
Francis' Illness Raises a Hard Question: Who Governs if the Pope Can't?
Since being hospitalized with acute pneumonia for two weeks, Pope Francis has signed off on the appointment of 20 bishops, accepted the resignations of at least four and approved moving five people along the road to sainthood, according to the daily bulletin on the Vatican website.
Some of the events noted were more esoteric, like his appointing a cardinal to represent him in April at the 1,000th anniversary celebration of the coronation of Boleslaw I the Brave, the first king of Poland.
Overall, the public tenor of the Holy See has changed absent its most public face and voice — lacking the weekly appearances of the pope and his pronouncements on important global issues, like rebuking the Trump administration over immigrant deportations. Yet the machinery of the Vatican state churns on even while the 88-year-old pontiff lies in a hospital with no discharge on the calendar.
'Francis is still governing, he is in contact with his aides,' Matteo Bruni, a Vatican spokesman, said in response to a question about the pope's work. 'What he is missing is the contact with the faithful, the general audiences, the pastoral activity.'
In a statement on Thursday evening, the Vatican said that the pope's clinical condition continued to improve. He was alternating between using a high flow of oxygen and a ventilation mask, it said, and had spent the morning doing respiratory physiotherapy and resting, before an afternoon round of physiotherapy.
'In view of the complexity of the clinical picture, further days of clinical stability are required to determine the prognosis,' the Vatican statement said. The Vatican press office added that the pope was no longer considered in critical condition, but was still not out of danger.
Yet the whole ordeal of his extended stay at Gemelli hospital, the longest of his papacy, with no public appearances, has awakened old concerns among church experts and observers about who would govern the church if this or any pope were to fall into a coma or otherwise be incapacitated.
To a certain extent, the Holy See operates much like a political system with a president and a prime minister. The pope, the president in this scenario, deals with major policy pronouncements and appointments, while the secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, oversees day-to-day matters involved in running the Vatican itself and the global church.
The powers limited to the pope alone include appointing bishops, accepting retirements and issuing new decrees to change Vatican law. In addition, the bureaucracy would be unlikely to make policy pronouncements on issues of global import, like cease-fire negotiations in Gaza, without his imprimatur.
Inevitably, Francis' illness postpones some decisions, which critics of his agenda do not mind. Before he fell ill, for example, Francis dissolved the Sodality of Christian Life, a controversial Catholic organization founded in Peru. Some of the group's supporters had hoped his illness might slow the implementation of the decision, said John Allen, the editor of Crux, an independent online news site covering the Catholic Church. But Vatican officials and experts alike said there has been no particular slowdown during this hospitalization because the pope, while ailing, remains alert and able to engage with those around him.
Business rolls along as usual 'as long as the pope can understand what people are saying to him and can sign his name,' said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a longtime Vatican analyst and the author of the book 'Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church.'
But there are no established legal guidelines for what to do when that is not the case, especially if any incapacity endured for months rather than weeks. In the case of a brief hospitalization, a lot of those actions already in the pipeline could continue without a hitch.
But major decisions, like whom to appoint as archbishop in a high-profile city, would be problematic. It would also be extremely difficult to remove an errant cardinal or other prominent figure, experts said.
Pope Francis, like Paul VI in the 1960s, announced that soon after assuming the papacy in 2013, he signed a resignation letter in case he was ever incapacitated. But its contents have remained secret, and experts point to a number of legally murky issues.
First, who gets to decide that the pope is incapacitated? And second, church law states that for any resignation to be valid the pope must have freely chosen to make the decision. Some legal experts wonder whether a letter written more than a decade ago would pass muster as a 'freely chosen' decision.
In recent history, the question was most acute during the long decline of Pope John Paul II, who began suffering from Parkinson's disease years before his death in 2005. Although he could still answer 'Yes' or 'No,' his evident decline fed questions in the Vatican rumor mill about who was really making decisions, said Father Reese.
A far more dire consequence that some of John Paul's defenders attribute to his slowed facilities was the lack of a response from the church to widespread accusations of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.
'The church has paid a significant price for that in the 20 years since then,' said Dr. Miles Pattenden, a history professor and the author of 'The Cambridge History of the Papacy.'
The problem of ailing popes is not exactly a new one, but is far more complicated in the age of social media, instant communication and greater longevity. 'In the bad old days, the doctors would kill him quickly through bleeding and terrible medicine,' said Father Reese, or 'just lock him in a back room and run the church.'
Before 1700, there was an established precedent of a 'cardinal nephew,' a close relative of an ailing pope, running matters in his name. 'An old or elderly pope who was infirm would stay in bed and his nephew would run the government,' said Dr. Pattenden, and while the practice was still extant the nephew would often become pope himself when his older relative passed away.
Church leaders have long been reluctant to address the issue of defining when a pope might be considered incapacitated because it impedes the theory that a pope must have complete freedom to act, said Mr. Allen. 'Nobody can tell a pope when it is over,' he said. 'It is extraordinarily delicate to navigate how you get to the end of a papacy without the pope's express will.'
The hurdles are evident in specific provisions like Canon 335 of Vatican law, which states that if the Holy See is 'vacant or entirely impeded' then nothing can be altered in the governance of the church. But 'entirely impeded' is not defined.
Francis's predecessor, Benedict XVI, resigned at 85, citing age and infirmity, but he was an extreme outlier — no pope had stepped down in almost 600 years.
Given the leaps in modern medicine to prolong life, an international group of Catholic legal experts has proposed norms to flesh out what constituted 'entirely impeded,' and had called for the transfer of governing authority to the entire College of Cardinals or a commission, depending on how long the pope was incapacitated. If a committee of experts deemed the pope's incapacity irreversible, cardinals in the Curia would have to declare his governing days over and call a conclave to name a new pope.
But those were only proposals and to date no established law has seen the light of day.
With the pope's condition slowly improving, there appears to be less urgency, but depending on how long his hospital stay lasts, it still could have an effect.
The streets of Vatican City and the churches of Rome are full of pilgrims here for the church's Jubilee Year, but their hopes of seeing Pope Francis have been dashed while he remains in the hospital.
'The big reason that most people would come to Rome during a Jubilee Year is to see the pope,' Mr. Allen said. 'If you cannot see the pope, that puts a damper on things.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Separation of church and state dodges a bullet — for now
A bedrock of American exceptionalism has been the prohibition on using tax dollars to support religion. In America's 'melting pot,' public schools must be open to all without any religious preference or indoctrination. In a 4-4 decision (with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself for an apparent conflict), the Supreme Court rejected an effort to demand tax dollars to create a Catholic public charter school. The planned public school in Oklahoma would have required attendance at Catholic Mass, indoctrinated students in Catholicism and apparently discriminated in hiring and admissions. But when Barrett participates in a future case, without some reconsideration, it is highly likely that the current court will permit taxpayer-funded public schools controlled by a particular church. If so, every church will be able to demand equal access to taxpayer dollars. This should concern all Americans. The First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion, but what exactly does that mean? At a minimum, it should prevent the government from picking what is the 'correct' religion. As the Supreme Court explained, the First Amendment prohibits the 'State or Federal government' from giving 'official support' to 'the tenets of one or of all orthodoxies.' But that is exactly what the teachers and administrators at the proposed St. Isidore's would have done. These government employees, paid with tax dollars, would use government funds to endorse and advance Catholicism. Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters has tried to normalize this government endorsement of religion. He argues misleadingly that 'individuals have the right to express their religious beliefs. That does not stop in a school building.' That is true for private individuals. But teachers, serving in a public classroom, are government officials and stand in the stead of the government. On their own time, they can support any religion they like. On its face, this seems like the clearest possible violation of the First Amendment. The first Supreme Court case on religious establishments unanimously endorsed Thomas Jefferson's 1802 declaration that the Constitution imposed a 'wall of separation between church and state.' Jefferson explained that when officials assume 'dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others,' they violate religious freedom. Eighteenth-century evangelicals emphatically agreed. Supported by James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, they rejected even non-discriminatory aid for all Christian religions. They warned that blending church and state taints both entities. Baptist minister Lewis Lunsford explained that 'the unlawful cohabitation between Church and State, which has so often been looked upon as holy wedlock, must now suffer a separation and be put forever asunder.' The wall of separation between church and state has been broadly endorsed by Americans and the courts. Yet, in recent years, conservative justices have sought to advance a political agenda to circumvent that wall. Now, some conservative judges and Christian nationalists have settled on a new tactic to undermine the separation of church and state: nondiscrimination. Their argument goes like this: Since private secular schools get government funds, assistance for playground equipment, for example, failing to provide taxpayer dollars to religious schools is discrimination and violates other provisions of the First Amendment, the 'free exercise' and 'free speech' clauses, they argue. But there are several problems with extending the nondiscrimination argument to a public charter school. The school itself will be a public school, funded by taxpayer dollars. It does not have a 'free exercise' right to practice a particular religion; no governmental entity does. Supporters of the Catholic school cite instances in which the court has permitted private schools to preach religion to students. But those cases are fundamentally different: Those schools are private; even when they receive some government voucher funds from students, they are not public schools fully funded by tax dollars. In private schools, teachers do not speak for the state. Second, the Catholic charter school has been clear that it would seek an exemption from standard non-discrimination and other requirements based on religion. This is seeking to exploit another breach in the wall of separation that conservatives on the court encourage, claiming that neutral government laws can be ignored if they conflict with a claimed religious belief, a self-defined right to an exemption from virtually any law. This view has been soundly rejected by Jefferson and the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example. Sadly, once a new case arises and Justice Barrett participates, there is a strong indication that the court will permit a Catholic school to operate with taxpayer dollars, a point that Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) is trumpeting. But this dramatic expansion of the non-discrimination argument has enormous implications. Obviously, Mormon, Episcopalian, Islamic, Jewish and Buddhist charter schools will be able to demand government funding. Even more broadly, if the government establishes an organization to engage in scientific or medical research, will churches complain that it should also create Presbyterian, Islamic or Buddhist organizations so as not to discriminate? Beyond the First Amendment, charter schools are an assault on the broad public education that has been the great American equalizer, assimilator and opportunity. Charter schools notoriously fail to deliver on improved education and, as with similar voucher programs, tend to benefit the rich. If the court eventually accepts a religious charter school, the legislature should end the whole charter school program (and vouchers while it is at it). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, got it right: 'Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?' The simple answer is that we shouldn't want that. Christian nationalists want to impose their religious beliefs on the nation, and we shouldn't let them. John A. Ragosta, former acting director of the International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, is the author of 'Religious Freedom: Jefferson's Legacy, America's Creed.'


USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
Many US Catholics don't fully practice their faith. Could Pope Leo's papacy change that?
Many US Catholics don't fully practice their faith. Could Pope Leo's papacy change that? Show Caption Hide Caption Newly elected Pope Leo XIV greets faithful in St. Peter's Square Pope Leo XIV will be the next leader of the Catholic church, the first American elected pope. One in five Americans identify as Catholic but a majority are relatively nonobservant, according to a Pew Research Center report released Monday: While they might pray daily, attend church weekly or go to confession at least once a year, rarely do they do all three. The findings, especially for white Catholics, "all reflect trends that have been developing for decades," said Nicholas Hayes-Mota, a social ethicist and public theologian at California's Santa Clara University. "In general, it seems that certain external observances of the faith, like confession and even increasingly mass, are less central to many U.S. Catholics than they were in earlier generations," Hayes-Mota said. The center's findings are based mostly on a survey of 9,544 U.S. adults taken from Feb. 3-9, before Pope Francis' hospitalization on Feb. 14 and well ahead of last month's selection of Pope Leo XIV as Francis' successor. About 20% of Americans identify as Catholic, down from 24% in 2007, reflecting an overall decline in Christianity throughout the U.S. that has leveled off in recent years. In some places, the faith has found new footholds among young adults. 'Essentially, participation has been declining for a long time and has been much more steeply declining in the last decade or so,' said Melissa Wilde, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who studies religious change. More than not participating, Catholics have been disaffiliating with the faith, she said; people raised Catholic are no longer raising their children in the church. 'There was a previous understanding that people disaffiliated in young adulthood but would come back to the church when they were married and raising children,' Wilde said. 'That's much less likely to occur now.' Much of that, she said, has to do with politics: Research shows young people tend to be more liberal and representative of those disassociating with religion in general. That's not the case everywhere. At St. Charles Catholic Church in Arlington, Virginia, Fr. Donald J. Planty said attendance is higher than before the pandemic, much of it driven by young adults in their 20s and 30s who form two thirds of the 4,000-member congregation and are highly participatory. Additionally, the church recently added 29 new converts to its registered membership, and the Diocese of Arlington has ordained 12 new priests in the past year — including two members of St. Charles. 'There's a lot of life in our diocese," said Fr. Planty, who has been pastor at the church for 11 years. "It's young adults' reaction to what the world offers. They're looking for genuine worship. They're looking for deeper, more intimate relationships." The Pope Leo effect According to the report, released Monday, nearly half of Americans (47%) have a personal link to the Catholic faith. Equal percentages (9%) of survey respondents said they were either former Catholics, had Catholic connections such as a parent or spouse, or considered themselves 'culturally' Catholic – in other words, not religiously but ethnically or because of their family background. Whether the papacy of Pope Leo XIV, the church's first North American pope, could contribute to a Catholic revival remains to be seen, though Wilde thinks it's questionable. Pope Leo XIV's election indicates the church's intent 'to counter the rightward swing in the world, and in the U.S., by going with an American openly critical of Trump,' she said. However, while such critiques might appeal to young people, they'll likely alienate conservatives, who Wilde said comprise a large portion of those who have both stuck with and converted to Catholicism. 'I don't think it's going to result in a great rejuvenation of the church,' she said. Rather than prompting an influx of Catholic newcomers, 'I think what it will do is stem the tide away from the church significantly.' Hayes-Mota, of Santa Clara, said Pope Leo's effect will depend on what role the pontiff decides to play, how his pontificate is received in the U.S. and whether Catholic leaders here capitalize on that opportunity, or not. A snapshot of today's Catholics Otherwise, Catholics continue to illustrate the patterns of past decades, with half of U.S. Catholics (50%) saying they pray daily, according to the Pew report. About a quarter said they attend mass weekly (28%) or go to confession at least once a year (23%). Just 13% of Catholics do all three. One in five (22%) Catholics said they seldom or never pray, while two in five (40%) seldom or never go to mass. Nearly half (47%) hardly ever or never go to confession. Asked to pick from a list of 14 items what was most essential to being Catholic, U.S. Catholics' most common choice was 'a personal relationship with Jesus Christ' (69%), devotion to the Virgin Mary (50%), working to help the poor and needy (47%) and receiving the Eucharist (46%). Those shares were higher among Catholics who regularly attend church, who were also likelier to be involved in their parishes – for instance, attending prayer groups or volunteering as an usher – and to practice traditions such as praying the rosary. "For a strong and often vocal minority of U.S. Catholics, both regular participation in the church's ritual life and knowledge and conformity to the fullness of Catholic doctrine remain very important, and they often express criticism of Catholics who, in their view, don't as faithfully or consistently practice their faith," Hayes-Mota said. Four in 10 Hispanic Americans identify as Catholic, at least twice the rate for any other ethnic or racial group, and 18% describe themselves as former Catholics. Overall, 82% of Hispanic Americans said they have some link to Catholicism. The survey found that Hispanic Catholics take part in devotional practices at above-average rates. More than half (56%) of Hispanic Catholics said they wear or carry religious items at least monthly, and more than a third (37%) pray the rosary at least once a month. A quarter (26%) said they light candles or incense for religious or spiritual reasons. Young Catholics seek authenticity More than 8 in 10 'cultural' Catholics said they seldom or never attend mass, go to confession, pray the rosary or practice saintly devotions, prompting the question of what actually makes them Catholic. Nearly a third (32%) cited a Catholic background – for instance, being raised Catholic or having attended a Catholic school. More than a quarter of cultural Catholics (27%) said they had family or social relationships with Catholics, and nearly a quarter (23%) said they shared Catholic beliefs or values. About 1.5% of Americans are Catholic converts, the study found, and tend to be at least as religiously active as those raised Catholic who still identify that way. Catholic converts tend to be at least as religiously active as 'cradle Catholics' (adults who were raised Catholic and currently identify as Catholic). About half of them (49%) cite their spouse or getting married as the reason for converting. A significant portion (43%) of Americans raised Catholics said they had left the faith – at least in the religious sense. The greatest portion (18%) said the primary reason was that their values no longer aligned with the church's; meanwhile, 9% said they stopped believing in religion or God more broadly. At St. Charles in Arlington, Fr. Planty said the papacy of Pope Leo can only help build on the momentum already underway. "There's a desire for authentic relationships," he said. "Young adults aren't looking for cool; they're looking for warm.'

Miami Herald
21 hours ago
- Miami Herald
What do Americans think of Pope Leo XIV a month into his papacy? What poll finds
A month into his papacy, Pope Leo XIV — the Wordle-playing, White Sox-loving, first American pope — maintains a high favorability rating among U.S. Catholics and the general public, a poll found. Sixty-five percent of Catholics said they have a favorable impression of the new pope, compared with six percent who have an unfavorable view, according to a June 15 AP-NORC poll. Twenty-nine percent of Catholics said they still didn't know enough to say, the poll found. The poll of 1,158 U.S. adults was taken June 5-9 and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. A plurality of the general public, 44%, also said they have a favorable view of Pope Leo, according to the poll. Forty-six percent of Americans said they weren't sure yet, and 10% said they had an unfavorable view, per the poll. How does this compare to Pope Francis? Support for Pope Leo mirrors support for his predecessor at the start of his pontificate, researchers said. Forty-four percent of Americans had a positive view of Pope Francis, while 13% viewed him unfavorably and 42% weren't sure, according to an October 2015 poll. Pope Leo was elected head of the Holy See on May 8 after four rounds of voting. What do Americans want from pope? Before the conclave took place, many Catholics, 37%, said they wanted the next pope to have more conservative teachings, according to a poll, McClatchy News reported. Twenty-one percent said they wanted to see more progressive teachings, per the poll. In May, Americans were split on whether they thought the new pope was liberal or conservative, with 16% saying he is liberal and 12% saying he's conservative, according to a poll, McClatchy reported. Forty-three percent said they were not sure, the poll found.