Faith foes: Pope Francis's fight with the Catholic right
Vatican City, Holy See: Pope Francis, who died on Monday aged 88, aroused both fervour and fury within the Church with reforms aimed at opening the doors of a centuries-old institution to the modern-day faithful.
Here are the main disputes, which set ultra-conservatives within the Catholic Church against the pope.
- Latin Mass -
Francis in 2021 signed a decree limiting the use of the Latin Mass, reversing a more flexible edict from 2007 by his predecessor Benedict XVI.
The decision provoked incomprehension and anger among part of the clergy and Catholics attached to the so-called "Tridentine" Mass -- which is conducted entirely in Latin with the priest facing the altar, like the congregation. Some went so far as to accuse him of preventing them from practicing their faith.
- 'Traitor' cardinals -
Pope Francis attracted the wrath of several cardinals, the red-hatted prelates who are supposedly his closest collaborators, but also next in command in the hierarchy of the Church.
In 2017, Francis spoke out against unnamed "traitors" who were holding back his institutional reforms.
The bad blood was aired in public in 2023, when an Italian journalist named then-recently deceased Australian Cardinal George Pell as the author of an anonymous note attacking Francis.
In the note, Pell -- previously a close advisor to Francis -- described the papacy as a "disaster in many respects" and slammed "serious failures" of diplomacy, particularly regarding the Ukraine war.
The same year, German Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, former prefect of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published a book in which he railed against Francis's governance.
He denounced an influential "coterie" around Francis, and criticised the pope's "doctrinal confusion".
- Settling of scores -
Francis had a particularly conflictual relationship with Georg Gaenswein, private secretary to his predecessor Benedict XVI.
After Benedict's death in 2022, Gaenswein said Francis had "broken" the retired pope's heart by limiting the use of the Latin Mass.
Francis hit back, saying he regretted that Benedict's death had been "instrumentalized" by "people without ethics, who act for partisan ends".
- Ousting bishops -
In a rare move in 2023, Francis ousted US Bishop Joseph Strickland, one of his fiercest enemies, who had accused the pope of being lax on abortion and too open towards homosexuals and divorcees.
In 2024, it was the turn of ultra-conservative Italian bishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who accused Francis of "heresy" and "tyrannical" behaviour.
Vigano, a former ambassador of the Holy See to the United States, was excommunicated -- expelled outright -- for rejecting the authority of Francis, head of the world's nearly 1.4 billion Catholics.
- LGBTQ, migrants -
In 2023, the Vatican published a document which paved the way for blessings for same-sex couples, provoking an outcry in the conservative Catholic world, particularly in Africa and the United States.
The wave of criticism forced the Vatican to make a "clarification" to defend itself from any doctrinal error, while acknowledging it may be "imprudent" to apply it in certain countries.
"In their opposition to blessings for same-sex couples, the African bishops are criticising what they call European moral decadence or European Catholicism. They include the pope in that," Francois Mabille, director of the Geopolitical Observatory of Religion, told AFP in February 2025.
The Argentine also irritated far-right Catholics with his calls for migrants to be given welcome in the Old Continent, with some warning Europe could lose its Christian identity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran Israel tensions likely to be in top agendas at G7 Summit in Canada
The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is likely to be high on the agenda as world leaders gather in Canada on Monday. Sir Keir Starmer said that the G7 meeting in Alberta would provide an opportunity for allies to make the case for de-escalation in the 'fast moving' situation in the Middle East, with Donald Trump among those set to attend. Leaders have been urging calm in recent days since Israel first launched strikes against Iran before the weekend, with Sir Keir having held calls with Mr Trump, French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz among others. Follow Iran Israel war live updates Sir Keir called for 'restraint and de-escalation' during a bilateral meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Kananaskis, Canada on Sunday evening. In a readout of the meeting, a Number 10 spokesperson said: 'Discussing the situation in the Middle East, the Prime Minister urged restraint and de-escalation. 'The devastating human toll as well as the potential global economic impact caused by rising global oil prices cannot be underestimated, the leaders agreed. 'They added that this summit comes at a vitally important moment for the world, and that G7 partners must find a way forward through diplomacy." Iran launched a new wave of missile attacks on Monday, killing at least four and wounding dozens more. Emergency services reported projectiles and shrapnel in Israel's north and central regions, including Tel Aviv, which was rocked before dawn as Israel intercepted Iranian missiles. On Sunday, the Iranian health ministry said that 224 people had been killed since the conflict ignited on Friday. Israel's attacks have killed a number of Tehran's top generals, as the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which controls Iran's arsenal of ballistic missiles, said intelligence chief General Mohammad Kazemi and two other generals were the latest killed. The UK Government updated its travel guidance to advise against all travel to Israel on Sunday amid the continuing blows. The Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office website warns that 'travel insurance could be invalidated' if people travel against the advice, and described the current status as a 'fast-moving situation that poses significant risks'. Asked about reports that ministers have drawn up contingency plans to evacuate British nationals from Israel, a Number 10 spokesman said on Sunday: 'We always monitor the situation closely and we keep contingency plans, as you'd expect, under constant review.' The Associated Press reported on Sunday that Mr Trump in recent days vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Mr Trump said on Sunday that 'Iran and Israel should make a deal'. 'We will have peace soon between Israel and Iran,' he posted on his TruthSocial platform. 'Many calls and meetings now taking place.' He also told ABC News that 'it's possible we could get involved' in the conflict. A planned sixth round of talks between the US and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme did not take place on Sunday. 'We remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon,' a senior US official said. The UK has been calling for de-escalation, and Sir Keir confirmed on Saturday that more RAF jets would be sent to the region for 'contingency support'. Earlier on Sunday, Rachel Reeves said that the decision to send the planes 'does not mean that we are at war'. 'We do have important assets in the region and it is right that we send jets to protect them and that's what we've done. 'It's a precautionary move,' she told Sky News. Oil prices surged surged on Friday after Israel's initial strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, sparking fears of increasing prices in the UK. The Chancellor told the BBC that there is 'no complacency' from the Treasury on the issue and 'we're obviously, monitoring this very closely as a government'. An Iranian health ministry spokesman said on social media that as well as the 224 fatalities, 1,277 other people were admitted to hospital. He asserted that more than 90% of the casualties were civilians.
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
Shakira says immigrant life in U.S. under Trump's policies feel like ‘living in constant fear, pain'
Global music star Shakira has spoken out about the deep fear many immigrants face in the United States, especially in light of Donald Trump's return to the White House and his administration's strict immigration stance. In a recent interview with BBC News, the Colombian-born singer reflected on her own experience moving to the U.S. at just 19 years old to pursue her music career. She said that, like many Colombians, she arrived in Miami in search of a better future. 'To learn English, I turned to the works of Leonard Cohen, Walt Whitman and Bob Dylan,' she said. 'They helped me understand how the English language works, especially in songwriting.' But Shakira shared that life in the U.S. has grown more difficult for immigrants in recent years. 'It means living in constant fear,' she said. 'And it's painful to see.' Her comments come at a time when Trump's administration has intensified its crackdown on immigration. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have led to widespread protests across Los Angeles and other parts of the country, with many claiming the actions are unlawful and inhumane. 'Now, more than ever, we have to remain united,' Shakira urged. 'We must raise our voices and make it clear — while immigration laws may change, the treatment of people must always be humane.' Even during the Grammys 2025, Shakira dedicated her win to the Latin community and expressed her pride and happiness for her people. Her words have struck a chord with many in the Latin community, who say her voice adds much-needed attention to their struggles.
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
California's High-Speed Rail Deserves to Be Canceled
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- If President Donald Trump follows through on his recent threats to cut off federal funding for California's long-troubled high-speed rail project, it would be better for all concerned: For all intents and purposes, this thing went off the rails (sorry) a long time ago. Escalating costs have made it clear that no money was or ever would be available to realize the vision of a modern bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. What's under construction is a segment through California's Central Valley, where costs are cheap compared to other parts of the system but which offers almost no economic value. The whole thing has become a zombie project that nobody with clout in state politics can either rescue or kill. A hated outsider officially ending it would let the state's Democrats complain while also allowing them to acknowledge the reality that it's not going to happen. The tragedy is that the basic concept of high-speed rail for California makes a lot of sense. Los Angeles and San Francisco are two large metropolitan areas that are about as far apart as Rome and Milan (about 380 miles). Trains between those two Italian cities have a 68% market share relative to airplanes, and the competition puts downward pressure on airfares. At this kind of distance, many passengers prefer the comfort of a train to the speed of a plane, and the convenience of train stations to airports. A train could also provide frequent service to intermediary locations such as Bakersfield, Modesto and Fresno — cities that in the aggregate have a large population, but by themselves aren't large enough to support a lot of flights to LAX or SFO. And finally, once the core HSR line was built, spurs to San Jose and Sacramento, and an extension to San Diego, would be relatively straightforward. These are all real benefits. But they depend on connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco with a train that is both fast and cost-effective to build. The failure to achieve this has become a legendary case study in progressive excess, but the original sin was committed by a Republican — Michael Antonovich, then a member of the LA County Board of Supervisors — in 1999. Planners wanted the train to head north from Los Angeles along the route of Interstate 5, but Antonovich successfully pushed to detour the train through his district. That made the project more expensive and increased travel time. Unfortunately, this set the template for almost every subsequent decision around the project. To build a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco in a cost-effective way, it is important to prioritize making the train go quickly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. There may be tradeoffs between expense and speed. But it should never cost more to make the train slower. Yet it happened again with another major decision to get from the Central Valley to San Francisco via the Pacheco Pass rather than the more northerly Altamont Pass. There are many more details, complexities and decisions that went into this fiasco, but the basic story is pretty simple: They couldn't build a cost-effective fast train between Los Angeles and San Franciso because they kept making choices that deprioritized that goal. It is of course understandable that elected officials who represent places other than LA or San Francisco would have other priorities. But regularly deferring to the wishes of those who weren't aligned with the core goal of the project undermined it. The way to do these things is to avoid precommitments. California should have invested a modest amount of money for a cost-effective proposal, and then asked the legislature to support it. If it said yes, great. If it said no, fine. Either way, you wouldn't end up with a bottomless money pit — and no train. A new high-speed rail proposal for the East Coast, from the Transit Costs Project at New York University, shows what sound planning looks like. Rather than copying Amtrak's official proposal — which starts by asking every stakeholder what they want, then rolls it into an impossible $117 billion plan — the NYU study looks for the cheapest way to send trains from Washington to Boston in just under four hours. Its plan involves modest amounts of new construction and significant changes to commuter rail operations. But the whole thing comes in at about $17 billion, which is a very modest cost for a program with large benefits given New York's constrained airspace, and leaves most train commuters better off. Yes, some existing riders would lose out, as would some Amtrak customers in less populated cities. The politics of making this plan a reality aren't simple. But the upside — especially to 'in between' cities such as Baltimore, Providence and Philadelphia — would be huge. It's an idea creative politicians should take up. More important, politicians throughout the country should pay attention to the enormous price gap between the 'do it as cheaply as possible' plan and the 'accommodate as many as possible' plan, because the basic point is applicable to all kinds of infrastructure projects in all kinds of places: If something is worth doing, it needs to be made a priority. If it's not important enough to be prioritized over other considerations, better to give up and do something else instead. Otherwise, like California's politicians, they may be left with not much more than a lot of wasted time and money. Elsewhere in Bloomberg Opinion: For more, subscribe to our newsletter. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Matthew Yglesias is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A co-founder of and former columnist for Vox, he writes the Slow Boring blog and newsletter. He is author of 'One Billion Americans.' More stories like this are available on
