Zelensky arrives in Rome to attend Pope Francis's funeral
President Volodymyr Zelensky and First Lady Olena Zelenska arrived in Rome to attend Pope Francis's funeral in Vatican City, RBK-Ukraine reported on April 26, citing Zelensky's spokesperson.
Leaders from around the world are gathering for the ceremony at St. Peter's Basilica's steps, with thousands of believers also arriving to bid their farewells.
Pope Francis, lauded by his supporters as a reformer and champion of the weak, died on April 21 at the age of 88 after suffering a stroke.
U.S. President Donald Trump has also arrived to attend the ceremony, and he has signaled a possible meeting with Zelensky.
The two leaders have not met in person since a tense February meeting in the Oval Office, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for what they called a lack of gratitude for U.S. support in Ukraine's fight against Russia.
Following the pope's death, Zelensky said: "We grieve together with Catholics and all Christians who looked to Pope Francis for spiritual support."
Zelensky last met Pope Francis on Oct. 11, 2024, during an official visit to the Vatican. He gifted the pontiff an oil painting titled The Bucha Massacre — the Story of Marichka, which references one of the most infamous atrocities committed by Russian forces during the early stages of the invasion.
Pope Francis repeatedly called for peace throughout the war, though some of his remarks — particularly those equating suffering on both sides — sparked backlash in Ukraine.
On Dec. 15, 2024, the pope referred to Russia and Ukraine as "brothers," prompting criticism for minimizing Russian responsibility for the war.
Read also: Pope Francis leaves a mixed legacy in wartime Ukraine, overshadowed by historic Vatican-Moscow ties
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
36 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Insults America—Again
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Oops, he did it again. On Sunday, President Donald Trump had a rambling conversation with the Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. It was a typical Trump performance: He leaned into his trademark edge-of-the-chair crouch and spooled off long strings of words that were only sometimes on topic or related to one another. ('They call it 'magnets,'' he helpfully informed Bartimoro at one point when she asked about rare-earth minerals.) But when it came to China, Trump returned to one of his favorite themes: moral equivalence between the United States and authoritarian regimes. Bartiromo noted that authorities recently arrested some Chinese nationals accused of smuggling in biological materials that could threaten the U.S. food supply. 'We don't know where that came from,' Trump said, waving away the arrests as possibly nothing more than the apprehension of a few 'whackos.' Bartiromo pressed on: The Chinese have hacked 'into our telecom system; they've been stealing intellectual property; fentanyl, COVID, I mean, you know, all of this stuff, so how do you negotiate with obviously a bad actor and trust them on economics?' And then Trump went for it. 'You don't think we do that to them?' he said with a smirk. 'You don't think we do that to them?' he repeated as Bartiromo struggled during a few seconds of silence. 'We do,' the president said. 'We do a lot of things.' 'So,' Bartiromo asked, 'that's the way the world works?' Trump shrugged. 'That's the way the world works. It's a nasty world.' As a card-carrying expert who taught international relations for more than three decades, I can affirm the president's assertion that we do, in fact, live in a nasty world. But as a patriotic American, I have a bit more trouble with the idea that the United States of America and the People's Republic of China are just two bad kids on the playground. In my many travels to university campuses over the years, I have often heard that America is only one of many horrendous regimes in the world. Usually these pronouncements came from students trying out new intellectual clothes in the safety of an American classroom, or from radicals on the faculty for whom anti-Americanism was a central part of their academic credo. And I know, especially from studying the Cold War, that presidents in my lifetime did a lot of shady, immoral, and illegal things. But I have never heard a president of the United States sound like a graduate student who's woozy from imbibing too much Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. This isn't the first time that Trump has resorted to this kind of embarrassing equivocation. In early 2017, then–Fox host Bill O'Reilly asked Trump about U.S. relations with Russia and how he might get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'He's a killer,' O'Reilly said. 'Putin's a killer.' Trump bristled—and rose to Putin's defense. 'There are a lot of killers,' Trump said, with the same kind of half-smiling smirk he deployed at Bartiromo. 'We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?' Of course, Trump's only consistent foreign-policy principle during the past 10 years has been to side with Russia whenever possible. But leaving aside his obsession with Putin, the president's smears on his own country are not the result of a deeply considered moral position, or even some kind of strategic big-think. Principles are inconvenient, and if they get in the way of winning the moment—the news cycle, a trade negotiation, an argument with a reporter—then they are of no use. Indeed, Trump has shown, over and over, that he has no real ability to make moral distinctions about anything. Perhaps nothing illustrates this vacuousness more than Bob Woodward's report that when Trump decided to run for president, an aide told him that his previous pro-choice stances and donations to Democrats would be a problem. 'That can be fixed,' Trump said. 'I'm—what do you call it? Pro-life.' As Groucho Marx is rumored to have said: 'Those are my principles, and if you don't like them … well, I have others.' But there is also a laziness in Trump's casual slanders against America. If Trump admits that the United States is a far better nation than Russia or China, with a heritage of liberty and democracy that imposes unique responsibilities on the United States as the leader of the free world, then he would have to do something. He would have to take a stand against Russia's military aggression and China's economic predations. He'd have to take the hard path of working with a national-security team to forge policies that are in the long-term interests of the United States rather than the short-term interests of Donald Trump. Likewise, when Trump depicts America as an unending nightmare of crime and carnage, he's not only trying to trigger a cortisol rush among his followers; he's also creating a narrative of despair. It's a clever approach. He tells Americans that because the world is nasty, all that 'shining city on a hill' talk is just stupid and all that matters is making some deals to get them stuff they need. Meanwhile, he paints America as something out of a medieval woodcut of hell, implicitly warning that he can't really extinguish the lava and the fires but promising to at least put on a show of punishing some of the demons. This nihilism and helplessness is poisonous to a democracy, a system that only works when citizens take responsibility for their government. It is a narrative that encourages citizens to think of themselves as both scoundrels and victims, crabs in life's giant bucket who must claw their way up over the backs of their fellow Americans. The modern global order itself—a system of peace, trade, and security built by the genius of American diplomacy and the sacrifices of the American armed forces—is, in Trump's view, one big criminal struggle among countries that are no better than mob families. In his world, the United States isn't a leader or an example; it's just another mook throwing dice against the wall in a back alley. Some people support Trump because they want certain policies on immigration or taxes or judges. Others enjoy his reality-TV approach to politics. Some of his critics reject his plans; others reject everything about the man and his character. But none of us, as Americans, have to accept Trump's calumnies about the United States. We are a nation better than the dictatorships in Moscow and Beijing; we enjoy peace and prosperity that predated Trump and will remain when he is gone. We live in an America governed by Trump. But we do not have to accept that we live in Trump's America. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A suspect, found dead, is believed to have set a brush fire and ambushed firefighters, killing two in Idaho yesterday. The Senate is in the midst of an extended vote-a-rama session on amendments for President Donald Trump's sweeping policy bill. An Israeli strike on a popular waterfront café in Gaza killed at least 41 people and injured dozens, according to a hospital official. Dispatches Work in Progress: The whole country is starting to look like California, Rogé Karma writes. Housing prices are rising fast in red and purple states known for being easy places to build. How can that be? Evening Read The Conservative Attack on Empathy By Elizabeth Bruenig Five years ago, Elon Musk told Joe Rogan during a podcast taping that 'the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit.' By that time, the idea that people in the West are too concerned with the pain of others to adequately advocate for their own best interests was already a well-established conservative idea. Instead of thinking and acting rationally, the theory goes, they're moved to make emotional decisions that compromise their well-being and that of their home country. In this line of thought, empathetic approaches to politics favor liberal beliefs … But the current ascendancy of this anti-empathy worldview, now a regular topic in right-wing social-media posts, articles, and books, might be less a reasonable point of argumentation and more a sort of coping mechanism. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Extending lifespans. America has more great-grandparents than ever. It also has a new caretaking challenge, Faith Hill writes. Express yourself. What are emoji? Megan Garber unpacks the 🍑, the ️🤡, and the 👍. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukrainian mom made ultimate sacrifice for Canadian life - leaving husband behind: ‘Even here, far from the bombs, we feel the war every day'
Yahoo News Canada presents 'My Canada," a series spotlighting Canadians — born-and-raised to brand new — sharing their views on the Canadian dream, national identity, and the triumphs and tribulations that come with life inside and outside these borders. Erin Horrocks-Pope is an award-winning journalist who works as a project manager of strategic development at the Mennonite New Life Centre (MNLCT) in Toronto. She helps new Canadians connect to the community through various initiatives and opportunities. A selection of the organization's participants have agreed to share their Canadian lens in as-told-to accounts for Yahoo News readers. I never really thought about Canada until war broke out in my country. I never really thought about anywhere beyond our city. We had a happy, stable life in Kharkiv, Ukraine. I lived there with my husband, daughter, mother, and mother-in-law. We had everything we needed: work, family, routine, peace. Then, overnight, everything changed. Being close to the border, Kharkiv was occupied by Russian forces on the very first day of the war. The sounds of bombs and sirens replaced the quiet hum of our neighbourhood. We had no time to process, only to act. We packed our car with the five of us, our pets, and our important belongings and drove to a designated safe zone. My husband, an IT engineer, was not eligible to leave the country due to martial law, and my mother-in-law chose to stay behind in a safer part of Ukraine where she had family. So, a difficult decision we never thought we would ever have to make was made. I left with our daughter and my mother, carrying only the essentials and the unbearable weight of uncertainty. We first went to Paris, where a friend helped us find temporary shelter. But very quickly, we realized that language would be a barrier. I had some basic English, and my daughter's English was strong, but neither of us spoke French. Every small task became a challenge. Then, we heard that Canada was offering a special program for Ukrainians. The Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel (CUAET) program offered three years of support, including the right to work, study, and live in safety. That offer felt like a door opening in the darkness. Before we arrived, we studied everything we could. Canada seemed like a country built on fairness and care. A country that values the environment, social support, and technology. But life in Canada also would also come with cultural differences. In Ukraine, we are raised in a collective spirit, community comes first. In Canada, people are encouraged to build their lives independently. It's not wrong, it's just different and would take some time to adjust. One of the hardest things was starting over. From Paris, we searched for housing in Toronto, Ont. but most listings said no pets were allowed. We had already made the difficult decision to leave our parrot behind due to airline restrictions, and we couldn't bear to leave our cat, either. After many setbacks, we finally found a condo in North York that accepted pets. Our cat, in a way, helped us choose our new home. The stress was overwhelming. And we carried grief with us, too. My daughter's best friend, Arseniy, was lost to the war. They had grown up together. He was like family. That kind of loss… it changes something in you forever. Even here, far from the bombs, we feel the war every day. We were welcomed in a way I didn't expect when we arrived in Toronto. At the airport, someone gave us a guidebook in Ukrainian, filled with information and support. That small act meant so much. It told me we weren't alone. We found our footing slowly. Language classes were our first step. The Mennonite New Life Centre (MNLC) in North York became our lifeline. The staff weren't just teachers, they were mentors, therapists, and friends. My mother, Kateryna, who was 66 when we arrived, had never studied English before. The first classes were online, and she hated them. It was hard to convince her to try again. But then she met Teacher Lama at MNLC. Somehow, with patience and kindness, she created a space where my mother felt safe to learn. In just two and a half years, my mom went from zero English to being able to shop, visit a doctor, and use the bank on her own. For me, as her daughter, that's one of the proudest moments of all. Another major support during our transition was the Canadian education system. Especially St. Jerome Catholic School, who welcomed my daughter with warmth, encouragement, and the structure she needed to adjust emotionally and academically. It was one of the key foundations that helped us rebuild a sense of normalcy. Once I regained my footing, I wanted to give back. I began writing simple guides for other newcomers on how to find work, register for school, and access support and shared them through the Agapas Centre, led by Olga Ivanova. Later, I joined a skilled trades program at JVS, thanks to the encouragement of Eman Ismail-Elmasri, an inspiring professional who helps newcomers thrive. That experience gave me purpose again and connected me to a greater mission. Thanks to my teachers at MNLC, Teresa, Nadya, and Ivan, I was introduced to York University's Bridging Program. I studied business, adapted my previous education to the Canadian market, and graduated with an official York University Business Certificate. That ceremony was just a few weeks ago. I cried the entire day. Because for me, it wasn't just a certificate, it was proof that we had made it this far. That journey also led me to Monica Anne Brennan, Associate Director of the Internationally Educated Professionals program at York. Her leadership, like Eman's, has already helped thousands of newcomers find their footing. I feel incredibly fortunate to have crossed paths with people who give so much of themselves to help others succeed. What makes Canada unique, in my eyes, is one word: willingness. So many people, teachers, social workers, and neighbours genuinely try to help. It's not always perfect, but you can feel the effort. You can feel the care. There are still things I'm not ready to talk about. The situation in Kharkiv has become worse again. The shelling, the destruction… it's relentless. My daughter and I follow the news every day, grieving in silence, trying to stay strong. I never imagined I would have to start over anywhere, let alone on the other side of the world. I never imagined I would rebuild my life with my daughter and my mother by my side. But we did. And we are still standing together, healing, learning, and hoping. And that is what Canada has given us: not just safety but the chance to move forward with dignity, purpose, and hope.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump gained support among religious voters and 2020 non-voters in recent election, new research found
President Donald Trump's victory over then Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election is still being examined months later. According to a new analysis and polling released last week by Pew Research Center, Trump gained voters in several different areas and communities across the country. Of those that supported his third bid for president was a growing number of religious voters and people who didn't vote in the 2020 presidential election. While religious groups largely voted in ways that reflect previous voting habits, Trump gained support among Protestants and Catholics in the 2024 election. Sixty-two percent of Protestant voters in the United States cast their ballot for Trump in the recent election, while just 36% voted for Harris, the survey found. A majority, 68%, of Black Protestant voters supported Harris, while a majority of white protestants voted for Trump. He received 58% support from white non-Evangelical Protestants and 81% from white Evangelical Protestants. It was the most support Trump has seen from Protestant voters among the last three elections he's participated in. In 2020, he received 59% support from Protestants and in 2016, he earned 56%. Pew noted in its analysis that Trump's gains among Protestants included a small group of swing voters. Five percent of Protestants who voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020, switched to Trump. Trump also saw a surge in support among Catholic voters. In the most recent election, Trump earned 55% support among Catholic voters compared to Harris' 43%. The most support for Trump was among white Catholics, while Harris saw more votes from Hispanic Catholics. Similarly, it was also the most support Trump has seen from Catholic voters in the last three elections. In 2020, he earned 49% and in 2016, he saw 52% support from Catholics. Trump also benefited from Catholic defectors, with 7% of Biden voters switching to cast their ballot for him in 2024. Trump has made a considerable effort to gain support from religious groups while in office. He's created a White House Religious Liberty Commission, which plans to hold a handful of hearings. Pew found that religiously unaffiliated voters, like in the past, supported the Democratic ticket. Among unaffiliated voters, 70% cast their ballot for Harris in 2024 and just 28% for Trump. Similar numbers were reported in 2020. Trump also grew in support among voters who regularly attend religious gatherings. A majority, 64%, of voters who attend religious services once a month or more often supported Trump. In 2020, 59% of frequent religious service attenders supported Trump. The Pew analysis found that Trump won the election with a coalition that was 'more racially and ethnically diverse' than the previous two election cycles. He saw his support increase among Hispanic voters, Black voters and Asian voters in 2024. Trump also gained support among voters who did not participate in 2020. While Trump did gain support among voters of color, the voter coalition data shows former Democratic voters of color did not change their party affiliation. Pew found that more people who did not vote in 2020, particularly people of color, cast ballots for Trump in 2024 and that's why he saw a surge of support. Pew also found that Harris would not necessarily have benefited from more people turning out on Election Day. Among eligible people who did not vote, 40% said they would have voted for Harris and 44% said Trump when asked what they hypothetically would have done.
