Two Living Popes Faced a Rare Situation. Their Hidden Rivalry Could Shape the Next Papal Era
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links."
Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI were brothers in Christ before being selected for the most holy position within the Roman Catholic Church. Both men decided early in life to devote themselves to their religion, were ordained, and rose through the Catholic Church's ranks to become cardinals. Along the way, each gained distinct reputations for how they lived and interpreted their faith.
Despite their different approaches, both men were reportedly considered to replace Pope John Paul II following his April 2005 death. Ultimately, it was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany who rose to the papacy as Benedict XVI. Francis, then known as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, reportedly had little interest in the papacy then, preferring instead to continue his ongoing work in Argentina.
Their lives intertwined further when Benedict stepped down from the papacy in 2013 and Francis ascended to the role. It marked the first time in more than half a millennia two popes had been alive at the same time.
For Francis, unlike generations of popes before him, that meant his predecessor still resided at close quarters within the Vatican. Their disagreement on many issues pertaining to the Church resulted in a reported split within the organization, with hard-line conservative cardinals and priests aligning with Benedict and progressives leaning into Francis' more tolerant and inclusive views. As Diarmaid MacCulloch, today an emeritus professor of church history at the University of Oxford, told Vanity Fair in 2018, 'two popes is a recipe for schism.'
Benedict was known for his rigid views on Catholicism long before becoming pope at age 77. Ordained as a priest in 1951 in his native Germany, Benedict went on to become a highly regarded theologian, knowledgeable in the intricacies and fundamentals of his faith. Originally a liberal theologian, his views narrowed over time, and much of his prolific writing concerned upholding the traditional Catholic doctrine.
Described in the media as 'the pope of aesthetics,' Benedict reinstated much of the pomp eschewed in the years following the adoption of Vatican II, which did away with many of the visual excesses of the Church. Following his appointment, as the world grappled with a struggling economy, Benedict donned fur-lined vestments, gem-encrusted rings, and pectoral crosses. He also reintroduced the bright red shoes favored by popes long dead.
As the Church reeled in the face of its widespread sex abuse scandal and struggled to find its place in the increasingly secularized 21st century, Benedict saw such visual excess and adherence to doctrine as a way of signaling a return to and reinforcement of the traditional practices and views of Catholicism. Prayer and work remained uppermost, but Benedict still saw strength and unity in the outward, physical expressions of his faith. 'All the great works of art, the cathedrals—the Gothic cathedrals and the splendid Baroque churches—are a luminous sign of God, and thus are truly a manifestation, an epiphany of God,' Benedict once said.
In February 2013, at age 85, Benedict became the first pope since Gregory XII in 1415 to resign from the position, due to his age as well as his waning physical and mental stamina. Vowing to stay 'hidden from the world' in his new life, Benedict anointed himself with the title pope emeritus. Many faithful to him saw the moniker as a signal he wouldn't remain as tight-lipped on Church matters as he vowed.
Francis, who graduated technical school before being ordained as a priest in 1969, was noted for his humility and focus on mercy. He championed the marginalized and poor of the world. Perhaps another reason the Argentine priest stood out to succeed Benedict was his ability to weather challenges. Francis had been accused of a complicit silence as Argentina's military dictatorship, in power from 1976 to 1983, carried out murders and abductions while enjoying the backing of the Church.
'As archbishop, he faced a monumental task, and he was even accused of collaboration with the 'dirty war,' which he strenuously denied and was ultimately cleared,' Ramon Luzarraga, then the theologian-in-residence at the University of Dayton, told The Guardian in 2013. 'If he can restore the credibility of the Church [in Argentina], he can handle the scandals that have befallen the Church worldwide because he knows how to connect to people.'
In March 2013, 76-year-old Francis became the first pope from Latin America. Diverging from Benedict's style, Francis immediately adopted a less showy, more humble outward appearance. He vowed to continue to live simply, as he had done throughout his career in the Church.
Francis' vision of Catholicism embraced change and promoted a Church for modern people in modern times, a stark contrast to Benedict's advocacy for strict adherence to tradition and doctrine. The two views—and the rare occurrence of two living popes—reportedly fueled a factional split within the Vatican.
During his successor's early years as pope, Benedict stepped back from the spotlight, favoring a life of prayer and contemplation in the newly refurbished monastery he moved to within the Vatican. Yet his existence encouraged conservative voices within the Church, who saw Francis' liberalism as damaging to the Church, particularly in relation to his views on divorce, same-sex marriage, and clerical sexual abuse.
While rare, the physical meetings appeared cordial. But concerns of a simmering rivalry peaked when Benedict broke his silence in April 2019. Although officially in retirement, he penned a 6,000-word letter putting the blame for the Catholic Church's ongoing clerical sex abuse crisis on a permissive culture stemming from the 1960s, progressive theological ideas, and the disappearance of God from public discourse in the West.
The letter publicly undercut Francis, whose views on the subject had already been made public. The reigning pope laid the blame for the sex abuse crisis directly on the Church, citing a systemic abuse of power and the pursuit of prominence and authority within the existing Church hierarchy.
The letter and resulting aftershocks supported claims that Benedict still retained vast influence within the Vatican hierarchy and among global worshippers. Concern rose that having two living popes, with contradictory stances on important issues, would lead to confusion among the flock. The two men's all but unprecedented relationship was explored in the 2019 movie The Two Popes, starring Anthony Hopkins as Benedict and Jonathan Pryce as Francis.
In the fallout from Benedict's missive, the Vatican called for unity. In a rare interview granted in the months following the very public split, Benedict told Italian magazine Corriere Della Sera that there is currently only one pope: Francis. He didn't directly address the reported divergence between himself and his successor, but Benedict made it clear that no matter what happened then or in the future, the Catholic Church would endure.
'The unity of the Church has always been in danger, for centuries,' Benedict was quoted as saying. 'It has been for all its history. Wars, internal conflicts, centrifugal forces, threats of schisms… In the end, the awareness that the Church is and must remain united has always prevailed. Its unity has always been stronger than internal struggles and wars.'
Benedict died in December 2022, and after 12 years as pontiff, Francis passed away Monday. Soon, a papal conclave will convene to select a new pope. Time will tell where that man's priorities and views of Catholicism land on the spectrum outlined by Francis and Benedict and how he will lead the Church forward.
You Might Also Like
Nicole Richie's Surprising Adoption Story
The Story of Gypsy Rose Blanchard and Her Mother
Queen Camilla's Life in Photos
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biden Weaponized Law Enforcement Against Catholics
Even the initial story about the FBI targeting Catholics for suspicion and surveillance was bad enough. In December 2023, the House Judiciary Committee published a detailed report about how the FBI specifically identified traditional Catholics as potential domestic terror threats. The House report revealed the shocking finding that the Richmond, Virginia, office of the FBI suspected traditional Catholics "as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of 'threat mitigation." In sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate, former FBI Director Christopher Wray was challenged by Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri: "Now we know that, in fact, FBI agents did approach a priest and a choir director to ask them to inform on parishioners." Despite this serious allegation, Wray denied a wider FBI initiative and blamed a localized mistake in Richmond. Well … new information reveals that, at best, FBI Director Wray was playing fast and loose with the truth. At worst, the then-sitting chief law enforcement investigator of America committed perjury when he dishonestly stated that the memo was "a single product by a single field office." Oh, all while completely maligning the largest denomination of Christian believers in the United States. But, alas, the sad story of the FBI targeting Catholics does not end in 2023. New information uncovered by Sen. Charles Grassleys committee reveals that the so-called "Richmond memo" was more like a nationwide all-points-bulletin from FBI brass, informing legions of agents to suspect and investigate faithful parishioners across the land. As CatholicVote describes, "the FBIs anti-Catholic Richmond memo was distributed to more than 1,000 employees in FBI field offices across the country." Sen. Grassleys press release states that a whistleblower "produced at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology and relied on information from the radical far-left Southern Poverty Law Center" to target Catholics. Amazingly, such harsh anti-Catholic actions formed a key policy agenda for Joe Biden, a politician who constantly trumpeted his Catholic bona fides and bragged about the rosary he carries in his pocket. Of course, those pronouncements did not stop him from targeting the Little Sisters of the Poor for brutal Department of Justice intimidation when he was vice president. Nor did Joes faith restrain him as president, when he awarded Americas highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the late Cecile Richardson, one of the most prolific abortion providers in U.S. history. Unfortunately, Bidens anti-Catholic actions follow a tragic trend of recent decades for Democrats, once the proud home to generations of Catholic voters across America. In fact, Bidens eventual vice president, Kamala Harris, engaged in brazen anti-Catholic bigotry as a U.S. senator in 2018. Harris tried to derail the judicial nomination of Brian Buescher simply because the district court nominee dared to belong to the Catholic fraternal charity organization, the Knights of Columbus. I wrote about that prejudice - an unconstitutional religious litmus test - in a December 26, 2018, opinion piece for RealClearPolitics. No wonder that during the 2024 presidential race, then-Sen. JD Vance called the Biden-Harris White House "the most anti-Catholic administration in living memory." Which brings us back to the present day and these newfound facts about the breadth and scope of the anti-Catholicism of Bidens FBI. This targeting fits within a larger context of the completely unacceptable politicized weaponization of federal law enforcement by people like Biden, Harris, Wray, and former Attorney General Merrick Garland. Sen. Grassley makes it clear that he believes Wray lied under oath. If that allegation is correct, then the Trump-Vance DOJ must charge Wray. In addition, this issue carries great political peril for Democrats and big continued rewards for Republicans. Historically, Catholics decide national elections. For over half a century, the Catholic vote has determined the winner in every election but one (choosing Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000). In 2024 Trump rolled up an incredible +11% margin among Catholics nationwide, a giant improvement over his tie among Catholics in 2020. In fact, Trump would not have won the popular vote - surprising every "expert" - without his dominant performance among Catholics. So, lets get to the truth, punish the evildoers, and reap the political spoils as well. Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'