Warm American welcome for new pope masks US church's deep divide
As Pope Leo XIV celebrated his first Mass as pontiff at the Sistine Chapel on Friday, he spoke a few words in English. It was a reminder - if anyone needed one - that a baseball fan who hails from Chicago was now leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
For American Catholics, the elevation of Robert Prevost to the papacy was a shock, a cause for celebration and a chance for some fun. After the announcement, social media lit up with memes about Leo eating hotdogs, bringing deep dish pizza to the Vatican and switching out the Popemobile for a pickup truck.
But despite the warm embrace of his countrymen and women, the deeply divided U.S. Catholic Church may ultimately pose some of the most serious challenges for the new pope.
Those divisions, which mirror more generalized political polarization in the U.S., are evident in a host of issues: immigration, same-sex couples, climate change and the role of women in the Church, among other issues.
The split has grown wider in recent years as a growing segment of conservative Catholics becomes increasingly vocal and assertive. Pope Francis - who was seen as more progressive-minded thanks to his views on climate change and migration - saw his popularity decline in the U.S. over time as the conservative influence helped shape opinions: In 2024, about 75% of U.S. Catholics viewed Francis favorably, down from about 90% in 2015, according to a Pew Research Poll.
Cathleen Kaveny, a theology and law professor at Boston College who has closely tracked the split between conservatives and progressives, said the new pontiff could salve some wounds between the sides while deepening others.
Kaveny expects Leo, with his expertise in canon law and administration at the Vatican, to embrace his predecessor's vision of a church dedicated to the poor and open to all, what she described as a 'trickle-up theory of paying attention to people and what they think.'
If Kaveny proves right, traditionalists and conservatives may balk. 'Pope Leo XIV is an institution builder and he will institutionalize Pope Francis' visions - or, at least, certain aspects of them,' she said.
Steve Bannon, the conservative strategist and Catholic who advised President Donald Trump during his first term, also expects continuity. "He's an ideological twin to Francis," he said in an interview with Reuters.
PRESIDENT AS POPE
That said, American conservatives may appreciate that the new pontiff will likely show more discretion than Francis, Kaveny said, perhaps shifting focus away from some of the more contentious issues such outreach to the gay and transgender faithful.
In their politics, U.S. Catholics have swung more conservative, with right-wing media and Trump-era culture wars combining as powerful influence within the church. Catholics voted for Trump 59%-39% over Democrat Kamala Harris in the November presidential election, a 12 percentage point swing from 2020, according to exit polling by Edison Research.
Trump, whose cabinet is about one-third Catholic, expressed pride at having an American in charge at the Vatican. An AI-generated image of Trump dressed as pope was posted on a White House social media account last weekend; the president told reporters he had nothing to do with the image.
Despite Trump's welcome, Leo may also find himself in the crosshairs of Trump supporters, some of whom have described him as a globalist, liberal and woke-minded. Leo has a handful of disapproving posts about the Republican leaders' policies on the X account of Robert Prevost. Among the posts are one questioning Trump's migration policies and another reposting an article headlined, "JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others."
"He's got that same Latin American liberation theology radicalness to him," Bannon said, referring to Leo. "He's virulently anti-Trump."
The share of Americans who describe themselves as Catholic has changed little over the last decade, hovering around 20%, according to Pew Research. During that time, the Church has been rocked by sex abuse scandals that have resulted in costly legal settlements and bankruptcies, while dragging on church attendance and donations.
A number of U.S. dioceses, including in Leo's hometown of Chicago, have been forced to close churches, while others have fallen into disrepair.
Despite Francis' cost-cutting efforts and financial management, the Vatican faces an $94.22 million budget shortfall, two sources have told Reuters, and a much larger funding gap in its pension fund.
'NO PLACE TO GO'
David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, said that Leo's ascension cements the movement ignited by Francis to broaden the appeal of the church and make it accessible to more people. At times that has come at the expense of tradition, such as the move by Francis to restrict the celebration of the Latin Mass, which enraged his conservative critics.
"The conservatives have no place to go. Leo is 69 and could be around for 15 to 20 years,' Gibson said. 'This is the church now - finding how to preach the Gospel in modern times. The conservatives will have to figure out how they're going to live in that church.'
Still, Leo is an American, and experts said it remained to be seen how the novelty of the first U.S.-born pope - and his understanding of U.S. Catholics - could play out.
"There's a certain kind of opportunity he has in this moment to appeal and to be a symbol that can unite and that could go a way in pulling us together," said Nancy Pineda-Madrid, associate professor of theology at Boston College.
"I think in many ways he can stretch us here in the United States in ways that are wonderful and rich," she said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
2 hours ago
- AsiaOne
How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear, Asia News
ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI — Just after midnight on May 7, the screen in the Pakistan Air Force's operations room lit up in red with the positions of dozens of active enemy planes across the border in India. Air Chief Mshl. Zaheer Sidhu had been sleeping on a mattress just off that room for days in anticipation of an Indian assault. New Delhi had blamed Islamabad for backing militants who carried out an attack the previous month in Indian Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. Despite Islamabad denying any involvement, India had vowed a response, which came in the early hours of May 7 with air strikes on Pakistan. Sidhu ordered Pakistan's prized Chinese-made J-10C jets to scramble. A senior Pakistani Air Force (PAF) official, who was present in the operations room, said Sidhu instructed his staff to target Rafales, a French-made fighter that is the jewel of India's fleet and had never been downed in battle. "He wanted Rafales," said the official. The hour-long fight, which took place in darkness, involved some 110 aircraft, experts estimate, making it the world's largest air battle in decades. The J-10s shot down at least one Rafale, Reuters reported in May, citing US officials. Its downing surprised many in the military community and raised questions about the effectiveness of Western military hardware against untested Chinese alternatives. Shares of Dassault, which makes the Rafale, dipped after reports the fighter had been shot down. Indonesia, which has outstanding Rafale orders, has said it is now considering purchasing J-10s — a major boost to China's efforts to sell the aircraft overseas. But Reuters interviews with two Indian officials and three of their Pakistani counterparts found that the performance of the Rafale wasn't the key problem: Central to its downing was an Indian intelligence failure concerning the range of the China-made PL-15 missile fired by the J-10 fighter. China and Pakistan are the only countries to operate both J-10s, known as Vigorous Dragons, and PL-15s. The faulty intelligence gave the Rafale pilots a false sense of confidence they were out of Pakistani firing distance, which they believed was only around 150km, the Indian officials said, referring to the widely cited range of PL-15's export variant. "We ambushed them," the PAF official said, adding that Islamabad conducted an electronic warfare assault on Delhi's systems in an attempt to confuse Indian pilots. Indian officials dispute the effectiveness of those efforts. "The Indians were not expecting to be shot at," said Justin Bronk, air warfare expert at London's Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank. "And the PL-15 is clearly very capable at long range." The PL-15 that hit the Rafale was fired from around 200km away, according to Pakistani officials, and even farther according to Indian officials. That would make it among the longest-range air-to-air strikes recorded. India's defence and foreign ministries did not return requests for comment about the intelligence mistakes. Delhi hasn't acknowledged a Rafale being shot down, but France's air chief told reporters in June that he had seen evidence of the loss of that fighter and two other aircraft flown by India, including a Russian-made Sukhoi. A top Dassault executive also told French lawmakers that month that India had lost a Rafale in operations, though he didn't have specific details. Pakistan's military referred to past comments by a spokesperson who said that its professional preparedness and resolve was more important than the weaponry it had deployed. China's defence ministry did not respond to Reuters' questions. Dassault and UAC, the manufacturer of the Sukhoi, also did not return requests for comment. 'Situational awareness' Reuters spoke to eight Pakistani and two Indian officials to piece together an account of the aerial battle, which marked the start of four days of fighting between the two nuclear-armed neighbours that caused alarm in Washington. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters. Not only did Islamabad have the element of surprise with its missiles' range, the Pakistani and Indian officials said, but it managed to more efficiently connect its military hardware to surveillance on the ground and in the air, providing it with a clearer picture of the battlefield. Such networks, known as "kill chains", have become a crucial element of modern warfare. Four Pakistani officials said they created a "kill chain", or a multi-domain operation, by linking air, land and space sensors. The network included a Pakistani-developed system, Data Link 17, which connected Chinese military hardware with other equipment, including a Swedish-made surveillance plane, two Pakistani officials said. The system allowed the J-10s flying closer to India to obtain radar feeds from the surveillance plane cruising further away, meaning the Chinese-made fighters could turn their radars off and fly undetected, according to experts. Pakistan's military did not respond to requests for comment on this point. Delhi is trying to set up a similar network, the Indian officials said, adding that their process was more complicated because the country sourced aircraft from a wide range of exporters. Retired UK Air Mshl. Greg Bagwell, now a fellow at RUSI, said the episode didn't conclusively prove the superiority of either Chinese or Western air assets but it showed the importance of having the right information and using it. "The winner in this was the side that had the best situational awareness," said Bagwell. [[nid:720388]] Change in tactics After India in the early hours of May 7 struck targets in Pakistan that it called terrorist infrastructure, Sidhu ordered his squadrons to switch from defence to attack. Five PAF officials said India had deployed some 70 planes, which was more than they had expected and provided Islamabad's PL-15s with a target-rich environment. India has not said how many planes were used. The May 7 battle marked the first big air contest of the modern era in which weaponry is used to strike targets beyond visual range, said Bagwell, noting both India and Pakistan's planes remained well within their airspaces across the duration of the fight. Five Pakistani officials said an electronic assault on Indian sensors and communications systems reduced the situational awareness of the Rafale's pilots. The two Indian officials said the Rafales were not blinded during the skirmishes and that Indian satellites were not jammed. But they acknowledged that Pakistan appeared to have disrupted the Sukhoi, whose systems Delhi is now upgrading. Other Indian security officials have deflected questions away from the Rafale, a centerpiece of India's military modernisation, to the orders given to the air force. India's defence attache in Jakarta told a university seminar that Delhi had lost some aircraft "only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack [Pakistan's] military establishments and their air defences". India's chief of defence staff Gen. Anil Chauhan previously told Reuters that Delhi quickly "rectified tactics" after the initial losses. After the May 7 air battle, India began targeting Pakistani military infrastructure and asserting its strength in the skies. Its Indian-made BrahMos supersonic cruise missile repeatedly sliced through Pakistan's air defences, according to officials on both sides. On May 10, India said it struck at least nine air bases and radar sites in Pakistan. It also hit a surveillance plane parked in a hangar in southern Pakistan, according to Indian and Pakistani officials. A ceasefire was agreed later that day, after US officials held talks with both sides. 'Live inputs' In the aftermath of the episode, India's deputy army chief Lt. Gen. Rahul Singh accused Pakistan of receiving "live inputs" from China during the battles, implying radar and satellite feeds. He did not provide evidence and Islamabad denies the allegation. When asked at a July briefing about Beijing's military partnership with Pakistan, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters the work was "part of the normal co-operation between the two countries and does not target any third party." Beijing's air chief Lt. Gen. Wang Gang visited Pakistan in July to discuss how Islamabad had used Chinese equipment to put together the "kill chain" for the Rafale, two PAF officials said. China did not respond when asked about that interaction. The Pakistani military said in a statement in July that Wang had expressed "keen interest in learning from PAF's battle-proven experience in Multi Domain Operations". ALSO READ: Defence minister denies India bowed to pressure to end fighting with Pakistan
AsiaOne
2 hours ago
- AsiaOne
The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home, World News
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won't accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at least five men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the US illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations. Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their US sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier. The US Department of Homeland Security said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people "so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back". Critics have countered that it's not clear the US tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel. Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys. After a US judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported. DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the US tried to send them to Libya. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya. "If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country," McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing El Salvador's maximum-security prison and a detention centre in the subtropical Florida Everglades. Far from home DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on Jan 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries. The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were "the worst of the worst" and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. "American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone," Jackson said in a statement. The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters. The government of Mexico did not comment. The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan anyway. DHS said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Eswatini's government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration. 'A very random outcome' The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to "self deport" to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with. "This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you're going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam," said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Internal US immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours. While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica. The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country's CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that began under former President Joe Biden. The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance. "Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens," said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations. The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the US for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommate during a fight in 2004. [[nid:720641]] When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed. "If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico," Sheinbaum said at the time. His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn't understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. She said Mexico is trying to get her brother home. "Mexico never rejected my brother," Gutierrez said. 'Using us as a pawn' Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can't easily be deported and could pose a threat to the US public. "The Trump administration is prioritising the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees," said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration. The Trump administration in July pressed other African nations to take migrants and has asked the Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others. Under US law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are "impracticable, inadvisable or impossible". Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born. For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the US was "using us as a pawn?" His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of. He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations. The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, "taking it day by day." ALSO READ: This family self-deported to Mexico, and lost everything
Business Times
3 hours ago
- Business Times
New Zealand will make it easier to run businesses in conservation areas
[CANBERRA] New Zealand will make it easier to run businesses in conservation zones and charge foreign tourists to enter some areas in an effort to create jobs and increase economic growth, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said on Saturday (Aug 2). The decision by the centre-right government, elected in 2023, is part of its efforts to boost New Zealand's tourism industry and stimulate a limp economy. It also comes at a time when people in countries around the world are protesting what they see as excessive numbers of tourists. 'We are going to fix the Conservation Act to unleash a fresh wave of concessions, such as tourism, agriculture, and infrastructure, in locations where that makes sense,' Luxon said in a statement. Business activities from guided walks and skiing to livestock grazing and infrastructure construction already take place in conservation areas, but permission takes too much time and effort to obtain, he said. 'Unleashing economic growth on one-third of New Zealand's land will create jobs and increase wages across the country,' the statement said. Foreign visitors will also be charged between NZ$20 (S$15.15) and NZ$40 to access some popular sites, while locals will continue to go free. 'Tourists make a massive contribution to our economy, and no one wants that to change. But I have heard many times from friends visiting from overseas their shock that they can visit some of the most beautiful places in the world for free,' said Conservation Minister Tama Potaka. REUTERS
