that again or not. (sigh),” Gronlund continued before giving her sister the combination to her safe.

    Passenger Todd Beamer surreptitiously called Lisa Jefferson, an operator for an airline telephone service, and in the midst of tears, asked her to call his wife.

    “You have the same name as my wife,” he said. “We’ve been married for ten years. She’s pregnant with our third child. Tell her that I love her… (choking up)… I’ll always love her… (clearing throat). We have two boys… David, he’s three and Andrew, he’s one… Tell them… (choking) tell them that their daddy loves them and that he is so proud of them. (clearing throat again) Our baby is due January 12… I saw an ultrasound… It was great… We still don’t know if it’s a girl or a boy.”

    But the passengers refused to submit to the inevitable. They chose to act.

    “We have decided we would not be pawns in these hijackers’ suicidal plot,” Beamer told Jefferson. “We’ve hatched a plan. Four of us are going to rush the hijacker with the bomb. After we take him out, we’ll break into the cockpit. A stewardess is getting some boiling water to throw on the hijackers at the controls. We’ll get them… and we’ll take them out.”

    Beamer then asked Jefferson to pray the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 25 before turning to his fellow passengers.

    “Are you guys ready?” he asked. “Let’s roll.”

    Jefferson, who described Beamer as “a soft-spoken, calm gentleman,” believes he “played a great role because when he told the guys ‘Are you ready?’ I assume that they were waiting on his cue,” she said.

    Alice Hoagland, the mother of passenger Mark Bingham, described what happened next.

    “They ran up the length of the 757 with all their improvised weapons,” Hoagland said while listening to a recording of the flight’s final moments. “You could hear them coming. It became louder and louder, people yelling, ‘Get ’em!’

    “They rattled the heck out of those guys in the front. They were terrified.”

    Deena Burnett Bailey, widow of passenger Tom Burnett, elaborated.

    “You could hear the scuffling,” Bailey said. “There were several people working together. You could hear a hijacker being hit with some type of object and you could hear the pain that he felt when he was hit. It was a cry, a wail as if he had been fatally struck. They were realizing that the passengers and crew members were coming to get them.

    “Then we all heard Tom’s voice. All of us just jolted. Tom said, ‘I’m injured.’ It was in a way that you had the sense that he was saying, ‘Don’t wait for me. Keep going.’ “

    The frightened terrorists responded by violently steering the 757 up, down and sideways to try to throw the passengers off balance. When the passengers remained undaunted, the hijackers – amid cries of “Allahu akbar” – chose to crash the plane in a Pennsylvania field.

    At 10:03 a.m., frenetic activity turned into morbid silence.

    In recent years, the Presidential Medal of Freedom has become just another token of political patronage, with recipients reflecting a sitting president’s political agenda. Such recipients include Anna WintourVogue’s editorial director and a fundraiser for President Barack Obama’s two presidential campaigns; Sister Simone Campbell, a Catholic activist nun who helped get “Obamacare” passed, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, who received it “with distinction.”

    But President Donald Trump can help restore the award’s original luster by bestowing individual medals to 40 ordinary men and women who performed an extraordinary act that must never be forgotten.

  • Will Pope Leo stand up to Islam?

    Will Pope Leo stand up to Islam?

    As Muslim migration roils Europe, some Catholic bishops are starting to notice.

    “For decades, the Islamization of Europe has been progressing through mass immigration,” Polish Bishop Antoni Długosz said July 13, adding that illegal immigrants “create serious problems in the countries they arrive in.”

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan spoke more bluntly in March: “We’re witnessing an invasion. They are not refugees. This is an invasion, a mass Islamization of Europe.”

    Yet Pope Leo XIV lives in a different dimension. “In a world darkened by war and injustice . . . migrants and refugees stand as messengers of hope,” Leo said July 25. “Their courage and tenacity bear heroic testimony to a faith that sees beyond what our eyes can see and gives them the strength to defy death on the various contemporary migration routes.”

    Leo’s comments express more than blissful sentimentality. They reveal the Vatican’s role in encouraging open borders and exempting migrants from accountability. In Europe’s case, that involves deliberate blindness to the violent, totalitarian nature of Islam and many of its followers. 

    This Catholic approach toward Islam reflects the ideas ofLouis Massignon, a French scholar from the early 20th century. Massignon described Islam as “the faith of Abraham revived with Muhammad,” and asserted that Muslims “have the right to equality among the monotheisms descended from Abraham.”

    French Catholic scholar Alain Besançon described the results.

    “An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in Europe, much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas,” he wrote. Besançon attributed that posture to “an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist, individualistic arrangements,” a dissatisfaction that the Vatican embodies.

    “Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in Europe,” Massignon’s advocates “cannot but admire Muslim devoutness,” Besançon wrote. “Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than to believe in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”

    The Catholic Church officially embraced Massignon’s ideas at the Second Vatican Council in two documents. One, Nostra Aetate, focused on the church’s relationship with Judaism but additionally addressed Islam:

    “The Church regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God . . . they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”

    The other, Lumen Gentiumdeclared that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.”

    That passage made the Catholic catechism.

    But what Besançon called “indulgent ecumenicism” toward Islam goes beyond words. During John Paul II’s papacy, the church embraced outright appeasement.

    Catholic bishops sold underutilized churches and schools to Muslim groups; many of the churches became mosques. In October 2006, the Capuchin Franciscan friars agreed to help the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) build a mosque in Genoa next to a monastery. The friars even helped build the mosque’s foundation.

    But the UCOII – affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood – advocates “an extremist version of the Quran, where Christians, Jews and Westerners are criminalized, as well as women and other Muslims who don’t submit to their rule,” Magdi Allam, a convert to Catholicism from Islam, reported for Milan’s Corriere della Sera.

    In 2006, the group also demanded Islamic schools, banks and clerical review of textbooks. Its president, Mohamed Nour Dachan, refused to sign a document pledging Muslims to accept Italy’s constitution, denounce terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

    Seven months earlier, a Vatican cardinal even suggested that Muslim students receive Islamic religious instruction in the hour reserved for Catholic instruction in Italian schools.

    “If there are 100 Muslim children in a school, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be taught their religion,” said the late Cardinal Renato Martino, then the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. “If we said ‘no’ until we saw equivalent treatment for the Christian minorities in Muslim countries, I would say that we were placing ourselves on their level.”

    In 2008, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales asked Catholic schools to reserve prayer rooms for Muslim students and to adapt bathroom facilities for ritual cleansing before prayer. But the worst example of appeasement took place in Belgium.

    As part of a campaign to force the government to grant amnesty, Belgium’s Catholic bishops turned their churches into homes for Muslim migrants, making them squatters. In May 2006, more than 30 Belgian churches served such a purpose. About 300 Africans occupied Antwerp’s Magdalena Chapel. Other churches held as many as 700 squatters.

    At Our Lady of Succor Church in Brussels, squatters lived in small tents donated by Catholic relief agencies, conducted Muslim services, erected computer tables near the pulpit and even set fires on the floor.

    Friar Herwig Arts described a scene at Antwerp’s Jesuit chapel: migrants “removed the tabernacle [and] installed a television set and radios, depriving us of the opportunity to pray in our own chapel and say Mass.” He went on, “For me, the place has been desecrated. I feel I cannot enter it anymore.” 

    Belgium’s bishops were not amused. Arts was chided by Belgium’s leading clergy. “Solidarity cannot be limited to one’s own nation, said the late Cardinal Godfried Danneels, then the country’s leading prelate. Monsingor Luc van Looy, then the bishop of Ghent, even said “illegal fugitives” were “entitled to a good place in our society. Arts has been silent on the topic ever since.

    But two decades later, Kazakhstan’s Bishop Schneider refuses to stay silent: “This is a global political agenda by the powerful of the world to destroy Europe.”

    Leo thus faces an existential challenge, one that blissful sentimentality cannot answer: Will he allow a church that played a pivotal role in creating European civilization to perform a more decisive part in destroying it?