We've Been Orphaned. The Loss Of Papa Francisco.
I have deliberately used his chosen Hispanic name - Papa Francisco. Why anglicize it? Now, as the President of Timor–Leste, José Ramos-Horta, pointed out to me, wouldn't it be remarkable if, after the first-ever Pope from the Global South, his successor, were chosen from Asia or Africa?
President Ramos-Horta has a point. Timor–Leste is the most Roman Catholic country in the world after Vatican City, with 99.6% of its population devotedly Catholic.
The President of Timor-Leste and the Pope spent a great deal of time together in September 2024, six months before the Pope's passing, when he accepted an invitation to visit the country. The visit was incredibly successful: the Pope was greeted by half of Timor-Leste's population, blessing hundreds of thousands, having just visited three countries before arriving.
He stepped off the flight bearing the weight of the papal robes, one and a half lungs, and a mesh in his stomach. It was an overwhelmingly warm trip — marked by welcome, embrace, and deep respect — so much so that, when it came time to board his flight a few days later, he turned to the President, whispered, and said, "Walk over with me to make sure I get on this flight."
Though Papa Francisco was not well, he carried himself through each meeting with grace and a smile. The President recalled to me a woman struggling with infertility who came seeking a blessing. Papa Francisco gave her his time. He listened. He offered her infinite blessings.
Just three weeks earlier, doctors had urged him to take it easy and cancel all appointments, but for Papa Francisco, this was never easy. He was an incredibly dedicated, values-based leader who did so much to change the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the world.
President Ramos-Horta had been monitoring Papa Francisco's medical updates for some time, and although we knew this day was approaching, the news of his passing still came as an enormous shock.
At the time, I was hosting President Ramos-Horta in the UK. As he received the news of the Pope's passing, he immediately pivoted to attend the funeral, which is happening in real time as I write.
When we were reflecting on the Pope's life over the last few days, he tells me Timor-Leste's people did not just admire the Pope; they revered him, seeing in him not only a spiritual leader, but a father. He was one of the only world leaders with a true moral compass - a reflection of the values we hold dear: compassion, peace, justice, and humility.
'Now, that father is gone,' President Ramos-Horta asked me with a heavy heart, 'have we become orphans?'
José Ramos-Horta tells me he was not yet President when he first met Papa Francisco. In 2021, he was invited to join the Pope's Human Fraternity Initiative - a bold call for peace and solidarity. From that moment, the President says, they became fast friends.
Their bond was warm, human, and genuine. During his visit to Timor-Leste, the Pope noticed how closely the President worked to help his people connect with him. After returning to Rome, he wrote to Ramos-Horta, expressing how deeply he had noticed - and appreciated - the President's closeness to his people.
Meanwhile, during his visit, the President confided in the Pope and told him he was sad about the state of the world, and often felt a sense of hopelessness and disillusionment. Papa Francisco nodded, agreed, and shared his sentiment with examples.
In Timor-Leste, he saw a kindred spirit that shares the Church's values. A country with no death penalty, no life imprisonment, no religious violence, a deep commitment to peace and a strong, free press (10th best in the world according to recent rankings, whilst the UK is 26th and USA is 40th). It is a nation shaped by suffering and resistance yet deeply rooted in peace and democracy.
I share President Ramos-Horta's sentiment that we have lost more than 'the greatest Pope in history,' as he describes him. We have lost a global leader of integrity and courage - a man who spoke truth to power when many others, including powerful world leaders, would not.
He condemned the immorality of the global arms trade, and where others remained silent on the suffering in Gaza, he visited both Palestinian victims and the families of Israeli hostages. From October 2023 onwards, he called the local parish in Gaza every single evening, asking, "Are you well? Have you eaten?" - a small but profound act of love and solidarity with the Global South.
Papa Francisco literally kissed the shoes of South Sudanese leaders, begging them to end the bloodshed. He washed the feet of women during Holy Week, just as Jesus had washed the feet of his disciples, and he did more to elevate the position of women in the Church than any Pope before him. Where women once wore black and covered their hair when visiting the Pope, Papa Francisco ended such customs. This was no ordinary leader. He was strong, courageous, and unwavering in his values.
He reformed the Church in ways few thought possible, including on LGBTQ+ issues. When asked about same-sex marriage, he replied simply, "Who am I to deny the children of God?" And so it was, the life of over 2 billion Catholic people from all backgrounds was transformed. He was the first Jesuit Pope, the first from the global South, and the first to lead from a place of humility and conviction.
'As a humble and obedient Catholic, I leave that decision to the College of Cardinals,' President Ramos-Horta tells me. 'But as the leader of an independent Catholic nation, I am proud that Timor-Leste can now participate in that sacred process. And I wonder if it could be time for a Pope from Asia or Africa? The global South, after all, represents the majority of the world's 2 billion Catholics. What a powerful message of unity and inclusion that would send.'
When Pope Benedict resigned and later passed away, the moment passed quietly. But with Papa Francisco, the world has been moved. It shows us the scale of what we have lost and the uncertainty of whether we will ever find his like again.
We are grieving not just a Pope, but a man who made goodness radical again. Who lived out the values teachings of Christ not as dogma, but as daily courage. Who made the world feel, perhaps for a moment, that it could be kinder.
We will miss him deeply – as a friend, as a leader and as a father and a mother.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Criminal Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia Is Highly Suspect
On Friday, the Trump administration finally complied with multiple court orders to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, securing his release from a prison in El Salvador. The catch: Federal officials promptly placed Abrego Garcia in criminal custody, unveiling an indictment alleging that he unlawfully smuggled migrants across the U.S. He will now be detained in Tennessee—far from his home and family in Maryland—awaiting trial on these charges. The indictment is, quite obviously, an effort by the White House to save face after losing its legal battle to keep Abrego Garcia imprisoned overseas. It has been nearly three months since the government deported him, due to its own 'administrative error,' in clear violation of a court order. And it has been almost two months since the Supreme Court ordered the government to 'facilitate' his return from the Salvadoran prison where he has been held. Although Abrego Garcia lacks permanent legal status in the U.S., he was protected against removal to his home country of El Salvador and denied due process during his expulsion, along with hundreds of other migrants to the notorious CECOT prison complex. (After his case garnered international attention, he was moved by Salvadoran authorities to a different prison.) Now, after repeatedly suggesting that it would defy SCOTUS, the Trump administration has finally complied, begrudgingly, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face criminal prosecution. The charges against him may be valid. They may be exaggerated. Or they may be fabricated. It is far too soon to tell, and an indictment—which is notoriously easy to obtain—sheds little light on the matter. But already, there are at least five reasons to be skeptical that the government is acting in good faith and telling the truth about Abrego Garcia. First, it is unclear why the Trump administration waited so long to bring this indictment if the facts are as damning and undeniable as it claims. The White House has been desperately searching for ways to smear Abrego Garcia since it first deported him in March. It incessantly alleged that he was a known gang member without proffering any credible evidence; the White House's alleged 'proof' rested on the word of a disgraced former cop who later pleaded guilty to providing confidential information to a sex worker he had hired. The administration also accused Abrego Garcia of human trafficking because, in late 2022, he was pulled over while driving in a car with eight other Hispanic men. That episode now forms the basis of his indictment. But if that's true, why did federal prosecutors wait two and a half years to charge him? Second, and relatedly, the federal government took a very different view of the 2022 incident when it occurred. There was no overt evidence that Abrego Garcia was smuggling immigrants across the country, as prosecutors now claim. At the time, any inference of human trafficking rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and racial profiling. (A known construction worker, Abrego Garcia reported that he and his passengers were on their way to a construction site.) After pulling him over, Tennessee police reported Abrego Garcia and his passengers to federal law enforcement—but federal officers directed local police to let them continue along their way. The federal government did not see fit to even detain or investigate him then. Now it has brought felony charges against him. What changed—other than the president and his suddenly urgent desire to find a justification for his blatantly unlawful rendition program? Third, as Just Security's Ryan Goodman has noted, the government's account of the 2022 traffic stop has shifted as well. In their indictment and motion for pretrial detention, prosecutors claim that Abrego Garcia lied to officers during the encounter, concealing that he was driving his passengers up from Texas. That allegation lies at the heart of the case: It ostensibly confirms that Abrego Garcia was dishonest about his actions and intentions, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was covering up criminal activity. The allegation, though, appears to be false. According to a 2022 Department of Homeland Security referral report, he was driving his passengers from Texas to Maryland for construction work. This report thus contradicts the government's new assertion that Abrego Garcia deceptively omitted the fact that his journey began in the Lone Star State. Fourth, prosecutors have now brought forth a raft of disturbing allegations about Abrego Garcia's behavior, accusing him of regularly smuggling guns, transporting migrants for cash, and attempting to solicit child pornography. But it has provided literally no supporting evidence for its claims about child pornography, or even the scantest details about this eye-popping accusation. Meanwhile, its allegations about human smuggling rest entirely on Abrego Garcia's alleged co-conspirators, who have since been imprisoned or deported. This kind of evidence is notoriously unreliable, in part because the government frequently offers deals—including payments, sentence reductions, or early release—to informants in exchange for inculpatory evidence. This practice incentivizes hyperbolic or made-up claims and disproportionately leads to wrongful conviction. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently took the rare step of overturning a capital conviction that rested on the dubious testimony of the defendant's alleged co-conspirator. The Trump administration's accusations should therefore be regarded with healthy suspicion. Finally, ABC News has reported that Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, has resigned over his office's conduct in this case, fearing that Abrego Garcia was targeted for political reasons. Schrader's unusual move is a flashing red warning sign that something has gone terribly wrong in this case. There could be no clearer indication that the Trump administration is, indeed, persecuting Abrego Garcia as punishment for his efforts to fight his illegal deportation—a perverse attempt to ensure that, although he may have succeeded in returning to the U.S., his remaining time here will be spent behind bars. In 1940, shortly before his elevation to the Supreme Court, Robert Jackson issued a warning about the sweeping discretion of federal prosecutors. 'With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,' Jackson explained, 'a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.' This approach, Jackson warned, represents the 'greatest danger of abuse,' especially for those who happen to be 'unpopular' with the government. It is abundantly clear that in Abrego Garcia's case, the Trump administration started by 'picking the man,' then looking for the crime. That alone is cause for concern that this indictment represents a grievous abuse of the criminal justice system. The facts that come out at trial may or may not substantiate the charges. But at this point, the case bears so many hallmarks of a political prosecution that no one should assume that the government is speaking a word of truth.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas ranks 45th for child well-being in national report, despite modest gains
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Arkansas ranks 45th in the nation for overall child well-being, according to the 2025 KIDS COUNT Data Book released Monday by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The annual report evaluates how children are doing across all 50 states in four areas: economic well-being, education, health, and family and community. 6-year-old Dennis Martin still missing after disappearing in Smokies in 1969 Though Arkansas has made some gains since the COVID-19 pandemic, the state continues to fall behind on most indicators compared to national averages. One area of progress is child poverty. The number of Arkansas children living in poverty has dropped by 7,000 since 2019. Still, 21% of the state's children remain in poverty, which is higher than the national rate of 16%. 'This report shows that while there has been some improvement, too many of our children are still being left behind,' said Keesa Smith-Brantley, executive director of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. 'We can't be satisfied with small gains when the overall trends remain troubling.' Racial disparities remain a serious issue. Officials said Black children in Arkansas face a poverty rate of 43%. Children of two or more races have a poverty rate of 21%, while 19% of Hispanic or Latino children live in poverty. Non-Hispanic White children have the lowest poverty rate at 15%. Ohio girl with brain injury from flu complications returns home In addition to being ranked 44th for child poverty, Arkansas is in the bottom 10 states on the following indicators: Teens ages 16-19 not attending school and not working 8th graders below proficient on math level Low-birthweight babies Child and teen deaths Teens ages 10-17 who are overweight or obese Children in single-parent families Children living in high-poverty areas Teen birth rate 'If you look at the data, teens are where we're falling further behind,' Smith-Brantley said. 'We're seeing more teens out of school and unemployed, and more who are overweight or obese. These are outcomes tied directly to the decisions our leaders are or aren't making.' For more information, visit Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
How common are National Guard deployments over unrest? A look at past presidents' actions
How common are National Guard deployments over unrest? A look at past presidents' actions Show Caption Hide Caption Trump sends National Guard to LA as ICE protests escalate Crowds converged in downtown L.A. after National Guard troops arrived to quell any protests opposing President Trump's immigration policies. After more than 30 years since the 1992 Los Angeles Rodney King riots, an order from the president has once again ushered in hundreds of National Guard troops to California's largest city, brought in to respond to multi-day demonstrations over federal immigration raids. The protests began Friday, June 6 after Homeland Security officials detained dozens of people across multiple locations in a city where nearly half of residents are Hispanic or Latino. By that evening, more than 100 people gathered at a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where some immigrants had been held, and demonstrations continued through Saturday and into Sunday, June 8, reaching nearby neighborhoods of Paramount and Compton. National Guard troops, deployed by President Donald Trump, arrived in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, June 8. It's not the first time a president has exercised their control over the Guard to respond to protests and demonstrations − here's a look at when prior administrations deployed the force in cases of civil unrest and crisis. Live updates: Gov. Newsom challenges Trump on National Guard deployment What is the National Guard? Unlike other branches of the military, the National Guard can be deployed by both states and the federal government, and members serve simultaneously in their state National Guards and in either the Army or Air National Guard of the U.S. National Guard members can be deployed by the governors of their resident states and by the president of the U.S. Statewide mobilizations often are to support communities during and after natural disasters and amid protests, the Guard website says, and have recently been used to respond to the pandemic and to border security. The president can deploy the guard to serve missions overseas, which the Council on Foreign Relations says has happened more frequently in recent years, pointing to deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, Poland, and the Horn of Africa. What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests When have presidents called in the National Guard amid protests? While presidents have called on the National Guard dozens of times since the nation's inception to respond to "civil unrest," it wasn't until 1967 that presidents federalized the Guard to further assist law enforcement agencies responding to protests and demonstrations. The earliest instances of presidents sending the Guard in to quell civil unrest are in 1794 and 1799, when Presidents George Washington and John Adams called upon state militia and volunteer units to suppress the Whiskey Insurrection and Fries' Rebellion, according to a 2020 report by the National Guard Bureau. Presidents avoided calling upon the militia in response to civil disturbances for most of the 19th century, the Bureau said, with state militias quelling "labor riots and slave revolts" most of the time. Following the Civil War, the modern National Guard says it played active roles in "quelling the race riots and labor strikes throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries," and for 90 years between the beginning of Reconstruction and the early years of the Civil Rights era, no president federalized the force for civil disturbance operations. The Civil Rights movement marked the beginning of a more present federalized Guard in instances of unrest like protests, demonstrations and riots. Throughout this period, Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the National Guard 'to enforce the expansion of civil rights and to ensure public order,' the National Guard Bureau said. The Guard was involved in many of the most pivotal Civil Rights-era events, such as the school desegregations and ensuing violence in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, the University of Mississippi in 1962, and at the University of Alabama in 1963. The Alabama National Guard was also called into federal service for the Selma-Montgomery March in 1965, the National Guard Bureau said. National Guard members were also called in during the 'Detroit Rebellion' of 1967, and to respond to the protests and violence that followed Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination in 1968. After Trump's deployment of the National Guard on Sunday, June 8, the two most recent times a president federalized the National Guard for civil disturbance operations were approximately 55 and 33 years ago, respectively. President Richard Nixon deployed the force in 1970 in response to the Postal Strike that was the first and largest walkout ever against the federal government. Most recently, President George W. Bush in 1992 called on Guard members to respond to the 1992 Rodney King riots, which broke out after the acquittal of the Los Angeles Police Department officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. The unrest left 60 people dead and 2,300 injured, according to the Bill of Rights Institute, and thousands of members of the Guard, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps were deployed in the city. National Guard deployments in LA: A brief history The National Guard has been deployed to Los Angeles several times in response to civil disorder and natural disasters, at the request of state and local officials. The Guard is an especially familiar force with large swaths of the state that have experienced historic wildfires over the past decades, greater Los Angeles included. In 1965, nearly 14,000 Guard troops were sent to Los Angeles amid the Watts protests at the request of the California lieutenant governor, according to Stanford University's Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. In 1992, former President George H.W. Bush ordered National Guards to respond to the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles, which left left more than 60 people dead and 2,300 injured, according to the Bill of Rights Institute. It was the last time the Insurrection Act was invoked by a president. In 1994, the Guard was sent to assist with the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake. The magnitude 6.7 earthquake caused billions in damages primarily in the San Fernando Valley, 20 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, and killed at least 57 people. It is the first time in decades a president has moved to deploy troops in such a manner without a governor's consent or explicit invitation, Reuters reported, and the move has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to say he plans to sue the administration over the deployment. Contributing: Thao Nguyen, USA TODAY; Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
