Trump’s Exchange With Pope Leo Reflects Deep‑Rooted Tensions Between The Vatican And The United States: 4 Essential Reads

Pope Leo XIV speaks to journalists aboard his flight bound for Algiers on April 13, 2026. Alberto Pizzoli/Pool Photo via AP

BY KALPANA JAIN

President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, the U.S.-born head of the Catholic Church, had an unusual and acrimonious public exchange over the weekend.

In a scathing attack on Truth Social, the social media platform he launched in 2022, Trump accused the pope of being “WEAK on Crime and terrible for Foreign Policy.” The lengthy post on April 12, 2026, told Leo to “focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.”

Later that night, Trump told reporters that he was “not a big fan of Pope Leo” and did not think the pope was “doing a very good job.” Leo has repeatedly called for peace amid wars in the Middle East and described Trump’s April 7 threat to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable.”

Several hours later, aboard a papal flight to Algiers – where he will begin a 10-day trip to Africa – Leo told reporters that he did not want to get into a debate with Trump, and that his words were not “meant as attacks on anyone.” But striking a firm note, he said he had “no fear” of the Trump administration.

“I do not look at my role as being political, a politician,” the pope said, adding, “I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among states, to look for just solutions to problems. Too many people are suffering in the world today. Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to stand up and say, ‘There’s a better way to do this.’”

The public nature of Trump’s criticism may feel unprecedented. But there have long been tensions between the United States and the Vatican’s effort to seek peace, as scholars writing for The Conversation have shown in past articles.
1. History of anti-Catholicism

In February 2016, Pope Francis criticized Trump’s campaign pledge of building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Back then, too, Trump attacked Francis for being a “very political person.”

Temple University historian David Mislin wrote how the comments suggesting that the pope was interfering in U.S. politics reminded some commentators of an “older religious bigotry.”

During the 19th century, when large numbers of Catholics immigrated to the U.S., they were looked at with suspicion. Some Americans claimed that “Catholics maintained allegiance to the church first and to American values and institutions second,” Mislin explained.

“Anti-Catholic cartoons suggested that Catholics would use political power to dismantle the nation’s institutions,” he added.

It was once “unthinkable” for American presidents to be seen with the pope. Dwight Eisenhower became the first U.S. president to visit the Vatican in 1959.
2. Mutual influence

It was only in 1984 – under President Ronald Reagan – that the U.S. and the Vatican established diplomatic relations, as church historian Massimo Faggioli noted in an 2015 article.

Faggioli, a professor at Trinity College Dublin, wrote in the lead-up to Francis’ trip to the United States. That visit reflected “a story about change in religion and politics,” he noted – about relations between the papacy and the Catholic Church, on one side, and the United States, on the other.

Francis addressed Congress on this trip, which, according to Faggioli, “would have shocked most Americans only 30 years ago.”

He also noted how much world Catholicism had been influenced by American ideas in recent years, becoming “much more American than it used to be – and much more American than Italian, for that matter.” Catholic teachings “on religious freedom and democracy and the new sensibility on the role of women in the Church came to Rome largely thanks to the experience of Catholics in the United States,” Faggioli wrote.

His broader point was that the Vatican and the U.S. have had an influence on each other – something that can be “seen only over a long period of time.”
3. How Francis changed church’s foreign policy

Part of the change – at least at the Vatican end – is reflected in the church’s relationship with political power, as Loughborough University researcher Massimo D’Angelo pointed out.

Francis’ predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger – who became Pope Benedict XVI – may have often seen political alliances as a necessity for the church’s survival in times of secular decline. “Francis rejected this approach,” D'Angelo wrote.

“The sacred must not be instrumentalised by the profane,” Francis stated in Kazakhstan in 2022. In other words, religion should not be a tool in the hands of the powerful. Francis also made constant appeals for peace amid the Ukraine and Gaza wars, though he avoided direct condemnation – which, at times, led to some criticism.

Even so, as D'Angelo said, it was “another major transformation” in how the church related with political power.
4. Shared principles

Trump’s Truth Social post accused Leo of “catering to the radical left.” Mark Yenson, a religious studies scholar at Western University in Canada, explained why such terms may not be applicable in the context of the papacy, where “conservative” and “liberal” labels don’t work the same way as in polarized American politics.

Many Americans viewed Benedict as more conservative than Francis, his successor. Yet some of the two popes’ history suggests that they appealed to shared principles, which were theological rather than political, Yenson wrote in 2025. These were “not reducible to liberal versus conservative categories.”

As he wrote, “The role of the pope, highlighted in Francis’ teaching on ecology, is to inspire a different kind of social and moral imagination, one not reducible to particular ideological positions.”

Leo, like Francis, has been critical of the Trump administration. Yenson reminds readers that the pope’s choice of name hearkens to Pope Leo XIII, who initiated modern Catholic social teaching and emphasized peace and justice. Additionally, he wrote, Leo’s “career as a missionary, bishop and Vatican cardinal outside of the U.S. means that his context is not confined to the polarizations of the U.S. Catholic Church and its bishops.”

Far from an isolated spat, Trump and Leo’s exchange might well show a recurring dynamic – in which papal intervention on global issues is rarely seen as neutral.

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Shiite Grief Over Attacks In Iran’s Sacred Cities Has Deep Historical Roots

The shrine of Fatima Masumeh in Qom, Iran. Mansoreh Motamedi/Moment via Getty images

BY MARY THURLKILL

PROFESSOR OF RELIGION,

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI

Several Shiite communities in South Asia recently refrained from celebrating Eid as they mourned the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. From Nigeria to Kashmir – well beyond the Gulf region – the assassination has stirred deep concerns among Shiite Muslims.

Shiite Islam is the official, and majority, religion of Iran. Shiite minorities in other countries tend to view Iranian leaders as protectors and have sometimes risked personal safety to protest the war.

As the violence expands around Tehran, Shiites are not only grieving the death of their leaders but also fear the loss of holy cities and shrines that anchor their collective memory.

Many of the cities targeted in the war today are home to these types of shrines, including Qom, Isfahan and Mashhad. In Isfahan, the 17th-century Jame Abbasi Mosque, also known as Shah Mosque, sustained damage during one of the airstrikes. After the ayatollah’s death, Shiites gathered at Imam Reza Shrine in Mashhad to mourn his loss. In a signal recognized by all Shiites, Iran raised the black flag at the shrine’s dome to mark the community’s shared grief.

Qom, located about 80 miles south of Tehran, has attracted much media attention because of the large-scale military attacks against it. Various social media platforms are showing destroyed buildings and plumes of smoke filling the skyline.

After Khamenei’s death, the city was targeted because the Assembly of Experts gathered there to elect his successor. Israel attacked Qom’s Shokouhiyeh Industrial Zone, known for its drone production companies.

With the news blackout in Iran and Gulf states, it’s impossible to know the impact of military operations on holy sites like Qom. Regardless of the level of material damage, Shiites are deploring the physical and spiritual assaults against their sacred landscape.

That’s because in Shiite Islam, grief is not only personal but collective. As a scholar of medieval Islam and Shiite piety, I have seen how this grief is expressed through rituals, pilgrimage and devotion to saints.

Redemptive suffering

Shared sorrow is a key part of Iran’s Twelver Shiite identity, which venerates the Prophet Muhammad’s family through daughter Fatima and cousin and son-in-law, Ali.

Fatima and Ali’s lineage is called the Imamate, with each individual imam recognized as a sinless spiritual leader. Each imam is responsible for providing guidance as the “proof of God” on earth.

Ali’s leadership and the imams’ leadership wasn’t recognized by all Muslims, however. Some of Muhammad’s companions and early leaders of the Umayyad dynasty, which ruled from 661-750 C.E., rejected their authority and punished their followers.

According to Shiite tradition, in 680 C.E. supporters of Ali’s family living in Kufa – in modern-day Iraq – appealed to Husayn, the prophet’s grandson, for assistance. They had refused to pledge their allegiance to the Umayyad Caliph Yazid because they viewed him as illegitimate and oppressive.

Husayn gathered a small group of friends and family, including wives, children and siblings, and headed to Kufa. Their party was intercepted outside the city, on the plains of Karbala, by Yazid’s forces led by Umar ibn Sa’d.

Cut off from water and vastly outnumbered, Husayn’s camp suffered for 10 days in the desert, and the Kufans never rallied to their defense. Desperate from thirst, Husayn rode out of the camp with his infant son to appeal for water, but an enemy archer shot an arrow through the child’s neck.

Tradition says that on the 10th of Muharram, Husayn and his companions met Yazid’s military on the battlefield and were massacred. Many of the men were beheaded and women captured; Umar ibn Sa’d marched the spiked heads and shackled women through various towns on the way back to Caliph Yazid in Damascus to deter further protest.

Husayn’s Kufan supporters acknowledged their failure to aid the imam and pledged to publicly atone. In 685 C.E. about 4,000 penitents revolted against Umayyads in Syria; the majority died.

Shiites worldwide still commemorate Husayn’s death at Karbala as a sacrifice for the community’s collective redemption.

Shiites frame their own suffering – from facing injustice to martyrdom – as symbolically participating in Husayn’s sacrifice. Public ceremonies include “taziyeh” plays performed during Muharram that recreate Husayn’s martyrdom and the public recitation of poetry dedicated to his family.

A sacred landscape

America and Israel associate holy sites such as Qom with underground bunkers, uranium plants and military headquarters. But for Shiites they are centers of pilgrimage, where the faithful seek connection with God, the imams and their sacred history.

Qom has universities and stunning sacred architecture that date back to the Safavids, a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 through 1736. Its seminary is the foremost clerical institution in the world, training students from Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan in a wide range of topics, including Shiite jurisprudence, Quranic interpretation and Arabic literature. Women also attend the seminary but with segregated classrooms and some course restrictions.

Qom’s primary sacred site, the shrine of Fatima bint Musa, who died in 816 C.E., is one of the most important sacred sites for Shii Muslims worldwide and attracts millions of pilgrims each year.

Popularly known as Fatima Masuma, she is the daughter of seventh imam Musa al-Kazim and sister to the eighth imam, Ali al-Rida.

Iranian Shiites – known as Twelvers – believe there are 12 imams in the Prophet Muhammad’s family lineage with exalted spiritual status, and that the 12th imam never died but went into “hiding.” Shiites know the 12th imam as al-Mahdi, or the messiah: they believe he will return at the world’s end times to restore God’s justice and peace.

According to Fatima’s hagiographies, or popular sacred stories, she remained unmarried and devoted herself to scholarship. She’s known as a trustworthy transmitter of hadith – sayings from the prophet and his family – and she studied the Quran and jurisprudence. She’s especially revered in Shiite Islam because of her kinship with the imams.

Tradition notes that when Fatima’s father, Musa al-Kazim, was unable to meet visitors with spiritual questions, he directed them to consult his daughter.

During her lifetime, the Abbasid dynasty rose to power in Baghdad and quickly sought to curtail the imamate’s popularity because many Muslims viewed Ali’s family as the only legitimate rulers.

Saintly intercession

Just on the outskirts of Qom is a village called Jamkaran, home to another important pilgrimage site. According to tradition, the 12th imam, or Imam al-Mahdi, appeared to a devotee in the 10th century and requested a shrine be constructed.

From 1995 to 2005 the Iranian government greatly expanded the mosque complex and city infrastructure to support the millions of pilgrims who visit annually.

Shiites believe al-Mahdi is mysteriously present at the site and listens to their concerns. In a popular ritual of prayer and piety, visitors write personal requests on bits of paper and drop them down the “Well of Requests.”

Shiites share political pain and injustice not only with each other but also with the imams, bound in collective grief and prayers for redemption. These traditions help explain the powerful reactions seen across Shiite communities following attacks on sacred sites and the killing of Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Why Christian Clergy See Risk As Part Of Their Moral Calling

A large group of protesters, including clergy, gathered outside St. Paul International Airport in St. Paul, Minn., on Jan. 23, 2026, to demonstrate against the immigration crackdown. Elizabeth Flores/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Image

BY LAURA E. ALEXANDER

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF RELIGIOUS 

STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA

OMAHA

As Christian clergy across the United States participate in ongoing protests against harsh immigration enforcement actions and further funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, many are still pondering the words of Rob Hirschfeld. On Jan. 18, 2026, Hirschfeld, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, encouraged clergy in his diocese to “prepare for a new era of martyrdom” and put their wills and affairs in order.

He asserted that “it may be that now is no longer the time for statements, but for us with our bodies to stand between the powers of this world and the most vulnerable.”

Hirschfeld’s words attracted a lot of attention, with clergy generally responding positively, though at least one priest argued that he “did not sign up to be a martyr” and had a family and church relying on him.

Other clergy have willingly faced arrest for their advocacy on behalf of immigrants, seeing it as a moral calling. Rev. Karen Larson was arrested while protesting at the Minneapolis airport. She stated that when people are being separated from their families and taken to unknown detention centers, “this is our call” to protest on their behalf.

As a scholar of religious ethics, I am interested in how Christian clergy and thinkers consider personal risk when they feel called to engage in social action.

Ethics of risk

There are many examples of Christian leaders who have taken on risks out of a religious and moral obligation to provide spiritual care for people in need or advocate for oppressed communities.

Most data on the risks that clergy face in their roles as religious leaders comes from studies of religious leaders in institutional settings, such as hospitals or prisons.

Scholarship on clergy and chaplains in medical settings points to a professional obligation to take on risks. Similar to medical providers who often see risking exposure to infection as part of their professional responsibility, many clergy and chaplains in medical settings understand their vocation to include such a risk.

Questions about professional risks became particularly acute during the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis, when researchers were uncertain exactly how the disease was spread and caregivers feared they might acquire HIV through their bedside work.

In her memoir about chaplaincy with HIV patients, Audrey Elisa Kerr notes that Riverside Church in New York continued to organize funerals, ministries and support groups for HIV/AIDS patients despite “terror” in the wider community about contagion.

As a chaplain herself, Kerr says this story of “radical hospitality” inspired her to set aside her own fears and embrace her professional role caring for people who were ill and dying.

Priests and nuns of the Catholic Church who cared for HIV/AIDS patients in the 1980s risked both the fear of contagion and the disapproval of their bishops and communities, since many of the people they cared for were men who had sex with men.

Some felt, however, that they must care for those at the margins as part of their role in the church or their monastic order. Sister Carol of the Hospital Sisters of Saint Francis felt that it was simply her moral duty as a sister to “go where she was needed,” despite potential risk.

Examination of the ethical obligations of chaplains and clergy ramped up during the COVID-19 pandemic when at least some priest, pastors and hospital chaplains felt an obligation to continue visiting patients for spiritual care.

In a reflection from 2020, Rev. David Hottinger, then working at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, noted that chaplains “felt privileged” to use their professional skills, even though they took on extra risk because they did not always have access to adequate protective equipment.

Risks in other institutional settings are not such a matter of life and death. Because of their professional preaching function, however, clergy in church settings do accept the risk of alienating church members when they feel religiously called to speak about social issues. Rev. Teri McDowell Ott has written about taking risks when discussing LGBTQ+ inclusion and starting a prison ministry.

Risk-taking during social protest

For many clergy, religious and ethical obligations extend beyond their work in institutions like churches and hospitals and include their witness in public life.

Many feel an obligation to preach on issues of moral importance, even topics that are considered controversial and might elicit strong disagreement. It is common for priests and pastors in conservative churches to include messages against legalized abortion in their sermons.

Tom Ascol of the Center for Baptist Leadership urged Baptist pastors to preach about abortion in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election.

Rev. Leah Schade, a Lutheran minister and scholar, has argued that since 2017, mainline pastors have preached more often on issues like racism, environmental justice or gun violence. Schade says pastors are inspired to speak more bluntly about social issues because of their religious concern for people who are at risk of harm from injustice or government policies.

Some clergy view their moral obligations as going beyond preaching and leading them to on-the-ground advocacy and protest. Rev. Brandy Daniels of the Disciples of Christ denomination examines these obligations in an article on her participation in a group of interfaith clergy in Portland, Oregon. The group was convened by a local rabbi and supported protesters for racial justice in Portland in 2017. In Daniels’ analysis, clergy took on the risk of staying in the middle of protests and facing a violent police response in order to “bear moral witness,” something they were both empowered and obligated to do as religious leaders.

Risking their lives

There are more extreme cases in which clergy who challenged government leaders or policies were killed for their words and actions of protest.

In a well-known historical example, Bishop Oscar Romero, canonized as a martyred saint by the Roman Catholic Church in 2018, was assassinated in 1980 after speaking out against human rights violations against poor and Indigenous communities committed by the government of El Salvador. Romero viewed himself, in his priestly role, as a representative of God who was obliged to “give voice to the voiceless.”

During recent protests against ICE in Minneapolis and elsewhere, many clergy risked arrest and bodily harm. Rev. Kenny Callaghan, a Metropolitan Community Church pastor, who says that ICE agents in Minneapolis pointed a gun in his face and handcuffed him as he tried to help a woman they were questioning, said, “It’s in my DNA; I have to speak up for marginalized people.”

On Jan. 23, 2026, over 100 clergy were arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport as they protested and prayed against ICE actions. Rev. Mariah Furness Tollgaard said that she and others accepted being arrested as a way of demonstrating public support for migrants who are afraid to leave their homes.

In Chicago, ministers have been hit with projectiles and violently arrested. Presbyterian pastor David Black was shot in the head with a pepper spray projectile while protesting outside an immigration detention center in October 2025.

The clergy have told reporters that they feel a particular call to be out in public and to protect and support their vulnerable neighbors against ICE raids, at a time when families are afraid to go to school or work and U.S. citizens have been swept up in enforcement tactics as well.

As I see it, for these and many Christian clergy and ethicists, the call to ministry includes an obligation to express their values of care for vulnerable neighbors precisely through a public willingness to accept personal risk.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Trump’s Framing Of Nigeria Insurgency As A War On Christians Risks Undermining Interfaith Peacebuilding

AILI MARI TRIPP

VILAS RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY

OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

Nigeria “must do more to protect Christians,” a senior U.S. State Department official demanded on Jan. 22, 2026, during a high-level security meeting in the African nation’s capital, Abuja.

The comment followed an attack just days earlier in which more than 160 worshipers were kidnapped from three churches in Nigeria’s northern Kaduna state.

The security meeting came a month after the United States, in cooperation with the Nigerian government, launched an airstrike from a U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea on the northwest Sokoto state. During the Christmas Day incident, 16 Tomahawk missiles costing around US$32 million hit several locations the U.S. claimed were being used by extremist groups.

There were no verifiable casualties, although the strike did send a signal that the U.S. administration is willing to take military action when it is deemed necessary. President Donald Trump heralded the attack a “Christmas present” to Christians and later warned that there would be more strikes if the killings of Christians continued.

As a scholar of African politics, I know that calling the insurgency in Nigeria a persecution of Christians – as the U.S. administration has repeatedly done – is simplistic and ill-informed. Yes, Christians have been killed and kidnapped as part of the prolonged terrorism campaign by Boko Haram and other extremist groups. But so too have other groups in the country, including Muslims. Moreover, the religious identity of the victims masks other motives of the militant groups involved.

I recently carried out interviews in Maiduguri, Borno State – the epicenter of Boko Haram activities in northeast Nigeria – as part of research into interfaith efforts to counter threats from Islamic extremists. For many of those interviewed, the insurgency and violence have often served to unite Nigerians with different religious identities against a common enemy: the groups making their life a misery. The danger of Trump’s narrative of this being a war on Christians is that it could undermine such efforts to build cross-community trust.

A complex conflict

Since 2009 there have been 54,000 deaths related to the violence in Nigeria and the surrounding Lake Chad region, according to independent violence monitor ACLED.

The Christmas airstrike by the U.S. was in northwest Nigeria, targeting a small group of Lakurawa militants. But 85% of all incidents related to Islamic fighters in 2025 were in northeast Nigeria, according to ACLED.

Northern Nigeria is primarily populated by Muslims, in contrast to the whole of the country, whose 240 million people are split roughly 56%-43% between Muslims and Christians.

Many of those killed and abducted in the insurgency in the north have been Christian. But the exclusive focus on Christians by the U.S. administration overlooks the complex realities behind the violence in Nigeria, which incorporates not just extremist groups but also farmer-herder tensions, land and water disputes exacerbated by climate change, ethnic rivalries, poverty and organized criminal gangs referred to as “bandits.”

Boko Haram, which regards the Nigerian state as its main target, has killed both Christians and Muslims, as has the Ansaru, an al-Qaida affiliate. The Islamic State – West Africa Province, another major insurgency group, targets state forces and Christians.

While the most recent high-profile attacks have been on churches, Boko Haram also targets markets, mosques and homes. They are opportunistic attacks that don’t discriminate between Muslims and Christians.

To be sure, the Nigerian government’s response to the insurgency has been inadequate. But again, the reasons are complex and the result of a confluence of factors, including corruption in the security sector, negligence and the difficulty of targeting groups that employ guerrilla tactics outside of government control, which make them especially elusive. Political factors may also be at play, since elements within the Nigerian government may be complicit with northern politicians backing some of the land-grabbing and kidnapping bandits.

Even with these barriers, some progress has been made. According to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, Boko Haram attacks have declined by 50% since 2014-2016, when they were most active, although rates have been increasing again since 2023.

Interfaith efforts

The Nigerian government itself has welcomed assistance from the U.S. targeting insurgents, but with the proviso that Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected.

The concern is that military action on the part of the U.S. under the guise of protecting Christians in Nigeria could make matters worse. It risks exacerbating tensions within the country and giving credence to those in Nigeria and abroad who focus only on the killing of Christians for their own narrow purposes.

At the same time, it could undermine the efforts of civil society organizations and women’s associations, in particular, that have worked hard to build interfaith trust between Muslims and Christians to tackle the insurgency threat.

Some of these organizations, such as the Women of Faith Peacebuilding Network, have been at the forefront of the fight against militant groups. An interfaith movement founded in 2011, it now comprises over 10,000 Christian and Muslim women. It carries out vocational training and promotes interfaith dialogue and strategies to reduce conflict.

Following the abduction of over 300 schoolgirls by Boko Haram in Chibok, Borno State, in 2014, a coalition of women’s rights organizations – comprising both Christian and Muslim members – mobilized to protest the kidnappings.

The Federation of Muslim Women’s Associations in Nigeria, or FOMWAN, is another organization that is actively engaged in interfaith initiatives nationwide. In a January 2024 interview, a FOMWAN member based in Maiduguri told me that the Boko Haram crisis has united women across religious divides more than ever before.

Maryam, whose name I have changed along with other interviewees to protect their identity, explained: “FOMWAN has been in existence for many years before the insurgency. And in our activities we had been teaching our Muslim women religious tolerance in Borno. But the insurgency has made us put more efforts into making sure there is religious tolerance among Muslims and Christians.”

A Christian evangelist preacher, Mary, told me that working together had significantly reduced the mutual fear and mistrust between Muslims and Christians. Before the rise of Boko Haram, interfaith collaboration between the two groups was low. But today, she noted, it is far higher.

“We came to understand that this set of people doing this killing are neither Christian nor Muslim. They’re working for selfish interests, not for religious interests. We now strategize and come together to work as one. The key issue to (the conflict) is poverty. The only solution is for us is to speak with one voice. That’s the only way for us to survive.”

‘Each other’s keeper’

The U.S. administration would, I believe, do well to listen to the voices of these Christian and Muslim peacebuilders in northern Nigeria who live with the daily threat of violence.

Their lived experience has informed an approach to Nigeria’s insurgency based on shared purpose that cuts across religious divides.

In the words of activist Mama Pro, when asked why she was so keen to build interfaith bridges in Northern Nigeria: “We are always each other’s keeper.”

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Nigerian Christians Respond To US Strike Targeting Terrorists

 

BY INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN CONCERN

Once again, there was a Christmas Day attack in Nigeria. Only this time, the jihadists themselves were targets. This is because the operation, carried out in northwestern Nigeria’s Sokoto state, was undertaken by the U.S. military in coordination with Nigerian authorities.

Indeed, there has been a vast and ongoing slaughter of Christians in Nigeria. And undoubtedly, many think the U.S. should go in “guns-a-blazing” or, at the very least, lay down some crippling economic sanctions.

While this viewpoint is understandable given the extent of atrocity and impunity, the situation is more complicated for many millions of Nigerian Christians who would have to continue living in their country long after the last foreign military strike.

“Truly, we wish we could handle this ourselves,” said “Daniel,” a Catholic in Nigeria’s Middle Belt whose name we changed to protect his identity. But he acknowledged that the authorities in his country, for whatever reasons, have not yet come close to meeting the challenge effectively.

In Daniel’s view, up to 90% of the attacks on Christians in his country are religiously motivated. And citing a recent massacre not far from his home, he said that President Trump’s “concern to assist the people in our region is good news to our region, and we want it as quickly as possible.”

Emmanuel Ochayi, a Christian pastor based in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, said that he has observed a variety of reactions to President Trump’s position on Nigeria.

“A significant number of Nigerian Christians welcome international attention,” said Ochayi, adding that many Nigerian Christians, particularly in rural communities, have “felt unheard and invisible” and that “their suffering does not receive the urgency it deserves.”

The flip side, as Ochayi related, is that “there is also genuine concern among many Christians that overt Western intervention could complicate matters.”

Ochayi believes that much, if not the majority, of year-round violence against Christians in his country “has a strong religious or ideological component, even when attackers frame [it] as land disputes or banditry.” At the same time, though, he described Nigeria’s security challenges as “deeply layered.”

He expressed his concern that “framing the crisis too narrowly in religious terms, especially by foreign powers, could inflame tensions between Christians and Muslims and harden extremist narratives.”

As tempting as it is for many people to bring marauding jihadists to fiery justice, the possibility exists that military strikes initiated by a foreign power could lead more people to Islamic extremism and its ever-present justifications for violence.

Even economic sanctions, if they are not sufficiently targeted, could pose severe problems: Many millions of Nigerians, Christians and Muslims, are already eking out a hand-to-mouth existence. Using sanctions as a blunt-force instrument could make their lives even more precarious.

And, as Ochayi pointed out, there is also the issue of “historical sensitivity to foreign involvement,” considering the nature of Africa’s colonial past.

Foreign intervention does not necessarily have to entail military intervention. It could also take the forms of “diplomatic pressure, human rights monitoring, and urging the Nigerian government to act decisively and impartially in protecting all citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity,” Ochayi said.

“What most Nigerian Christians I know desire is not external control, but responsible engagement,” Ochayi said. “They want the international community to support justice, good governance, intelligence sharing, humanitarian relief, and institutional reform — while respecting Nigeria’s sovereignty.”

The Christmas Day strike on jihadists was not a complete surprise. A report from mid-December 2025 said that the Nigerian government had given the U.S. permission to undertake strikes from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles on terrorist groups, and that U.S. aircraft had carried out surveillance runs over jihadist strongholds.

“Andrew,” a Christian from northern Nigeria living in the U.K., said the majority of Christians he knows were encouraged by the Christmas Day strike on jihadists.

“I think they will stop attacking Christians if the strike is not just a one-off event,” said Andrew, who believes that “having more of such strikes against the jihadists will go a long way in preventing future attacks” against Christians.

Andrew said most Christians in his region “absolutely want Western intervention.” When asked about the possibility of Western intervention making things worse, he contended the situation was already appalling enough, pointing out that many people in his region have already seen friends and family members “beheaded like chickens” or witnessed “houses set ablaze with the family members all inside.”

“These are not just mere scenarios or fictions. Real people had to go through these things, and a lot are still going through them,” Andrew said, adding that his country’s government “seems to work better when they are under intense pressure.”

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Why Government Support For Religion Doesn’t Necessarily Make People More Religious

BY BRENDAN SZENDRO

FACULTY LECTURER IN POLITICAL

SCIENCE, MCGILL UNIVERSITY

The IRS will offer religious congregations more freedom to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, the agency said in a July 2025 court filing. President Donald Trump has previously vowed to abolish the Johnson Amendment, which bars charitable nonprofits from taking part in political campaigns – although the latest move simply reinterprets the rule.

Celebrating the change, House Speaker Mike Johnson highlighted an argument that’s popular among some conservatives: that the Constitution does not actually require the separation of church and state.

Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase, did not intend “to keep religion from influencing issues of civil government,” Johnson wrote in a July 12 op-ed published on the social platform X. “The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.”

Officials in several red states have challenged long-standing norms surrounding religion and state, ranging from introducing prayer and Bibles in public classrooms to attempts to secure government funding for religious schools.

Conservative thinkers have long pushed for closer ties between religion and the government, arguing that religious institutions can create strong communities. In my own research, I’ve found that mass shootings are less likely in a more religious environment.

For critics, of course, attempts to lower the wall of separation between church and state raise constitutional concerns. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What’s more, critics fear that recent attempts to lower barriers between church and state favor conservative Christian groups over other faiths.

But as a scholar of religion and politics, I believe another reason for caution is being overlooked. Research indicates that strong relationships between religion and state can be a factor that actually decreases religious participation, rather than encouraging it.

All or nothing

Some scholars suggest that religious institutions operate like businesses in a marketplace, competing for believers. Government policies toward religion can change the balance of power between competing firms the same way that economic policies can affect markets for consumer goods.

At a glance, it might seem like government support would strengthen religious institutions. In reality, it can backfire, whether or not the government promotes one particular faith above others. In some cases, adherents who cannot practice religion on their own terms opt out of practicing it entirely.

In Israel, for example, Orthodox Jewish institutions receive government recognition that more liberal Jewish denominations do not. Orthodox authorities are allowed to manage religious sites, run public religious schools and perform marriages. Many couples who do not want to get married under Orthodox law, or cannot, hold a ceremony abroad or register as a common-law marriage.

In fact, many scholars refer to Israel as an example of a religious “monopoly.” Because the government sponsors a particular branch, Orthodox Judaism, Jewish citizens sometimes face an “all or nothing” choice. The country’s Jewish population is sharply divided between people who are religiously observant and people who identify as secular.

Government involvement can also hurt religious institutions by making them seem less independent, decreasing people’s trust. In a 2023 study of 54 Christian-majority countries, political scientists Jonathan Fox and Jori Breslawski found that some adherents felt that religious institutions become less legitimate when backed by the government. In addition, support from the state decreased people’s confidence in government.

Their findings built on previous research showing that the public is less likely to contribute to faith-based charities and attend religious services when the government offers funding for religious institutions.

In fact, many of the world’s lowest rates of religiosity are found in wealthy countries that have official churches, or had one until relatively recently, such as Sweden. Others have a history of separating people of different faiths into their own schools and other institutions, such as Belgium and the Netherlands.

History lessons

Perhaps the strongest example of how government support for religion can decrease religious participation is found in the former Soviet Union and its allies.

During the Cold War, Soviet officials sought to stamp out religious activity among their citizens. However, policies to repress independent religious institutions worked hand in hand with policies to co-opt religious institutions that would work with the government. Access to religious spaces made it easier for officials to spy on members and punish clergy who protested their rule.

In Hungary, the Communist Party sponsored government-run Catholic churches that were cut off from the Vatican. In Romania, the regime integrated formerly Catholic Churches into a state Orthodox Church. In the former Czechoslovakia, meanwhile, the Communist Party paid clergy’s salaries to keep them subservient.

To this day, many countries in the former Eastern Bloc have low rates of religious participation. In Russia, for example, a majority of citizens call themselves Orthodox Christians, and the church wields influence in politics. Yet only 16% of adults say religion is “very important” in their lives.

While scholars can point to the legacy of overt repression as a source of low religiosity, government support of religious institutions is also a lingering factor. Most post-Soviet states inherited systems that require religious groups to register, and they only provide funding to faiths that the government considers legitimate. Similar policies remain common in southeastern and central Eastern Europe.

In recent years, some countries in the region, including Russia and Hungary, have experienced democratic backsliding at the hands of populist leaders who also politicize religion for their own gain. Because of low rates of religious practice in such countries, religious leaders may welcome government support.

Free market for faith

Most wealthy countries have witnessed steep declines in religiosity in the modern era. The United States is an outlier.

Overall, the percentage of Americans belonging to a religious congregation is declining, as is the share of Americans who regularly attend worship services. However, the percentage of Americans who are intensely religious has remained unchanged over the past several decades. Around 29% of Americans report praying several times a day, for example, and just under 7% say they attend religious services more than once a week.

Some religion scholars argue that the “free-market approach” – where all faiths are free to compete for worshippers, without government interference or preference – is what makes America relatively religious. In other words, they believe that this so-called “American exception” is because of the separation between church and state, not in spite of it.

Time will tell if conservatives’ push for collaboration between religion and the government will continue, or have its intended effects. History suggests, however, that governments’ attempts to strengthen particular religious communities may backfire.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

What Do The Bible, The Quran And The Torah Say About The Justification For War?

BY ROBYN J. WHITAKER, MEHMET OZALP AND SUZANNE RUTLAND

Wars are often waged in the name of religion. So what do key texts from Christianity, Islam and Judaism say about the justification for war?

We asked three experts for their views.

The Bible

Robyn J. Whitaker, University of Divinity

The Bible presents war as an inevitable reality of human life. This is captured in the cry of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes:

for everything there is a season […] a time for war and a time for peace.

In this sense, the Bible reflects the experiences of the authors and communities who shaped the texts over more than a thousand years as they experienced both victory and defeat as a small nation among the large empires of the ancient near east.

When it comes to God’s role in war, we cannot shirk from the problematic violence associated with the divine. At times, God orders the Hebrew people to go to war and enact horrendous violence. Deuteronomy 20 is a good example of this: God’s people are sent to war with the blessing of the priest but told to first offer terms of peace. If peace terms are accepted, the town is enslaved. Certain enemies, however, are decreed worthy of total annihilation, and the Hebrew army is commanded to destroy anyone and anything that doesn’t produce food.

On other occasions, war is interpreted as a tool, a punishment where God uses foreign nations against the Hebrew people because they have gone astray (Judges 2:14). You can also find an underlying ethic to treat the captives of war justly. Moses commands that women captured in war are to be treated as wives, not slaves (Deuteronomy 21), and in 2 Chronicles, captives are allowed to return home.

In contrast to war as divinely authorised, many of the Hebrew prophets express hope in a time where God will bring peace and people will “neither learn war any more” (Micah 3:4) but rather turn their weapons into tools for agriculture (Isaiah 2:4).

War is viewed as a result of human sinfulness, something that God will ultimately transform into peace. And that peace (Hebrew: shalom) is more than an absence of war. It is about human flourishing and unity between peoples and God.

Most of the New Testament was written during the first century CE, when Jews and emerging Christians were a minority within the Roman Empire. The military power of Rome is harshly critiqued as evil in resistance texts such as the Book of Revelation. Many early Christians refused to fight in the Roman army.

In this context, Jesus says nothing specific about war but generally rejects violence. When Jesus’s disciple Peter seeks to defend him with a sword, Jesus tells him to put away his sword because a sword only leads to more violence (Matthew 26:52). This is consistent with Jesus’s other teachings such as “blessed are the peacemakers” or his commands to “turn the other cheek” when struck or to “love your enemies”.

The reality is that we find various war ideologies in the Bible’s pages. If you want to find a justification for war in the Bible, you can. If you want to find a justification for peace or pacifism, that is there too. Later Christians would develop ideas of “just war” and pacifism based on biblical ideas, but these are developments rather than explicit within the Bible.

For Christians, Jesus’s teaching provides an ethical framework for interpreting earlier war texts through the lens of love for enemies. This counterpoint to divine violence and war points readers back to the prophets, whose hopeful visions imagine a world where violence and suffering are no more and peace is possible.

The Quran

Mehmet Ozalp, Charles Sturt University

Islam and Muslims emerged onto the world stage in the hostile environment of the seventh century. In response to major challenges, including warfare, Islam introduced pioneering legal and ethical reforms. The Quran and the Prophet Muhammad’s example laid out clear legal and ethical guidelines for the conduct of war, well before similar frameworks appeared in other societies.

Islam did this by defining a new term, “jihad” rather than the usual Arabic word for war, “harb”. While harb refers broadly to warfare, jihad was defined within Islamic teachings as a legal, morally justified struggle, which includes but is not limited to armed conflict. In the context of warfare, jihad refers specifically to fighting in a just cause under clear legal and ethical guidelines, rather than belligerent or aggressive warfare.

Between 610-622, Prophet Muhammad practised active non-violence in the face of the constant suffering, persecution and economic embargo he and his followers endured in Mecca, despite insistent approaches by his followers to take up arms. This showed that armed struggle cannot be taken up within the members of the same society, as this would lead to anarchy.

After leaving his home town to escape persecution, he established a pluralistic and multi-faith society in Medina. He took active steps to sign treaties with neighbouring tribes. Despite following a deliberate strategy of peace and diplomacy, the hostile Meccans and allied tribes attacked the Muslims in Medina. Engaging these attackers in an armed struggle was unavoidable.

The permission to fight was given to Muslims by the Quran verses 22:39-40:

The believers against whom war is waged are given permission to fight in response, for they have been wronged. Surely, God has full power to help them to victory. Those who have been driven from their homeland against all right, for no other reason than that they say, “Our Lord is God” […]

This passage not only permits armed struggle but also offers a moral justification for just war. It means war is clearly just when defensive — while aggression is unjust and condemned. Elsewhere, the Quran emphasises this point:

If they withdraw from you and do not fight against you, and offer you peace, then God allows you no way (to war) against them.

Verse 22:39 outlines two ethical justifications for warfare. The first is when people are driven from their homes (and land) – in other words, through occupation by a foreign power. The second is when people are attacked because of their beliefs to the point of violent persecution and attack.

Importantly, verse 22:40 includes churches, monasteries and synagogues. If believers in God do not defend themselves, all places of worship would be destroyed, so this is to be prevented by force if necessary.

The Quran does not allow for aggression, since “God loves not the aggressors” (2:190). It also provides detailed regulations on who is to fight and who is exempted (9:91); when hostilities must cease (2:193); and prisoners should be treated humanely and with fairness (47:4).

Verses such as 2:294 emphasise that warfare and any response to violence and aggression must be proportional and within limits:

Whoever attacks you, attack them in like manner as they attacked you. Nevertheless, fear God and remain within the bounds.

In the event of unavoidable war, every opportunity to end it must be pursued:

But if the enemy inclines towards peace, then you must also incline towards peace and trust in God.

The aim of military action is to end hostilities and remove the reason for warfare, not to humiliate or annihilate the enemy.

Military jihad cannot be pursued for personal ambition or to further nationalistic or ethnic disputes. Muslims cannot wage war on nations that have no hostility towards them (60:8). But if there is open hostility and attack, Muslims have a right to defend themselves.

The Prophet and the early caliphs specifically warned military leaders and all combatants that they must not act treacherously or engage in indiscriminate killing and pillage. He said:

Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or the sick. Do not destroy palm trees or burn houses.

Because of these teachings, Muslims have had legal and ethical guidelines throughout much of history to help limit human suffering caused by war.

The Torah

Suzanne D. Rutland, University of Sydney

Judaism is not a pacifist religion, but in its traditions it values peace above all else, and prayers for peace are central to Jewish liturgy. At the same time, there is a recognition of the need to fight defensive wars, but only within certain boundaries.

In the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, the recognition of the need for war is clear. Throughout their journeying in the desert, the Israelites (Children of Israel) fight various battles. At the same time, in Deuteronomy, the Israelites are instructed (chapter 12, verse 10):

When you go forth against your enemies and are in camp, then you should keep yourself from every evil thing.

The story of Amalek is the symbol of ultimate evil in Jewish tradition. Scholars argue this is because his army attacked the Israelites from the rear – killing defenceless women and children.

The Torah also stresses that army service is compulsory. Yet, Deuteronomy elaborates four categories of people who are exempt:

someone who has built a home but has not yet dedicated it
someone who has planted a vineyard but has not yet eaten of its fruit
someone who is engaged or in his first year of marriage
someone who is afraid, in case he influences other soldiers with his fear.

It is important to point out that the disdain of war is so strong that King David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem because of his military career. His son, Solomon, was allocated this task, but no iron was to be used in the building because this represented war and violence, while the temple was to represent peace, the ideal virtue.

The vision of peace for all humanity is further developed in the prophetic writings and the concept of the Messiah. This is seen particularly in the writings of the prophet Isiah, who envisaged an age when, as he describes in his idyllic vision:

they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

The Mishnah, the first part of the Talmud, raises the concept of an “obligatory war” (milhemet mizvah). This encompasses the biblical wars against the seven nations said to inhabit the Promised Land, the war against Amalek, and the Jewish nation’s defensive wars. It is, accordingly, a clearly defined and recognisable class.

Not so the second category, “permitted war” (milhemet reshut), which is more open-ended and, as scholar Avi Ravitsky writes, “could relate to a preemptive war”.

After the Talmudic period, which ended in the 7th century, this debate became theoretical, since Jews living in Palestine and the diaspora no longer had an army. This was largely the case from the time of the defeat of the Bar Kokhba Rebellion against the Romans (132–135 CE), apart from a few small Jewish kingdoms in Arabia.

However, with the return of the early Zionist pioneers to the Land of Israel in the late 19th and 20th century, the rabbinic debates of what constitutes an obligatory, defensive war and what is a permitted war, as well as the characteristics of a forbidden war has reignited. This is a subject of deep concern and controversy for both academics and rabbis today.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

The Bible’s Galaxy Formation From Beginning To End – OpEd

RABBI ALLEN S. MALLER

At first there was nothing: no energy or matter, no change or time, no life, no love, no evolution, no light or darkness, no relationships; no feelings, no thoughts nothing at all: except the One of potentials; and then in a split microsecond the potentials for a whole universe existed. At the beginning of the creation of our universe there were zero atoms of matter; only subatomic particles of quark/gluons that turned into protons and neutrons in the first micro-fraction of a second, long before becoming atoms (tohu and vohu).

Then, when the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the first atoms of matter were formed. These were hydrogen atoms, the simplest element in the periodic table. These atoms of hydrogen collected into gas clouds and began to cool gradually and settle within the small clumps or “halos” of dark matter that emerged from the Big Bang. Dark matter neither reflects nor emits visible light, yet it makes up 85% of all matter in the Universe.

This cooling phase, known as the Cosmic dark ages (darkness on matter’s surface) lasted about 100 million years; the delay due to waiting for structure to form so that the gas (90% hydrogen plus 10% helium and little bit of heavier elements) can cool. Then the gas that had cooled inside the dark matter halos became gravitationally unstable, collapsing and coalescing, beginning the formation of the first stars — which became the very first galaxies ever formed.

With the formation of the first galaxies, the Universe burst into light (let there be light), bringing the cosmic dark ages to an end; and resulting in two different populations, like some of the recently discovered satellite galaxies orbiting our Milky Way galaxy.

The first was a very faint population consisting of the galaxies that formed during the “cosmic dark ages.” The second was a slightly brighter population consisting of galaxies that formed hundreds of millions of years later, once the hydrogen that had been ionized by the intense ultraviolet radiation emitted by the first stars was able to cool within more massive dark matter halos.

The intense ultraviolet radiation emitted by the first galaxies destroyed the remaining hydrogen atoms by ionizing them into a plasma state, making it difficult for this gas to cool and form new stars. The process of galaxy formation ground to a halt and no new galaxies were able to form for the next billion years or so.

Eventually, the halos of dark matter became so massive that even ionized gas was able to cool. Galaxy formation resumed, culminating in the formation of spectacular bright galaxies like our own Milky Way (firmament distinguishing the upper/earlier firmament from the lower/later firmament). These findings were published in the Astrophysical Journal in August 2018.

Although much of this current cosmology fits in neatly with Genesis 1, especially with the addition of Isaac Luria’s insights of Tsimtsum and Tikun, the real issue is not how it all started (Tsimtsum); but how it all (human and extra-solar civilization) is going to end (Tikun).

As German-Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig pointed out; when it comes to God’s creation we are totally passive creatures, i.e. nature is what it is. When it comes to God’s revelation we are somewhat active, but only as receivers, transmitters, commentators and enactors. But when it comes to God’s redemption of the world and of humanity, we are full partners, for God will not redeem us without our free will participation.

Thus, when Jews challenge God they do so based on a perceived injustice or unfairness in their partner’s activities. Abraham argues on behalf of the innocent living in Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:17-33). When the Jewish People built the golden calf, Moses argued on their behalf against the severity of God’s judgement {Exodus 32:7-14).

Abraham and Moses didn’t challenge God in order to break the covenant. They were committed partners with God in the Covenant just as good marriage partners love each other even while disagreeing over some issue. My wife and I have always helped each other to draw close together, and we have never stopped communicating or making love.

So too the relationship between God and Israel; with study being our form of communication; and doing mitzvot and celebrating Shabbat being our form of making love.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

From Pulpit To Pitch: Pope Francis Used Sport To Get His Message To A Wider World − That Could Continue With Baseball-Loving Leo XIV

Players observe a minute of silence in memory of Pope Francis before the Spanish league soccer match between Real Madrid and RC Celta de Vigo at Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid on May 4, 2025. Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP via Getty Images

BY CARMEN M. NANKO-FERNANDEZ

PROFESSOR OF HISPANIC THEOLOGY

AND MINISTRY, CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL UNION

The world of sport is “a constellation of many stars,” Pope Francis told La Gazzetta dello Sport, the Italian daily sports newspaper, during a wide-ranging interview in January 2021.

On April 21, 2025, that world lost, if not one of its brightest stars, then certainly one of its highest-placed advocates in Francis. In his youth, Francis was only ever a street athlete, but he was an avid and lifelong sports fan, especially when it came to soccer. In fact, Francis incorporated his love of the beautiful game into his outlook as pope – for him, sport was a way to communicate with people from all backgrounds and all corners of the globe.

With Leo XIV now installed as Francis’ successor, that sporting theme could continue in the Vatican, though the center of gravity may migrate from soccer to baseball. As befitting a U.S. pope, Leo is known to be a fan of the national pastime, in particular his native Chicago White Sox.

Always ‘un cuervo!’

Long before the papacy, even before his first steps toward priesthood, for Jorge Mario Bergoglio – the boy who would go on to become Pope Francis – there was his hometown sports club, Buenos Aires’ San Lorenzo de Almagro.

It was “part of my cultural identity,” Francis later said, so much so that he maintained his club membership throughout his life.

That became news upon his death, when a photo of his club card went viral. Argentine sports fans noted that his membership card number, 88235, coincided with his age, 88, and the moment of his death in Argentina time: 2:35 AM.

Francis’ relationship with San Lorenzo de Almagro was marked by mutual affection. The team memorialized him in various ways. They noted how he continues to accompany them by emblazoning on their jerseys his image and the words “juntos por la eternidad” or “together forever.”

In a touching video tribute posted on social media following Francis’ death, the club affirmed his belonging, from his childhood through his papacy, as “un cuervo” – or “crow,” a nod to the nickname for the team and its fans rooted in the club’s founding by a Catholic priest. In Lunfardo, a dialect in Buenos Aires, “cuervo” is also slang for priest. For his team, “Papa Cuervo” was “never just one more fan, he was always one of us.”

A sporting world pays tribute

And it wasn’t just his home team that mourned Francis’ death.

On the day of his passing, moments of silence preceded play from Citi Field, the home of Major League Baseball’s New York Mets, to Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys, the temporary soccer venue of Spanish soccer giant Barcelona.

In Italy, soccer matches were rescheduled to honor the national period of mourning, and players and coaches from AS Roma filed into St. Peter’s Basilica to pay their respects.

Across social media platforms, the sporting world responded to the loss of one they considered their own. Spanish tennis champ Rafael Nadal tweeted his condolences and observed that the day was indeed “un día triste,” or “sad day.”

The NFL’s New Orleans Saints expressed condolences and commemorated their relationship with the pope, a connection born of a digital anomaly. Each time Francis posted #Saints on his X – formerly Twitter – account, it automatically tagged the NFL team, which did not mind the accidental blessings.

When global attention turned to speculating about the next pope, the soccer world continued to mourn and honor their star. From April 29 to May 1, each Champions League semifinal match – youth, women’s and men’s alike – was preceded by a moment of silence.

In the words of world soccer body UEFA’s president Aleksander Čeferin: “Pope Francis was a beacon of hope for… (a) humanity that will now remain orphaned of that voice – tireless and powerful – that always rose in defense of the poor, the humble, and the vulnerable to call for respect, acceptance, and equality and to implore a peace that always seemed distant …”

Sport as language of life

For Francis, sport was more than a game or a pastime.

It was a vernacular, and soccer was his dialect. He was fluent and it showed. He recognized in sport the potential to communicate in what he called a universal language that “extends across borders, language, race, religion and ideology; it possesses the capacity to unite people, together, by fostering dialogue and acceptance.”

The online archive of his pontificate contains well over 60 sport-related audiences, messages and letters, including video greetings on occasions such as the 2014 FIFA World Cup and Super Bowl LI in 2017.

The significance of sport as a distinctive body of his papal teaching is also indicated by the Spanish release in 2024 of “Más Allá De Los Límites: El Deporte Según El Papa Francisco,” or “Beyond the Limits: Sports According to Pope Francis.” The book came with a forward by Carlo Ancelotti, the storied manager of a litany of soccer greats, including Real Madrid.

Sport emerged early as one of Jorge Bergoglio’s native tongues, bound intimately to memory, family, identity and belonging – threads also evident in his canon of teachings on sport. In “Hope,” his 2024 autobiography, Francis dedicates a chapter to sport and weaves stories of his beloved soccer throughout the book in a manner that reveals how “the experience of the people and their passions” became for him a source and site for his theology of encounter.

A commitment to inclusivity is a constitutive element in his teaching on both sport and encounter. Among those who paid tribute on Francis’ passing were the organizers of the Paralympic Games, who posted: “Today humanity lost a great man … passionate about sport and passionate about inclusion, which epitomizes everything the Paralympic Movement stands for.”

‘Getting in the game’

Francis urged, “‘Get in the game’ not only in sports … but also in life, in the search for the good, without fear but with courage and enthusiasm. Get in the game with others and with God … Place your talents at the service of the encounter among people, of friendship and of inclusion.”

He put this into practice with the launch and sponsorship in 2019 of Athletica Vaticana, a dedicated sports body for the city-state. He also gave his blessing and backing to St. Peter’s Cricket Club, the first-ever Vatican women’s soccer team, and Sport at the Service of Humanity, a collaborative global movement that seeks to “leverage the power of Faith and Sport as a platform for good.”

“Get in the game” was a call intended not only for athletes – amateur, collegiate, Special Olympian, professional – but for street-ballers, schoolyard players, fans and gamers of all kinds. In sports and play, Francis found the potential for a “school of peace” because they provided opportunities “to go outside of our own walls and learn how to participate, to overcome, to struggle together,” charting ways forward for church and society “to overcome all forms of discrimination and exclusion.”

Francis never forgot the joys or even the sorrows of sports as a player or as a fan. “Playing is a right,” he wrote in his memoir, “and there’s also the hallowed right not to be a champion.”

Behind every ball, he saw a kid with a dream and aspirations, and he recognized himself on the soccer field – a “pata dura,” the kid with two left feet, “sleeves rolled up, and often with grazed knees.” On the sports field, like elsewhere, he recognized and took delight in the beauty of God.

The link between the papacy and the sporting world looks set to continue under Pope Leo XIV.

The media quickly noted that soccer aficionado Francis had been succeeded by an amateur tennis player and fan.

The new pope’s brother had to resolve an online dispute by affirming Leo is a fan of the South Side’s Chicago White Sox and not the North Side’s Cubs.

Regardless, the city’s two baseball franchises responded with dueling stadium signs claiming the pope as their own. Meanwhile, ESPN reported that NBA teammates Jalen Brunson and Josh Hart, former Villanova Wildcats-turned-New York Knicks chatted about a possible alumni reunion with the newest rising star in the constellation of sports: Pope Leo XIV.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE