The world is a better place for Pope Francis
That affection is unsurprising. I was lucky enough to know Pope Francis personally, and his characteristic greeting of 'John, you must pray for me,' was immediately disarming. It exemplified his humility, simplicity and warmth, and even carried a suggestion of the wit he showed in private. It was through his encouragement that I became involved in work to combat modern slavery and human trafficking.
But there was also a sterner, authoritative, 'Old Testament' side to Pope Francis. In these often turbulent and adversarial times he was steadfast in asserting his position as a moral leader, and he did so with a combination of humanity, frankness and clarity that achieved universal resonance. His death does not merely represent the end of a papal tenure. It is the culmination of a journey marked by courage, empathy and a resolute belief in the principles of the Good Shepherd. Pope Francis took us along a route that we would do well to continue to follow.
Even amid pomp and ceremony, he remained a man of the people. As the first Latin-American pope he brought a distinctive and fresh perspective on our society, on the haves and have-nots. His background as a Jesuit instilled in him a deep sense of social justice and a commitment to serving people who were marginalised or oppressed. He challenged indifference to poverty with unwavering conviction, reminding the privileged that human dignity is universal and non-negotiable. He consistently emphasised a preferential option for the poor. His ministry transformed the Church's engagement with issues of social justice.
These initiatives were part of his tireless work to ensure the Church remained relevant at times of rapid and challenging change. His encyclicals, such as Laudato si and Fratelli tutti, called for a renewed emphasis on environmental stewardship, social justice, and fraternity among all people, regardless of faith or background. In a world plagued by authoritarianism, disregard for the rule of law, and diminishing respect for human life, he stood as a beacon of moral clarity.
Pope Francis's tenure was not without controversy. His progressive stance on issues such as economic inequality, climate change, and the inclusion of marginalised groups within the Church prompted criticism as well as admiration. Yet his passion for these causes remained unwavering. He moved the ball down the playing field – and he took the people with him.
It helped that Pope Francis, with his ability to speak to the universal human experience, was such a remarkable bridge-builder among faiths. He recognised that the challenges facing humanity cannot be surmounted without a collective effort. In a world where religious differences are too often exploited to create division, he sought and mapped out common ground, fostering dialogues with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist leaders. By taking the lead in fostering a spirit of unity and mutual respect, he set a standard for future generations.
He continued to embody the virtues of the Good Shepherd in his final days. Despite his frail health and physical limitations, he remained resolute in St Peter's Square on Easter Sunday. He understood that a crucial part of his role as a leader was to be present, to offer solace and guidance, especially in times of hardship. In his final act of courage, Pope Francis demonstrated that moral leadership is not about power or prestige but about service and sacrifice.
As we reflect on the life and death of Pope Francis, we are reminded of the profound impact one individual can have on the world. His legacy is rich, multifaceted and vibrant. He leaves behind a Church that is more inclusive, more compassionate, and more attuned to the needs and the spirit of the modern world.
John Studzinski KSG is Vice Chairman and a Managing Director of PIMCO, and Founder and Chairman of the Genesis Foundation
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
NFL's Washington Redskins should restore name, logo says family of Indian chief it was based on
In July 2020, the NFL's Washington Redskins announced it would drop its name and Native American logo, which some deemed offensive. The team adopted the name Commanders in 2022. But the family of the man the logo was based upon — Blackfeet tribal chief John Two Guns White Calf — says no one bothered to ask their opinion. Below, his nephew, Thomas White Calf, tells The Post President Trump's recent support for the team's Blackfeet heritage gives the family hope for the first time that its voice will be heard. Blackfeet Chief Two Guns White Calf was my great uncle and a great American icon. Americans know his face: he was the face of the Washington Redskins for 48 years, until he was cancelled in 2020. Americans once knew his story. Advertisement White Calf defended tribal traditions in our Blackfeet homeland in Montana, where many of us still live today. He went to Washington D.C. where he forced the U.S. government to honor Indian treaties. He served as a model for the U.S. Mint's famous 1913 'Indian head' nickel. White Calf's face is still a collector's item. The family Chief Two Guns White Calf wants his image restored to the NFL team. Getty Images Uncle Two Guns was friends with Teddy Roosevelt Jr., New York Gov. Al Smith and made President Calvin Coolidge a member of the Blackfeet Nation. White Calf was so famous in his era that his death in 1934 was front-page news across the country. Advertisement White Calf became the proud warrior face of the Redskins in 1972, championed by Blackfeet leader Blackie Wetzel and with support of Native Americans across the country. Cancel-culture racists decided at some point they wanted to get rid of Indian images in the public domain. The Redskins and Two Guns were their No. 1 target. White Calf's name was dropped from the Redskins narrative. His life story was erased from history. Even worse: Uncle Two Guns was dehumanized. He was ridiculed as a 'savage and clownish mascot.' The National Congress of American Indians Fund, which led the effort to erase and ridicule Uncle Two Guns, was funded in part by the George Soros foundation. Advertisement They reduced a hero to a clown so they could remove American Indians from American history. Polls by the Washington Post and others showed that 90% of Indians supported the Redskins. Nobody cared what Indians thought. Nobody asked the White Calf family for our opinion. The family of Blackfeet chief John Two Guns White Calf is deeply grateful to President Donald Trump for his bold calls to bring back the Washington Redskins and expose racial injustice. Washington's NFL team is now known as the Commanders. Getty Images Advertisement President Trump cares. And here is our opinion: it is time to correct history and end racial injustice. We ask that the Washington Redskins — still the Redskins to us — work with President Trump to reclaim their rightful name and their proud image of American hero John Two Guns White Calf. We ask that the White Calf family be given a seat at the table. We ask that a Hall of Honor be established within a new Redskins stadium where the public can celebrate Two Guns White Calf, the Blackfeet people and American Indian contributions to the founding of the United States. Finally, we ask that the American Indian never be erased, dehumanized or forgotten again. God Bless the Blackfeet. God Bless President Trump. And God Bless the United States of America.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
100 days of Pope Leo XIV: Calm papacy that avoids polemics is coming into focus
VATICAN CITY — When Pope Leo XIV surprised tens of thousands of young people at a recent Holy Year celebration with an impromptu popemobile romp around St. Peter's Square, it almost seemed as if some of the informal spontaneity that characterized Pope Francis' 12-year papacy had returned to the Vatican. But the message Leo delivered that night was all his own: In seamless English, Spanish and Italian, Leo told the young people that they were the 'salt of the Earth, the light of the world.' He urged them to spread their hope, faith in Christ and their cries of peace wherever they go. As Robert Prevost marks his 100th day as Pope Leo this weekend, the contours of his pontificate have begun to come into relief, primarily where he shows continuity with Francis and where he signals change. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that after 12 sometimes turbulent years under Francis, a certain calm and reserve have returned to the papacy. Leo seems eager above all to avoid polemics or making the papacy about himself, and wants instead to focus on Christ and peace. That seems exactly what many Catholic faithful want, and may respond to what today's church needs. 'He's been very direct and forthright … but he's not doing spontaneous press hits,' said Kevin Hughes, chair of theology and religious studies at Leo's alma mater, Villanova University. Leo has a different style than Francis, and that has brought relief to many, Hughes said in a telephone interview. 'Even those who really loved Pope Francis always kind of held their breath a little bit: You didn't know what was going to come out next or what he was going to do,' Hughes said. An effort to avoid polemics Leo has certainly gone out of his way in his first 100 days to try to heal divisions that deepened during Francis' pontificate, offering messages of unity and avoiding controversy at almost every turn. Even his signature issue — confronting the promise and peril posed by artificial intelligence — is something that conservatives and progressives alike agree is important. Francis' emphasis on caring for the environment and migrants often alienated conservatives. Closer to home, Leo offered the Holy See bureaucracy a reassuring, conciliatory message after Francis' occasionally authoritarian style rubbed some in the Vatican the wrong way. 'Popes come and go, but the Curia remains,' Leo told Vatican officials soon after his May 8 election. Continuity with Francis is still undeniable Leo, though, has cemented Francis' environmental legacy by celebrating the first-ever ecologically inspired Mass. He has furthered that legacy by giving the go-ahead for the Vatican to turn a 430-hectare (1,000-acre) field north of Rome into a vast solar farm that should generate enough electricity to meet Vatican City's needs and turn it into the world's first carbon-neutral state. He has fine-tuned financial transparency regulations that Francis initiated, tweaked some other decrees to give them consistency and logic, and confirmed Francis in deciding to declare one of the 19th century's most influential saints, John Henry Newman, a 'doctor' of the church. But he hasn't granted any sit-down, tell-all interviews or made headline-grabbing, off-the-cuff comments like his predecessor did. He hasn't made any major appointments, including to fill his old job, or taken any big trips. In marking the 80th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki last week, he had a chance to match Francis' novel declaration that the mere possession of nuclear weapons was 'immoral.' But he didn't. Compared to President Donald Trump, the other American world leader who took office in 2025 with a flurry of Sharpie-penned executive decrees, Leo has eased into his new job slowly, deliberately and quietly, almost trying not to draw attention to himself. At 69, he seems to know that he has time on his side, and that after Francis' revolutionary papacy, the church might need a bit of a breather. One Vatican official who knows Leo said he expects his papacy will have the effect of a 'calming rain' on the church. Maria Isabel Ibarcena Cuarite, a Peruvian member of a Catholic charismatic group, said it was precisely Leo's quiet emphasis on church traditions, its sacraments and love of Christ, that drew her and upward of 1 million young people to Rome for a special Jubilee week this month. Ibarcena said Francis had confused young people like herself with his outreach to LGBTQ+ Catholics and approval of blessings for same-sex couples. Such gestures went beyond what a pope was supposed to do and what the church taught, she thought. Leo, she said, has emphasized that marriage is a sacrament between men and woman. 'Francis was ambiguous, but he is firm,' she said. An Augustinian pope From his very first appearance on the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica, Leo has insisted he is first and foremost a 'son of St. Augustine. ' It was a reference to the fifth century theological and devotional giant of early Christianity, St. Augustine of Hippo, who inspired the 13th century religious Augustinian order as a community of 'mendicant' friars. Like the other big mendicant orders of the early church — the Franciscans, Dominicans and Carmelites — the Augustinians spread across Christian Europe over the centuries. Today, Augustinian spirituality is rooted in a deep interior life of prayer, living in community, and journeying together in search of truth in God. In nearly every speech or homily since his May 8 election, Leo has cited Augustine in one way or another. 'I see a kind of Augustinian flavor in the way that he's presenting all these things,' said Hughes, the theology professor who is an Augustine scholar. Leo joined the Augustinians after graduating from Augustinian-run Villanova, outside Philadelphia, and was twice elected its prior general. He has visited the Augustinian headquarters outside St. Peter's a few times since his election, and some wonder if he will invite some brothers to live with him in the Apostolic Palace to recreate the spirit of Augustinian community life there. A missionary pope in the image of Francis Leo is also very much a product of the Francis papacy. Francis named Prevost bishop of Chiclayo, Peru, in 2014 and then moved him to head one of the most important Vatican jobs in 2023 — vetting bishop nominations. In retrospect, it seems Francis had his eye on Prevost as a possible successor. Given Francis' stump speech before the 2013 conclave that elected him pope, the then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio essentially described Prevost in identifying the church's mission today: He said the church was 'called to go outside of itself and go to the peripheries, not just geographic but also the existential peripheries.' Prevost, who hails from Chicago, spent his adult life as a missionary in Peru, eventually becoming bishop of Chiclayo. 'He is the incarnation of the 'unity of difference,' because he comes from the center, but he lives in the peripheries,' said Emilce Cuda, secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America. Cuda said during a recent conference hosted by Georgetown University that Leo encapsulated in 'word and gesture' the type of missionary church Francis promoted. That said, for all Leo owes to Bergoglio, the two didn't necessarily get along. Prevost has recounted that at one point when he was the Augustinian superior, the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires expressed interest in assigning an Augustinian priest to a specific job in his archdiocese. 'And I, as prior general, said 'I understand, Your Eminence, but he's got to do something else' and so I transferred him somewhere else,' Prevost told parishioners in his home state of Illinois in 2024. Prevost said he 'naively' thought the Francis wouldn't remember him after his 2013 election, and that regardless 'he'll never appoint me bishop' due to the disagreement. Bergoglio not only made him bishop, he laid the groundwork for Prevost to succeed him as pope, the first North American pope following the first South American.
