Cardinal Stephen Brislin describes Francis as most abused Pope in modern era
JOHANNESBURG - Cardinal Stephen Brislin has described Pope Francis as the most abused Pope in the modern era.
Francis died on Monday at the age of 88 after suffering a stroke. The late 266th leader of the Roman Catholic Church sparked both admiration and controversy during his 12-year papacy.
While he was lauded by many as a reformer who pushed the church in a more progressive direction for addressing issues such as climate change, LGBTIQ+ inclusion and economic inequality, some conservative voices within the church accused the pope of straying from traditional Catholic doctrine.
In remembrance of the catholic leader, the Cathedral of Christ the King held a memorial mass service in Johannesburg.
To stray from old traditions or uphold them?
Pope Francis walked a tightrope between reform and orthodoxy, challenging the church to evolve while striving to ensure that it remains anchored in its core teachings.
[WATCH] Pope Francis mourned: Catholics reflect on legacy of beloved pontiff
But this was not always welcomed, as explained by Cardinal Brislin, who was appointed to the position by the late Pope in 2023.
"Francis was probably the pope who received the most abuse in the modern era, sadly, very often from within the catholic church rather than without."
But Brislin stressed that the Francis' teachings were not a break from tradition but a return to the core message of Christianity – of compassion, inclusion and care for the marginalised.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Daily Maverick
The philanthropy of Bill Gates must be approached with caution
Bill Gates is soothing his $200-billion headache by giving his fortune away – most of it to Africa – over the next two decades. That means increasing Gates Foundation disbursements to $9-$10-billion annually, compared with $8-billion in 2024. This nearly trebles the foundation's average charitable outlay of about $3.4-billion each year since the Gates family got into philanthropy in 1994. The increase is astounding in absolute dollar terms, but when adjusted for past and future inflation, the purchasing power of the expanded Gates largesse (supplemented by Warren Buffett's substantial billions) just about keeps pace with the real value of their original benefactions. This is still the biggest philanthropic gift in modern history. But why is Mr Gates giving away 99% of his estimated $108-billion wealth? A question of motive Perhaps the philanthropist – once the world's richest man, but now in 13th position – suffers from the same anxiety as lesser persons: securing his legacy and being remembered kindly? Or possibly, the 70-year-old is concerned for his soul as he enters the 'last chapter' of his undoubtedly brilliant career? Gates had a Catholic upbringing, but as befits a fiercely rational scientist, he is agnostic. Nevertheless, his reflection that 'to whom much is given, much is expected' suggests a spiritual base. He is also fond of quoting Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth: 'The man who dies rich dies disgraced.' The question of motivation is important in our age of suspicion where obvious goodness is not accepted at face value. Gates is the frequent target of outlandish conspiracy theories that say more about his detractors than about him. What Bill Gates does matters to us A more practical question concerns the implications flowing from his intent. Gates is entitled to do what he wants with his private wealth. But this libertarian licence is somewhat conditioned by the thought that the Microsoft co-founder amassed his fortune thanks to people like you and me buying his products and services – 345 million of us contributed $211-billion in revenue in 2023 alone, giving us a legitimate stake in Gates' affairs. His philanthropic endeavours are also our business because of his outsized influence on public policy, particularly when this sways the choices nations make to affect the life chances of 44% of the world population. They are the world's poor (those living on less than $3.65 per day) living in 128 low- and middle-income nations. However, to put this in perspective, the Gates Foundation's projected outlay of $9-billion a year is small change compared with the $294-billion needed annually to close the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) among the 48 developing economies covering three-quarters of the global population. Therefore, Gates' influence is not from money alone, but from how his powerful pulpit proselytises his heartfelt causes. This results in unease because of the distortionary consequences for country-level health and development. A narrow approach The causes dear to Mr Gates are: stopping preventable deaths among mothers and children; eliminating headline infectious diseases; and reducing poverty through education and agriculture. These are worthy aims with compelling evidence, garnered not least through the Foundation's own massive research and innovation investment, that they are achievable by scaling up solutions derived from fast-moving scientific and technological advances, including artificial intelligence. Mr Gates' humanitarian credentials are not in doubt. But his approach to tackling a problem 'because it is there' necessitates an all-consuming, laser-like focus on narrowly selected challenges, and lavishing vast sums of money via highly technocratic prescriptions. The venture capital method is problematic for several reasons. It means de-prioritising other equally pressing needs and making highly contentious value judgements on the issues that are more or less worthy. We normally do that through debating the choices we want our governments to make, and holding them accountable, however imperfectly. Private philanthropies are not held responsible in the same way, especially when their well-meaning interventions can shift at will or when they shut shop, as the Gates Foundation will do in 2045. Questioning cost benefits Could its legacy become an unsustainable burden for successor generations? Take, for example, the laudable Gates goal to eradicate wild polio that, after decades of successful global efforts, lurks only in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These fragile states extract high marginal costs for allowing the last wild virus to be chased down. Whether that is achievable is conditioned by prevailing social and political circumstances. So, how much is worth spending on eradication when existing strategies to protect the rest of the world through vaccination, surveillance and outbreak response could be more cost-effective? The counter-argument is that permanent polio eradication would save the world $40-50-billion. But is that sufficiently significant in a multi-trillion-dollar world? Furthermore, would it be better for long-suffering Afghans and Pakistanis to switch their earmarked polio funds into broader health and social services that bring wider progress that eventually catalyses polio eradication at a lesser eventual cost? However, this could take longer than 2045. Understandably, Mr Gates is impatient while we wish him a long life. Vertical focus on selected conditions Comparable concerns are raised by verticalised strategies that capture large Gates resources for diseases such as malaria, measles and tuberculosis. Inevitably, that skews multilateral health co-operation through boosting global funds such as for Aids, TB, malaria, and for vaccines. They also distort our global health institutions such as the World Health Organization, whose $6.8-billion budget for 2024-25 (before recent cuts) included a 10% ring-fenced allocation just for polio. The Gates focus on maternal and child mortality raises further questions because the underlying causes are difficult to shift. Take South Sudan, with the world's most appalling maternal mortality rate of 1,223 per 100,000 births. Against the country's backdrop of conflict, displacement, poverty, misgovernance, disaster, climate change, absent infrastructure and absent trained personnel, the contribution of technical healthcare innovation is useful, but relatively marginal. How much is therefore worth spending on maternal and child health alone while the all-ages crude death rate hovers above 1,190 per 100,000 population? If Mr Gates asks the people of South Sudan how to spend his money, what difficult choices would they make? Bill Gates is highly methodical as befits a smart techbro. His lodestar is metrics, which means getting only what he measures, not more, such as reducing Aids deaths by two-thirds between 2000-2023, or now aiming to halve under-fives' mortality from five million in 2019. A list of other conditions for statistically demonstrable demolition awaits. Technocratic versus holistic paradigms Reducing specific disease burdens helps, but does not equate to health. This is constitutionally defined by WHO as 'physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease'. The metrics for that are not precise and, therefore, less amenable to narrow technical fixes. Take, for example, addictive behaviours and cognitive disorders such as dementia, or making reproductive health choices. Obesity was, until recently, in the same category of complex aetiology. But now we have the GLP-1 agonists revolutionising weight loss, and there are promising new therapies for dementia. Gates may yet be proved right with the invention of pills and jabs for all types of ailments. If enough resources are thrown at selected problems, some are bound to stick, but at huge opportunity costs for other important challenges. Nevertheless, at least Bill Gates is fixated on saving present humanity here, while the world's richest man, Elon Musk, is investing heavily to send sizeable numbers of refugees from a doomed Earth to Mars by the 2040s, so as to keep the human genome alive. Philanthropic influences on democratic policymaking The Gates and Musk outlook brings into focus the technocratic versus holistic approach to life. The impact of the mega-rich on American policy in the Donald Trump era is a possible harbinger of similar influences on the world stage that may lead to comparable tectonic shifts for global health and development structures, approaches, and financing. The consequences should concern us. But there is a counter-reaction. Shifting geopolitics means that top-down solutions are no longer acceptable. That applies even for poor countries suffering from heavy budgetary cuts at the WHO and bilateral donors. They may welcome more Gates support, but want the dignity of charting their own paths without constant hectoring on what is good for them. While that worked with the partially successful Millennium Development Goals, it is resented in the era of assertive nationalism, shrinking aid and failing Sustainable Development Goals. A debatable legacy Against this world mood, the Gates Foundation will face considerable headwinds despite, and perhaps because of, its supersized purse. Does it have strategies for that, or the flexibility to alter course, considering the straitjacket of its religion-like mission? Perhaps the Gates legacy would be more likely to endure if his foundation listened more, preached less, and was open-minded to extend beyond its narrow silos. Otherwise, the risk is of countries left high and dry in two decades, as is happening now with donors walking away from previous commitments. There are greater implications still of how supersized private charities end up directing our societies. Do citizens want that? Large-scale philanthropy – however humanitarian-minded – is yet another ideology in our divided world. It is best imbibed in small doses under strict advice. DM
eNCA
02-06-2025
- eNCA
Homeless seek refuge at Madrid airport as rents soar
MADRID - Around 421 people were sleeping rough at Madrid's airport in March, a survey by a Catholic charity group counted. Most were men, half had been sleeping at the airport for over six months and 38 percent said they had a job. Nearly all of them would leave the airport during the day. The issue has exposed deep divisions among the institutions tasked with addressing homelessness. City and regional governments in Madrid have clashed with Aena, which operates under the control of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's Socialist administration. "Primary social care is the responsibility of the local government," Aena said in a statement, adding the city must fulfil its "legal duty to care for vulnerable populations". Madrid's conservative Mayor Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida fired back, arguing that the central government controls Aena and "what's happening depends on several ministries". The city insists that most of those sleeping in the airport are foreigners who should fall under Spain's international protection system. Despite the finger-pointing, both sides have agreed to hire a consultancy to count and profile those sleeping at the airport. The study results are expected by the end of June. Those who call Barajas home say the increased scrutiny in Europe's fifth busiest airport is unwelcome.
IOL News
02-06-2025
- IOL News
We are an evil and irresponsible nation, write our readers
As an evil nation, we got what we deserved The US President went out to humiliate the South African President. The issue of farmers and the 'genocide' of which they are victims as white people was clearly not on the agenda. The agenda focused on 'resetting relations and bilateral matters', according to the presidency. However, it is surprising that Ramaphosa invited white golfers and the minister of agriculture. That can only mean that South Africans were always wary of giving Trump an excuse to bring up the white farmer genocide. Nonetheless, the South African government received what it deserved. Also, the media, which has long protected Ramaphosa, received what it deserved. Trump humiliated all South Africans, so there was no chance to play great public relations. Indeed, the entire concept of a democratic South Africa that is 'non-sexist', 'non-racial', and has the 'sweetest Constitution and free media' facade has been exposed as the satanic lie it has always been. And the 'self-proclaimed' guardians of democracy known as the South African media were caught off guard, and Trump accused them of concealing the alleged genocide. The democratic government has done an excellent job of concealing the fact that the majority of people are Christians, the majority of violence victims are Black men, and the majority of marginalised people are Black. It hid God's role in South Africans' resolve to end apartheid. The government and biased media highlighted a few examples of Black and foreign pastors as the face of a 'rotten Christianity' and a God unneeded in our constitutional democracy, while ignoring the positive work of churches and pastors. This nation has hidden God from its children's education and attempted to justify xenophobia by citing frustration among the people. Many evil things have occurred in this country, but all have one common theme: to humiliate the God of Christians and demonstrate that we can do so through our secular Constitution! South Africa was becoming so arrogant in its devil-may-care attitude and 'Madiba magic' nonsense that it thought it could take it to the ICJ and get its way, just as it had done with Christianity and people like Bushiri. However, it has been exposed for the emptiness and hypocrisy that define it, as no one can be above their spirituality. As a Christian nation, South Africa's ethos and political stance should be based solely on Christianity, including championing human rights at the International Court of Justice. | Khotso Moleko Bloemfontein Let's sacrifice in solidarity with others Across the globe, countless countries have borne the brunt of war, devastating conflicts leaving behind a trail of destruction and despair. As we Muslims approach Eidul Adha, consider prioritising helping war victims, like in Gaza, by reducing personal extravagance, desire, overconsumption, and donate to bona fide humanitarian aid organisations. People in Gaza are facing enormous suffering and lack basic necessities like food, water, medical supplies and other human necessities. Currently, easing the suffering, pain and poverty in Gaza is the need of the hour and it is the time when help is most needed. Moreover, not only during Eid but also beyond Eid, as Muslims and human beings, we must lower the voice of our luxuriousness as around us are people in great agony and sorrow. The situation in Gaza has assumed apocalyptic proportions with hundreds of civilians being butchered on a daily basis. Those who are not killed by the Zionists regime face the grim and painful prospect of death through starvation. With humanitarian aid and commercial supplies blocked, nearly half a million people are facing imminent starvation. Let us do our best to assist. Besides prayers and aid we need to request the UN Security Council, EU and other nations to send in military support to stop apartheid Israel's egregious military offensive in Gaza and occupied Palestine. | MOHAMED SAEED Pietermaritzburg Investment in ESG is irresponsible It is saddening to note that the Coronation Fund Managers Stewardship Activities Report uncritically embraces the false globalist ideology of ESG (environmental social governance). Proudly the Coronation Fund Managers declare that they 'assess and advocate for improvements in their climate change strategies.' Clearly, despite Coronation's research capacity, they have wittingly or unwittingly allowed themselves to be shepherded by the controlled sirens of pliant science and the mass media in believing that human activity can influence climate change. Uncorrupted science and history have proved that warming periods occurred in millennia before fossil fuels were being widely used as they are today. Uncorrupted science has also shown that temperature changes occur as a result of the inconsistency of the earth's elliptical path around the sun and the slight variations that occur in the earth's tilt. So ignoring true science and history is really inexcusable. But what is worse is the agenda of the climate change globalists. It requires investing in the hugely expensive green deal – lithium powered vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels. It ignores the vast environmental damage the extraction of lithium causes and the unreliability of wind turbines with their terrible toll on bird life. By taking punitive action against what they condemn as carbon polluters like Sasol, the ESG disciples push up the cost of living and exacerbate impoverishment. Of course if they studied the science and history of carbon dioxide they would note that although it comprises less than one percent of the atmosphere, it is vitally important for plant and vegetation growth. The part of the Stewardship Report that shows double standards is Coronation's eye on the possible oil and gas bonanza off the Namibian coast. For all their green commitment, the allure of profitable investment in fossil fuel exploitation beckons. Although the Stewardship Report is silent on the social aspect of ESG, it needs to be pointed out that it concerns DEI – diversity, equity, inclusion. One wonders how that squares with Coronation's commitment to 'responsible investment' when it is a fact that the criterion of merit is excluded in the application of DEI policy. Given US President Donald Trump's administration's recognition of the globalists' green deal for the scam it is, in keeping with their commitment to responsible investment, Coronation's Fund Managers ought to be ditching ESG and focusing on the massive fossil fuel exploitation that is about to take off in the US. | DUNCAN DU BOIS Bluff DAILY NEWS
