
The pope's last coded message
AMID THE pomp, pageant and politics surrounding Pope Francis's funeral—an extraordinary meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in St Peter's Basilica, the lines of flamboyantly televisual cardinals in their scarlet robes—a simple fact risked being overlooked. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 'the pope of the last', as Italians called him, had arranged to be buried as far as decently possible from the Vatican.
His funeral cortege had to cover six kilometres along streets lined with applauding crowds to cross Rome to the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. As the presidents and prime ministers headed for their return flights, a group of some of Rome's poorest residents were waiting to greet the arrival of Francis's body, encased in a plain wooden coffin. Out of media sight, it was to be laid in a tomb of marble from Liguria, the region in north-western Italy from which his migrant forebears left for Argentina. The tomb bears a single engraved word: Franciscus.
It was to be a last stop appropriately distant from the Vatican for a pontiff who once told its prelates that getting them to change their ways was like trying to clean the Sphinx with a toothbrush. Maybe that is what Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the ultimate Vatican insider, but one trusted by Francis, was alluding to in his homily in St Peter's Square. 'With his characteristic vocabulary and language, rich in images and metaphors,' the cardinal said, Francis had 'always sought to shed light on the problems of our time.'
Santa Maria Maggiore is a few hundred metres from the main railway terminus, in a part of Rome dotted with internet points and cheap hotels. It sits on the edge of a district that is starting to be gentrified but still has a high proportion of immigrants.
Santa Maria Maggiore is no mere parish church. It is one of Rome's four papal basilicas. Other popes have been interred outside the Vatican. But the last was another liberal pontiff, Leo XIII, the father of Roman Catholic social doctrine. And he died in 1903. One reason why the basilica had a special appeal for Francis was because it holds the Salus Populi Romani, an icon from around the year 1000 that is a focus of local, Roman religiosity. He prayed to it before and after foreign journeys. A supremely pastoral priest, Francis never forgot that popes were bishops of Rome long before they had a global church to lead.
He shrank from the worldly trappings of the papacy. He refused to move into the Apostolic Palace, choosing instead to live in a two-room suite in the Vatican's guest house. He was never seen in the traditional, shiny red papal slippers beloved of his predecessor, pope Benedict XVI, preferring to wear (and be buried in) clumpy, scuffed, black orthotics.
The two ceremonies on April 26th—one spectacularly ostentatious, the other simple and private—reflected the tensions within the world's largest Christian church, tensions that will decide the choice of Francis's successor. Catholicism can be found in the Vatican with its colonnades and conspiracies, its museums housing treasures of inestimable value. But it can also be found in some of the most wretched places on earth where its priests, monks, nuns and lay people care for the sick and needy.
The message that shone through Francis's provisions for his departure was that the true place of his church was on the margins of society. Shortly before his death, he used nearly all the money he had left, some €200,000 ($225,000), to pay down the mortgage on a pasta factory that operates in a juvenile prison in Rome.
But the late pontiff also embodied a faith with room for doubt and uncertainty. Perhaps his most famous comment was when, asked about homosexuality, he replied 'If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?'
His legacy included plenty of room for differing interpretations, notably over whether Catholics who divorce and remarry can receive communion. The uncertainty infuriated conservatives and others who craved the clear moral guidance of Benedict, and Benedict's predecessor, Saint John Paul II.
The choice facing the cardinals who will assemble in a week or so in the Sistine Chapel for the conclave will be whether to choose a man ready to go deeper into the areas that Francis opened up to scrutiny or return to the more familiar Catholicism of those who came before him. Even before his funeral, conservatives and liberals were setting out their stalls.
With diplomatic understatement, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the guardian of theological orthodoxy under Benedict, said Francis had been 'a bit ambiguous at certain moments', whereas in the time of his predecessor there had been 'perfect theological clarity'. One of the questions around which doubt lingers is whether priests may bless gay couples. The next pope would have to clear that up, said Cardinal Müller.
It will be no surprise that Cardinal Hollerich was given his red cardinal's hat by Francis. But so too was Cardinal Müller. The Catholic church does not always work in the way secular commentators would assume—and may not do so when it comes to choosing the man who replaces 'the pope of the last'.

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


Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Cryptocurrency Live News & Updates : Trump Discusses U.S.-Europe Trade Challenges
29 Jun 2025 | 01:50:11 AM IST U.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged positive relations with Europe but highlighted significant trade challenges, including heavy taxes and legal actions against American firms. In recent news, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the complexities of trade relations with Europe, noting the imposition of heavy taxes and legal disputes affecting American companies. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency sector is witnessing a surge in venture capital funding, with startups raising $739.5 million across 17 deals, led by Kalshi's impressive $185 million Series C round. The NFT market is also rebounding, with sales reaching $125 million, as Ethereum surpasses Polygon in sales volume. Bitcoin continues to show strength, recently hitting the $107,000 mark. Additionally, Elon Musk has shared his optimistic outlook on economic growth driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics, suggesting a future of significant surplus. These developments reflect a dynamic landscape in both trade and technology, highlighting the interconnectedness of global markets and innovation. Show more


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.

The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
G7 agrees to exempt U.S. multinationals from global minimum tax
The Group of Seven nations said on Saturday (June 28, 2025) they have agreed to exempt U.S. multinational companies from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries — a win for President Donald Trump's government, which pushed hard for the compromise. The deal will see U.S. companies benefit from a "side-by-side" solution under which they will only be taxed at home, on both domestic and foreign profits, the G7 said in a statement released by Canada, which holds the group's rotating presidency. The agreement was reached in part due to "recently proposed changes to the U.S. international tax system" included in Mr. Trump's signature domestic policy bill, which is still being debated in Congress, the statement said. The side-by-side system could "provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward," it added. Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinational companies, an agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That agreement, deeply criticized by Trump, includes two "pillars," the second of which sets a minimum global tax rate of 15 percent. The OECD must ultimately decide to exempt the U.S. companies from that tax — or not. The G7 said it looked forward to "expeditiously reaching a solution that is acceptable and implementable to all." On Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had signalled that a "joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests" was in the works. He also asked US lawmakers to "to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill" — Mr. Trump's policy mega-bill. Section 899 has been dubbed a "revenge tax," allowing the government to impose levies on firms with foreign owners and on investors from countries deemed to impose unfair taxes on U.S. businesses. The clause sparked concern that it would inhibit foreign companies from investing in the United States.