Tag: pope leo

  • 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.

  • Why does Pope Leo think immigration is a pro-life issue?

    Why does Pope Leo think immigration is a pro-life issue?

    On Tuesday evening, the Illinois pope weighed in on Illinois politics. A reporter from the Catholic news outlet EWTN asked Pope Leo XIV about the Archdiocese of Chicago’s decision to award Senator Dick Durbin with a “lifetime achievement award” for his work advocating for immigrants coming to America. “Some people of faith are having a hard time with understanding this because [Durbin] is for legalized abortion,” the reporter said. How should Catholics feel about that?

    “I am not terribly familiar with the particular case,” the Pope conceded, speaking in English. Then he spoke more broadly, and vaguely, about what it means to be “pro-life”. “Someone who says ‘I am against abortion’ but says ‘I am in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life,” he said. “Someone who says ‘I am against abortion, but I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ – I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”

    The new Pope is proving he’s consistent. From the Catholic Church’s perspective, being pro-life means standing up for the dignity of human life from conception until natural death. And there are growing examples of undeniably disturbing, gleeful responses to deportations and family separations (one only needs to look at the Department of Homeland Security’s X account). But to characterize support for a strong border and stricter enforcement of immigration law as “[agreeing] with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States” is a caricature of the complex feelings many Americans, particularly Catholic Americans (of which there are many in the Trump administration), have about the issue.

    After the Pope’s comments (though not clearly because of them) Senator Durbin declined to accept the award for his immigration advocacy, according to a letter issued last night by Cardinal Blase Cupich, who named him the recipient of the “Keep Hope Alive” award. Last month, Cupich defended his decision by saying that he was acting in accordance with Church instructions “advising bishops to ‘reach out to and engage in dialogue with Catholic politicians within their jurisdictions… as a means of understanding the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching’.”

    Cupich’s interpretation of “dialogue” misses the very clear point of those instructions given in 2021 by the Vatican’s Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luis Ladaria. They ask US bishops to attempt to change the minds of pro-abortion politicians through civil debate, and to dispel the characterization that pro-life teaching is only about abortion and euthanasia, rather than a set of teachings about respecting human dignity throughout a person’s full life.

    The decision to interpret those instructions as a directive to give politicians awards seems bizarre, even deliberately ignorant. But it’s not surprising. Many US bishops and cardinals have been vocal in their criticisms of immigration policy under the Trump administration (more vocal than they were over, say, the last administration’s stance on gender ideology or the church closures during Covid). Some have written letters to Congress to reject bills funding immigration enforcement, or have turned up at ICE hearings to show solidarity with immigrants.

    The tension between Rome and the Trump administration on immigration came to a head during the previous papacy, and it is not going to disappear anytime soon. Pope Francis criticised Trump’s mass deportations, and in a letter to US bishops made a pointed reference to J.D. Vance’s interpretation of ordo amoris – that the “hierarchy of love” gives one a moral obligation to family and community first, and then the rest of the world. It’s an argument not dissimilar from the more secular one for America First. Francis wrote in that letter that the true ordo amoris is something we discover by “meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

    Francis’s approach to America’s border crisis struck many Americans as distant and hectoring, ignoring the realities of illegal migration – gang violence, murder, drug and sex trafficking – and choosing to remind us of what we learned in Sunday school: that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were immigrants. Pope Leo has tried to avoid that tone so far. “They are very complex issues,” he told the EWTN reporter. “I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them.” It’s a most honest interpretation on Christianity’s offerings: not to say that Church teaching is muddled on these issues, but that there are no precise instructions from a universal Christian faith on how, for example, to deal with a specifically American border crisis.

    The Pope ended his answer by stating that “the Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear”. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, all human beings must be treated with dignity and respect, the state should not have the power to end a life, and abortion is a moral evil. Even if immigration is considered the most urgent pro-life issue at the moment, that should have no bearing for American bishops and cardinals on the Church’s unnegotiable stance on the right to life.

  • 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?