What Pope Francis knew
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Refugees and migrants rescued by members of the Spanish NGO Proactiva Open Arms in the Mediterranean Sea in 2020.
Sergi Camara/Associated Press
Advertisement
Our delegation of five met near the papal apartments in the Cortile del Belvedere in the Vatican. We walked over cobblestones damp from an early rain. We were greeted in the entryway and guided toward the elevators. It was a pristine building, well kept, high-ceilinged. As we turned a corner, we were surprised to see a large artwork on the wall. Six-and-a-half feet high, it was in the shape of a crucifix. It took a moment to realize that the giant cross was made of transparent resin and that the 'body' of the cross was not a body at all but an orange life jacket.
Advertisement
The artwork hung in the entryway to the pope's personal quarters, a startling symbol of the world's refugees. A life jacket, most likely belonging to an African refugee rescued, or maybe drowned, at sea, in the place of, or in tandem with, Christ on the cross.
The artwork the author saw in the Vatican last summer.
Colum McCann
We knew then that we were there to meet a person who held the stories of others.
Among our delegation were a Palestinian Christian, a Palestinian Muslim, and an Israeli Jew. We remained in the waiting room a considerable time while other parties came and went from behind the door. Time held itself. Toward late morning, we were the last delegation. Pope Francis stood from his chair to shake hands. He was 'deeply moved' to meet our Palestinian and Israeli delegates, he said. They were an important part of the peace movement, not just in the Middle East but around the globe.
Then he sat to listen. What was most extraordinary about him was how the words seemed to enter him. Viscerally. Tranquilly. His was a gentle presence, but candescent too. He seemed to be accepting the words as gifts. A pang of pain went across the hood of his eyes as his visitors talked of occupation, genocide, apartheid. The dark abysses of the human condition that he himself had often spoken about. He wanted to hear these words in order to know what he could properly say to the rest of the world. It struck me that I had never seen words being accepted in the same way. The brutal realities. The common thread of pain. The anguish of the unsaid. The ignorance. The disinformation.
He wanted to hear all this in order to know what he might say, at another time, to other people around the world. When he finally did speak, he did so quietly, with care, compassion, and startling humility. For common phrases — 'Thank you for coming,' 'I am very moved by your stories' — he used English, but for that which he truly wanted to say, he spoke to a Spanish interpreter.
Advertisement
'You remind us that we still have light, even in the darkest moments.'
'The peacemakers must embrace one another first.'
'You have the ability to bring change into history.'
There was humor too. When it was suggested that he might make a good candidate for the presidency of the United States, he quietly smiled and said, 'I am not quite sure that it would be a benediction.'
To be in such a presence was a great gift, not just for the quality of the moment itself but for what it suggested for what might come after — the struggle for any sort of peaceful engagement in a shattered world. I was reminded of a line from Arabic poetry: 'Is there any hope that this desolation might bring us solace?'
As we left, we passed the artwork again. It had become more crucifix than sculpture. The life jacket was, of course, representative of whoever had once worn it, but it also represented the lives that the Palestinian and Israeli delegation's families had lost, or the current realm of terror and global indifference.
Pope Francis kissed the foot of a man at the Castelnuovo di Porto refugee center outside Rome in 2016. The pontiff washed and kissed the feet of Muslim, Orthodox, Hindu, and Catholic refugees, declaring them children of the same God.
l'Osservatore Romano
In the corner of the vaulted ceiling above where the crucifix hung, there was a small crack in the plasterwork. The paint was swollen and bubbling. This, in itself, was incredible in such a building: One did not expect there to be a blemish. Not only that, but the crack in the wall had allowed water to seep in.
Advertisement
It appeared to us, as we left the building, that the outside was seeking the inside and that the rainwater was looking for the life jacket. It was like the line from the Leonard Cohen song 'Anthem':
There's a crack, a crack in everything
/
that's how the light gets in
.
It turned out that the crucifix was controversial to some who were critical of Pope Francis. Some right-wing critics said that he was 'deifying the poor and the marginalized.' But that was not something Pope Francis would have responded to. He had blessed the crucifix in 2019. He had embraced the wider meaning. He knew.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Israel is in talks to possibly resettle Palestinians from Gaza in South Sudan
TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel is in discussions with South Sudan about the possibility of resettling Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to the war-torn East African country, part of a wider effort by Israel to facilitate mass emigration from the territory left in ruins by its 22-month offensive against Hamas. Six people familiar with the matter confirmed the talks to The Associated Press. It is unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another, and raise human rights concerns. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to realize President Donald Trump 's vision of relocating much of Gaza's population through what Netanyahu refers to as 'voluntary migration.' Israel has floated similar resettlement proposals with other African nations. 'I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,' Netanyahu said Tuesday in an interview with i24, an Israeli TV station. He did not make reference to South Sudan. Palestinians, rights groups, and much of the international community have rejected the proposals as a blueprint for forcible expulsion in violation of international law. For South Sudan, such a deal could help it build closer ties to Israel, now the almost unchallenged military power in the Middle East. It is also a potential inroad to Trump, who broached the idea of resettling Gaza's population in February but appears to have backed away in recent months. Israel's Foreign Ministry declined to comment and South Sudan's foreign minister did not respond to questions about the talks. A spokesperson for the State Department said it does not comment on private diplomatic conversations. Joe Szlavik, the founder of a U.S. lobbying firm working with South Sudan, said he was briefed by South Sudanese officials on the talks. He said an Israeli delegation plans to visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up camps for Palestinians there. No known date has been set for the visit. Israel did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation of the visit. Szlavik said Israel would most likely pay for makeshift camps. Edmund Yakani, who heads a South Sudanese civil society group, said he had also spoken to South Sudanese officials about the talks. Four additional officials with knowledge of the discussions confirmed talks were taking place on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. Two of the officials, both from Egypt, told the AP they've known for months about Israel's efforts to find a country to accept Palestinians, including its contact with South Sudan. They said they have been lobbying South Sudan against taking the Palestinians. Egypt is deeply opposed to plans to transfer Palestinians out of Gaza, with which it shares a border, fearing an influx of refugees into its own territory. The AP previously reported on similar talks initiated by Israel and the U.S. with Sudan and Somalia, countries that are also grappling with war and hunger, and the breakaway region of Somalia known as Somaliland. The status of those discussions is not known. Szlavik, who has been hired by South Sudan to improve its relations with the United States, said the U.S. is aware of the discussions with Israel but is not directly involved. South Sudan wants the Trump administration to lift a travel ban on the country and remove sanctions from some South Sudanese elites, Szlavik said. It has already accepted eight individuals swept up in the administration's mass deportations, in what may have been an effort to curry favor.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Amid federal changes, Mass. law safeguards rights of immigrant and disabled students
As part of a supplemental budget, Governor Maura Healey signed a bill last week that adds 'immigration or citizenship status' and 'disability' to a state law that prevents discrimination or exclusion of children from public schools. Advertisement In a statement to the Globe, Healey said Massachusetts is committed to ensuring all students have the support they need to succeed in school. 'I was proud to sign this legislation that protects the rights of students with disabilities and immigrant students, and improves access to high-quality interpreters for parents and students who are learning English,' she said. The update comes at a time when the federal government is increasing immigration enforcement and taking steps to dismantle the Department of Education, including significantly reducing the workforce in the department's Filed as companion bills at the beginning of the legislative session by state Senators Pavel Payano and Sal DiDomenico and state Representatives Alice Peisch and Frank Moran, the language was ultimately folded into the governor's supplemental budget. Advertisement 'This law ends up safeguarding Massachusetts students from political shifts that we've seen at the federal level, and it affirms our Commonwealth's commitment to equity, to inclusion, and making sure that everyone has access to a good education,' Payano said. As a former Lawrence School Committee member, Payano said he has seen firsthand the importance of proper translation when working with parents who don't speak English and said when no one is able to communicate with parents in their language, children are left behind. Even as a fluent Spanish speaker, he worried he wouldn't know proper terminology used in schools and in special education. Related : Payano and his office worked closely with Massachusetts Advocates for Children, a nonprofit organization that provided policy recommendations and advocated for the bill. One of the organization's education advocates, Emily Romero Gonzalez, pushed for the bill to ensure future generations of immigrant children have the same opportunities she did. Romero Gonzalez, who moved to the US from Peru at age 3, said having access to a public education was 'instrumental' in the upward trajectory of her life and that of her family's. 'My entire family story would be so different if that right didn't exist,' said Romero Gonzalez, who attended Harvard University following high school. 'The impetus behind the bill was really the election of Donald Trump,' said Diana Santiago, legal director at Massachusetts Advocates for Children. 'It became increasingly evident that he planned to make drastic changes at the federal level in the area of education.' Advertisement Santiago also was concerned about potential challenges to the Supreme Court 1982 decision, 'The protections under Plyler are not codified in federal statute,' Santiago said. 'If that decision is overturned, or, as we became increasingly concerned over the past few months, the President were to issue an executive order essentially overturning Plyler, we were concerned about the impact in Massachusetts.' Santiago's organization operates a helpline meant to support families who need guidance in navigating the public school system, particularly in getting access to resources and services. She said callers are often parents of children who are learning English and also have a disability. She said she has observed families having to choose between English language education services or special education services, because districts have told them they can't offer both due to scheduling conflicts. This led Santiago to advocate for a provision stating districts should not encourage parents to decline English language services. 'There are logistical constraints or scheduling constraints in meeting the needs of students,' Santiago said. 'It's really a matter of convenience for schools, but it can result in students not receiving their English language education services, which they're legally entitled to.' Related : The bill also establishes standards for interpreters and translators working with parents or legal guardians who have limited English proficiency. Such standards include bilingualism, knowledge of specialized terms in both languages, ethics of interpreting and translating, and confidentiality. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will draft regulations regarding the new standards for translation, Payano said. 'It's a big relief, especially during these really dark times in our country, to have some kind of hope,' Santiago said. 'And there's still a lot more work to do, implementing the bill and just overall to create a state where all families feel welcome and students have equal opportunity to access an education.' Advertisement Marcela Rodrigues can be reached at
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Pete Hegseth's macho approach to the military threatens our national security
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Hegseth's rationale for banning 'gender ideology' from military academies, which train officers, is that it inhibits the unity and meritocracy required for military readiness among service members. As Hegseth's order states, 'The strength of the DoD comes from our unity and our shared purpose. We will focus on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness.' Advertisement This is deeply ironic because no one is doing more to make explicit the deep cultural connection between war and masculinity than Pete Hegseth. He's revealing something that's always simmered beneath the surface of military culture: that war is the sole province of men. Advertisement And the way Hegseth thinks about gender in the military and the whole point of fighting wars is fundamentally flawed — not to mention detrimental to the armed forces and our national security. Out of the shadows I used to have to make the argument that the military's culture was affected by ideas and beliefs about masculinity in mostly subtle ways. The only people who came right out and said war is about achieving manhood were centuries-old thinkers and a few contemporary military leaders or obscure far-right commentators. But now the sitting secretary of defense is unabashedly advancing this view and basing military policy on it. If you want to see how ideas about masculinity warp those about war and the military, look no further than Hegseth's last book, published in 2024, 'The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.' Hegseth asserts that the military exists to allow men to find their natural purpose as warriors. The military is the institution for turning undisciplined boys into real men. As he says, 'The military has always been about social engineering … It takes average American boys, breaks down their body and mind, and builds them back up into members of a warfighting team.' This point is brought home in a chapter titled 'Men Need Purpose, Not Inclusion.' Here, Hegseth provides a macho, first-person narrative of his experience in Iraq in 2006. As an important part of a team of warrior men engaged in killing the enemy, he says he found his calling as a man. His operation 'was all man, all merit, all mission.' He and his teammates were 'tough, manly, and unapologetically lethal.' He discovers that 'feeding a well-oiled killing machine' is his 'jam.' He closes the chapter with the hope that the military continues to provide this purpose to other men. Advertisement The clichéd, gendered language he uses throughout the book to describe good soldiers is staggering. Proper warriors are 'red-blooded American men,' 'strong men,' 'fighting men,' 'courageous men,' 'rock-ribbed men,' 'masculine men,' 'tough' men, 'normal dudes,' men who do 'PT' and wear 'Carhartt jackets,' 'cowboys,' and 'alpha males.' He compares them to the fictional characters John McClain from the movie 'Die Hard' and the superassassin John Wick, And he goes on to describe the men who question the value of this type or hinder their unapologetic violence as 'candy-asses,' 'pussies,' 'whores to wokesters,' 'effeminate,' those who 'suppress natural masculine instincts for honor,' 'beta-male[s],' and 'so-called men' who would 'neuter' the military. For Hegseth, a good man is a disciplined killer and protector of the weak. By nature, men are 'life-takers.' Their societal role is to use violence to protect their communities. Women, according to him, have a different nature. Women are 'life-givers' whose biology prescribes caregiving and nurturing. Their job is to reproduce and raise future generations as well as provide succor to warrior men. This is why he thinks women should not serve in combat. For Hegseth, including women in war upsets the natural gender order. Making women into warriors separates them from 'the natural purposes of their core instincts.' And it undermines men's 'instincts' to treat women gently. Advertisement There is also reason to wonder if Hegseth believes women should be full citizens. This all has had devastating impacts on women and gender nonconforming people in the military. Hegseth has overseen the But the effect of Hegseth's gender crusade extends well beyond the culture of the military. It has a dangerous impact on the way we fight wars. There is a direct relationship between treating men in the military as killing machines and a misguided way of thinking about war. Hegseth argues that the masculine nature of military service is linked to the nature of war. War is really a contest of masculine violence. If you outkill your opponent, you will win the war. Lethality is all that matters from a strategic point of view. He claims, 'Land warfare … is defined by how many people you can slaughter in one space, at one time — limiting the will and capacity of your enemy to fight.' Advertisement The problem with this is that it reduces winning wars to winning battles. But at least as far back as Carl von Clausewitz, an early 19th-century Prussian general and military theorist, strategists have understood that there is much more to winning wars than winning battles. The point of war is to achieve a nonmilitary political good like sovereignty or a just peace. There is not always a connection between winning battles and achieving these goals. In fact, you can win every battle yet lose the war — as the United States did in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States entered these wars with The United States does not have a problem with lethality on the battlefield. We have a problem understanding how our lethality affects the world and a tendency to think martial violence can solve complex problems. We need to be better thinkers, not better killers. We need more historical and cultural understanding, not better tactical skills. Hegseth doesn't see it this way. According to him, the United States lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't kill enough. If it weren't for the lawyers — or 'jag-offs,' as he calls them — restraining military tactics out of concern for noncombatant casualties and detainee abuse, we could have ended the wars sooner and won. The wars dragged on because we lacked the warrior impulse to do what was required to win. He says, 'The fact that we don't do what is necessary is the reason wars become endless. Modern wars never end, because we won't finish them.' Advertisement In Hegseth's worldview, wars are contests in killing because wars are contests of warrior masculinity. The side with the real men is the winner. If we lose a war, it must be because we lack real men. Whereas America failed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of a misguided faith in war, Hegseth is overseeing 'reforms' of the US military to emphasize battlefield fighting that simply double down on this faith. This may make the military more 'lethal,' but it makes us less ready to use the military for good. I fear we are now even more likely to engage in ill-conceived war than we were 20 years ago. So, in a sense, Hegseth is right: 'gender ideology' is a threat to national security. But it's his ideology that we should be worried about.
