As the world mourns, not just for the passing of a pope, but for the departure of a shepherd who truly walked among his flock. Pope Francis, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has left an indelible mark on the Catholic Church and the world, a legacy woven with threads of humility, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to unity. His voice, a beacon of conscience in a world often shrouded in darkness, may be silent, but its echoes will resonate for generations to come.

From the moment he ascended to the papacy in 2013, Pope Francis redefined the very essence of leadership. He chose the name Francis, a homage to the saint of Assisi, signaling a departure from the pomp and circumstance that had often defined the papacy. He was, above all, a pastor—one who, in his own words, “smelled of the sheep.” He eschewed the trappings of power, choosing instead to embrace simplicity, service, and a deep connection with the marginalized.

Francis reminded us that Christian institutions are not ivory towers, but “fields for the wounded.” He saw the Church not as a fortress, but as a field hospital, tending to the spiritual and physical needs of those on the peripheries. He challenged the faithful to step outside their comfort zones, to encounter the poor, the forgotten, and the excluded.

In a world often quick to judge and condemn, Pope Francis preached a gospel of mercy. He reminded us that God’s mercy is not weakness, but the ultimate expression of strength—a force that can heal wounds, bridge divides, and transform hearts. He extended this mercy to all, regardless of their background or beliefs, urging us to see the inherent dignity in every human being.

He broke down walls of division and hatred not with force, but with the gentle weapons of love, service, and tenderness. His papacy was marked by acts of profound humility: washing the feet of prisoners, embracing refugees, and speaking out against injustice with unwavering conviction. In a time of global fear and uncertainty, he offered a message of hope, reminding us of the joy that can be found in faith, community, and service to others.

Pope Francis was a tireless advocate for ecumenism, the movement to promote unity among Christian denominations and foster dialogue with other faiths. He understood that division weakens the Church’s witness and diminishes its ability to serve the world.

His vision of ecumenism was not about erasing differences, but about recognizing the shared values and common mission that unite all Christians. He emphasized the importance of “encounter,” of building authentic relationships based on mutual respect and understanding. He reached out to leaders of other Christian traditions, forging bonds of friendship and collaboration.

His commitment to interfaith dialogue extended beyond Christianity. He met with leaders of other world religions, seeking common ground and working together to address global challenges. He recognized that peace and justice can only be achieved through cooperation and mutual understanding.

Even confined to a wheelchair in his later years, Pope Francis continued to “walk with the world,” using his voice and his presence to advocate for the poor, the oppressed, and the environment. His physical limitations did not diminish his spirit or his commitment to serving others.

Pope Francis’s vision for ecumenism is perhaps best articulated in his 2013 apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”). In this document, he laid out a blueprint for a Church that is outward-looking, compassionate, and committed to building bridges of unity.

He described Christians as “pilgrims journeying alongside one another,” urging them to put aside suspicion and mistrust and to focus on their shared goal: “the radiant peace of God’s face.” He emphasized the importance of dialogue, practical cooperation, and openness to learning from other Christian traditions.

Evangelii Gaudium has served as a guiding light for ecumenical efforts around the world, inspiring Christians to work together on social issues, to defend the poor, to promote peace, and to protect creation. It is a testament to Pope Francis’s belief that unity is not just a theological ideal, but a practical necessity for a world in need of healing and reconciliation.

Pope Francis’s legacy is not just in the policies he enacted or the speeches he delivered, but in the lives he touched. He reminded us that the Church’s mission is not to condemn, but to embrace; not to judge, but to forgive; not to divide, but to unite.

His example challenges each of us to become bridge-builders in our own communities—to reach out to those who are different, to stand with the marginalized, and to work for peace in a world hungry for hope. His papacy was a testament to the transformative power of love, compassion, and humility.

As we mourn his passing, let us also celebrate his life and his legacy. Let us honour his memory by continuing his work, by building bridges of encounter, and by striving to create a world where all are welcomed, valued, and loved. Though the shepherd’s crook has been laid down, the path he illuminated remains, guiding us toward a future of unity, peace, and justice. His voice may be silent, but the song of his heart will continue to inspire us for generations to come.

Fr. Tom Mangattuthazhe is the Secretary for Ecumenism at Northeast India Regional Bishop’s Council (NEIRBC), Guwahati, Assam.

The post Francis, The Endearing Ecumenical Pope appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

Easter Monday my world turns upside down in the afternoon.  I receive the news from the ICM Editor, almost at the instant it was released.  Pope Francis is no more, he tells me.

In the time since then, I experience a profound sadness in me, just like I experienced when I lost my father.  It is the same for billions of Catholics all over the world, and for non Catholics too.  Pope Francis was a leader from the heart.  As a writer, I followed his various letters, communications and catechesis with great interest.  They presented the Church teachings through a modern lens.

As details of Pope Francis’ last testament and his typical day and  last hours emerge, I am struck at how he has modelled his life on two of the greatest Saints to walk this earth – the founder of the Jesuit order to which Pope Francis belonged, St Ignatius of Loyola, and St Francis of Assisi, the beggar of Christ, founder of the Franciscans, whose name Francis took up.

I have been blessed to be closely associated with these two great orders, and wanted to share some insights gained from that in the following lines:

It was fascinating to note that a normal day in the life of Pope Francis began at 430 am with almost two hours dedicated to personal prayer, the examen and meditating on the day’s Scriptures.  Pope Francis would then make his way to the 7am Mass during which he would say a homily from the heart, and commence his busy day thereafter. Attending an Ignatian retreat recently made me familiar with the contemplative method of reading the scriptures that St Ignatius of Loyola followed and all Jesuits do.  Pray, Prepare and Review.  The Pray aspect would be reading the scripture a couple of times, Prayer would be contemplation of up to an hour , and Review would be  writing down the points revealed in contemplation from two perspectives: What is God saying to me? What is my response to God’s call?

This rock solid foundation every day in Scriptural study, contemplation and prayer, is what helped Pope Francis get through a very busy day.  It is in fact a practise worthy of emulation, if we can reach out to God, instead of our mobile , for the first few hours of the day.

The Jesuits work all the time, and one of their founding principles is to be at the service of the Pope at all times.  I was told by a senior Jesuit who I go to for Confession periodically, that St Ignatius worked till the very end of his life.  Even in the last days, when he knew his life was ebbing away, he was focussing on building up of his order for the Lord, the Company of Jesus.  He passed away without receiving the Blessing of the Pope or any last rites.

Coming to St Francis of Assisi, no other saint embraced poverty and simplicity in life as he did.   A son of one of the wealthiest men in town, his conversion experience made him renounce everything, even the clothes that his earthly father provided. He embraced Lady Poverty with great love and embraced Sister Death. Whilst dying, asked his beloved brothers to lower him to the bare ground, without clothes and ended his life in a very simple manner, being buried near the chapel dedicated to Mother Mary. He died praising God and singing Psalms 41.  It is remarkable that the order he founded, the Franciscans, follow to the letter the directives of St Francis to this day, and I witness this from my close association with the Franciscans.

I think the great influence of St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis of Assisi on his life, is the reason that Pope Francis worked till the very last day of his life through the Easter Tridium, washing feet, addressing the faithful in the St Peter’s Square, being driven in his beloved Popemobile and even receiving the US Vice President J D Vance.  The video and picture grabs from that last day shows he was clearly unwell, but he pushed through, for us, doing the work faithfully till the end that he was entrusted to do, just as St Ignatius did.

He also wanted a simple life as St Francis did, even in death. This is the reason Pope Francis wanted a simple burial, in a simple wooden cask in the papal Basilica of St Mary Major, giving up the pomp of a Papal Funeral, which would have had three nesting coffins made of cypress, lead and oak, besides other symbols  including being buried in the Vatican grottos below St Peter’s Basilica. He leaves this world and the Papacy as he started it, in simplicity and humility.

I look through what Pope Francis said on death , and this address seems apt:

“Our whole life appears like a seed that will have to be buried so that its flower and its fruit can be born. It will be born, along with everything else in the world. Not without labor pains, not without pain, but it will be born.

And the life of the risen body will be a hundred and a thousand times more alive than we have tasted it on this earth.”   – Pope Francis

The words of St Francis of Assisi come to mind, as it seems to be the way that Pope Francis lived his life:

“Keep a clear eye toward life’s end. Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God’s creature. What you are in his sight is what you are and nothing more. Remember that when you leave this earth, you can take nothing that you have received…but only what you have given; a full heart enriched by honest service, love, sacrifice, and courage.”
― Francis of Assisi

Requiescat in Pace Franciscus

The post The Influence of St Ignatius and St Francis on Franciscus appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

The commentaries on the life and death of Pope Francis have been about his life and his work.  They include the statements of bishops here in California and in India and by the international Global Goenkars community.  Few had a working relationship with him during his papacy except for Cardinal Gracias of Mumbai and our Joseph Naik Vaz Institute.

For example, Cardinal Felipe Neri of Goa and Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Mumbai, and Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco praised his saintly life and his caring concern for the poor and the marginalised who suffer most from economic injustice and environmental damage, and for his appeals for compassion and help to immigrants and refugees.  Everyone was unanimous in praising his reforms within the Church.  They referred to their meetings with the very approachable Pope, and his warmth toward all people he met.  Some praised him for his efforts at inclusivity toward women, and other communities such as the LGBT community.  Pope Francis showed Christ’s all-embracing love and compassion toward all.

We have a different Pope Francis story to tell:  Our St. Joseph Vaz connections

First, the amazing coincidence of the day.  Pope Francis died on April 21, the birthday of St. Joseph Vaz whom His Holiness canonized in 2015.  He gave us Goans, Mangaloreans, and Sri Lankans — our first canonized Saint.  We are honored by this mysterious coincidence of the date of his entry into eternal life and the “Communion of Saints” and the birthday of the Saint the Church calls the Son of India, and Apostle of Sri Lanka and Kanara (India).

Another Pope Francis-Vaz link to is that both had a pastoral love for refugees.

Pope Francis spoke about the need to help and support immigrants and refugees, even a few days before his death.  We have this precious refugee link to Pope Francis in that he canonized Saint Joseph Vaz who came as a refugee from Dutch persecution in northern Sri Lanka to the Buddhist kingdom of Kandy.  St. Joseph Vaz spent 23 years caring for and ministering to refugees in Sri Lanka, as Pope Francis has asked us to do, giving them the Eucharist, food and material help, nursing care at his clinics around Sri Lanka.

At his Canonization, Pope Francis praised St. Joseph Vaz as a model of Christian charity and what the Church herself does, taking care of those in need and those who are sick, just as St. Joseph Vaz had done during a smallpox epidemic in Kandy.

One final Vaz link to Pope Francis is my encounter with Cardinal Mario Grech, Pope Francis’ closest advisor on the Synod, just three weeks before His Holiness passed away.   We met on April 4^th this year at the Conference on “Synod and Mission” organised by the Jesuit Santa Clara University.  I was able to tell Cardinal Grech that St. Joseph Vaz trained the laity to run his network of underground chapels and churches that he organised under Dutch persecution, just as Pope Francis wants us to do.  His Indian Oratorians and this loyal Sri Lankan Catholic laity ran that persecuted Church for 146 years when they were cut off from Rome.  Thus St. Joseph Vaz, his Indian missionaries, and his Sri Lankan Laity were the forerunners and models of synodal missionaries that Pope Francis was advocating for in the future Church.

I was able to send Cardinal Grech as well as to Santa Clara University, and to the Jesuit School of Theology, our heartfelt condolences on the death of Pope Francis and to say that by a beautiful spiritual coincidence, our Synodal Pope and future saint had passed into eternal life on the April 21^st birthday of our Synodal Missionary Saint Joseph Vaz.

Filomena Saraswatif Giese heads Joseph Naik Vaz Institute at Berkeley, California

The post Pope Francis Died on the Birthday of St. Joseph Vaz appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

The Morning After: Grief, Memory, and a Piercing Realization

The news of Pope Francis’s passing came quietly, amid the clamour of a world too accustomed to loss. For many, it was just another headline; for those of us who had witnessed his efforts to reshape the Church, it marked the end of an era. It feels as though we’ve lost the last bridge between radical Christian hope and political action—between faith and the world it seeks to transform.

This grief is not merely personal; it is deeply political. Pope Francis was no flawless saviour, but his papacy represented an unprecedented attempt to challenge the Church’s centuries-old structures of power. He confronted not only the entrenched conservative Catholicism but also the broader, invisible forces that maintain empires, suppress marginalized voices, and co-opt spirituality to serve control.

Synodality as Disruption: A New Theology of Power

Pope Francis’s vision of Synodality was not just about procedural reforms—it was a direct challenge to the hierarchical, top-down system of the Church. His call for synodality embodied a theology of listening, of walking together. It was an echo of the early Church, of liberation theology, and of grassroots organizing. It sought to reclaim power with the people, rather than asserting control over them.

He tried to shift the Church from a one-way monologue to a dialogue—a horizontal discernment rather than a vertical command. But even within this vision, there was the ever-present risk of tokenism. We have all seen, within institutions—religious and secular alike—how participation can often become little more than a show. Committees take the place of communities, and “walking together” turns into a well-funded parade that leaves the marginalized at the gates.

This is not a critique of synodality itself, but of the institutional resistance to true change. Those who benefit from unseen power often disguise themselves with the language of participation, while quietly maintaining the status quo.

The Mirror Between Church and World: Neoliberal Humanitarianism and the Replication of Power

For many of us working within rights based approach to development and humanitarian organizations, especially those linked to religious institutions, the contradictions are stark. These institutions often speak the language of justice, empowerment, and accompaniment, but in practice, they remain hierarchical, patriarchal, and disconnected from the people they claim to serve.

Much like the Church, these organizations mirror the same structures they profess to critique. They are caught in webs of donor dependence, performative inclusion, and bureaucratic reporting. Leadership remains centralized, and local voices—especially Indigenous ones—are absorbed into structures that offer platforms but not real power.

This is not by accident; it is the system working as intended. The same neoliberal logic that drives global capital has infected humanitarian work, privatizing suffering and professionalizing solidarity. In this landscape, Pope Francis’s call for a synodal Church was a radical political act—a challenge to the managerialism that has become the dominant force even within faith-based work. And for this, he was loved, despised, misunderstood, and ultimately resisted.

Francis Against the Machine: Why His Revolution May Never Be Realised

If Vatican II cracked open a window, Pope Francis tried to blow the doors wide open. But revolutions do not flourish in environments thick with compromise. His gestures—washing the feet of prisoners, embracing migrants, apologizing to Indigenous Peoples—were powerful. But symbolic acts, while necessary, cannot undo the centuries of doctrine that have been shaped by colonialism and patriarchy.

He appointed laywomen, championed climate justice, and challenged the idolatry of markets. Yet the Church’s machine remained largely intact. The Curia adapted without transforming. Bishops who should have echoed his radical vision chose silence, or worse, sabotaged it.

Francis, the revolutionary shepherd, often found himself walking alone. His vision was not just about a pastoral shift, but a radical reordering of power—from Rome to the margins, from clerics to communities, from secrecy to synodality. It was a vision too large for the Church’s current structure to hold, and like so many prophets before him, his ideas may only find life in the struggle of those who continue after his death.

The Empire Within: Why the Church Mirrors the World It Seeks to Transform

The Catholic Church doesn’t just operate in the world—it mirrors it. Its structures often reproduce the same caste hierarchies, patriarchal norms, and exclusionary politics found in the states and systems it critiques.

In India, for example, those fighting Hindu supremacy or corporate hegemony must also contend with caste-based discrimination inside Catholic dioceses. The Church’s discomfort with feminism and indigenous autonomy often mirrors the anxieties of postcolonial nation-states. The bishops, called to be shepherds, often become gatekeepers. And the People of God are reduced to passive recipients of liturgy and aid rather than active agents of history.

This contradiction is not merely spiritual—it is deeply political. It is about who has the power to decide, who is listened to, and who benefits. Until the Church confronts its own internal empire, its gospel will remain fragmented, and its mission domesticated.

In Pope Francis, we saw a Church willing to confront this empire. His death should not mark the end of that vision—it must serve as the spark that ignites the prophetic imagination of the faithful, from the Andes to the hills of Northeast India, from the Amazon to Bangkok. Prophets don’t die. They multiply.

The Synodality That Might Never Be—Unless…

If the Church allows the moment Pope Francis created with bare hands—worn, bruised, mocked, and resisted—to slip away, it may never come again. Synodality is not a project or a program; it is a reckoning. It is not mere consultation; it is confrontation—with one’s own comfort, collusion, and conscience.

Francis did not simply suggest walking together—he shattered the floor that kept the laity below and raised the prophetic voices from the periphery. Yet, like Vatican II, synodality is already at risk of being diluted with curated listening, bureaucratic diagrams, and doctrinal anesthetization. “Unity,” they say, “requires order.” But order without justice is not unity—it is enforced silence.

The betrayal is already underway.

Across the world—Latin America, India, Oceania, Africa, from the Amazon to Asia—bishops and religious leaders continue to weaponize silence, paternalism, and ecclesial opacity. They invoke tradition to maintain control. They keep dialogue superficial. They confuse power with pastoral care. The synodal process is either being co-opted or ignored altogether. As with Vatican II, the real fear is not failure, but slow suffocation—the slow dismantling of a dream that is quietly buried.

What Then Must Emerge?

A Church no longer obsessed with purity, but hungry for justice. A Church that isn’t afraid of Marxists, feminists, Indigenous spiritualities, or queerness—but one that is curious, wounded, and humble enough to learn from those it once exiled. A Church where the hierarchy understands it must listen more than speak, and speak only after walking with the wounded. A Church that can say, “We were wrong”—and still live.

For synodality to endure, it must break open the sacristies and secretariats. It must expose the caste systems within dioceses. It must end the clericalism in religious orders. It must no longer treat women as appendages in a masculine salvation story. It must recognize that “walking together” is not just poetry—it is praxis. And praxis, as Latin American theologians have taught us, is always political.

This is not about reform. It is about metanoia—a fundamental transformation of soul, structure, and story.

If this fails, the Church will not die. But it will ossify. It will become a museum of rituals detached from the cries of the Earth and the crucified of history. It will preach from pulpits but weep in catacombs.

But if it succeeds—if the laity rise, if the peripheries speak, if the Church remembers the weight of the Gospels and the wounds of the people—then the synodality that Pope Francis began will become not just a phase, but a future.

And that future, like the Galilean he followed, will begin not in Rome…

James Pochury is an Executive Member of the Indian Catholic Forum of the North East.

The post Prophets Don’t Die, They Multiply: Pope Francis, the Struggle for Power, and the Church’s Missed Revolution appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

# chhotebhai –

Focus now shifted to the Camerlengo (the papal custodian till the election of the new pope).  It was now his duty to follow the guidelines for the election of a new pope as specified in Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 22/2/1996, with minor changes made by Pope Francis.  The Camerlengo, after declaring the See vacant, had to give 15 days to a maximum 20 days notice to the cardinals to assemble in Rome for the Conclave[1].

There were several conditions pertaining to secrecy and any outside interference.  Before the actual election process started there could be a fair exchange of views[2]. But the electors were forbidden to make promises in exchange of votes, even in private gatherings[3], and any kind of Simony (financial considerations) would result in latae sententiae excommunication[4].

For the Conclave all the Cardinal Electors would be housed in St Martha’s Hostel[5].  Once they entered the Sistine Chapel total secrecy would have to be maintained. The chapel would be sanitised for any audiovisual recording devices[6].  Nor would they be allowed access to any forms of communication that could influence their decisions[7].  The secrecy of the election process would have to be maintained even after the elections[8].

There was an elaborate process of checking, counting and scrutinizing the ballots.  Voting would be by secret ballot.  A two thirds majority was required for a person to be elected[9]. On the first day of voting there would be only one ballot, and subsequently two ballots a day[10]. All inconclusive ballots had to be burnt before the next ballot[11].  Even personal notes made by the electors during the balloting would be simultaneously burnt[12]. If after three days there was no result then there would be a one day break for prayer and discussion among the electors themselves.  After 7 ballots there would a break, then again another 7 ballots[13]. If despite the process there was no two thirds majority, then only the two persons with the highest number of votes would remain in the fray, and whoever of those two got the highest votes, would be declared elected[14].

Such person would be asked to give his consent and not refuse for fear or weight of office[15].  He would then be asked to state by which name he would like to be known[16]. Interestingly, nowhere in the electoral process is there mention of black or white smoke emanating from the chimney to indicate the outcome of the ballots.  These were probably popular traditions that got added to the process.

Now that Pope Francis was no more, speculation was rife on his successor.  There were comments on his papacy, but far from as critical as those for when Pope Benedict XVI had announced his resignation on 10^th February 2013.

At that time the Agence France Presse (AFP) had described him as a “diehard traditionalist and a lightening rod of controversy”, one who had “rejected the ordination of women and marriage of priests”.  He had “championed Christianity’s European roots” and had “fiercely opposed abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage” and had “reintroduced the long discarded Latin mass”. He had a “disastrous public relations record that got him into hot water with Muslims, Jews, gays, native Indians, Poles, AIDS activists and even scientists”.  In September 2006 “he appeared to endorse the view of an obscure 14^th century Byzantine emperor that Islam is inherently violent”.

The New York Times was equally scathing in its comments.  It too described his papacy “as both conservative and contentious”.  He had asserted that “Catholicism is true and other religions are deficient; in that the modern, secular world, especially in Europe, is spiritually weak, and that Catholicism is in competition with Islam”. CNN Rome noted that “Benedict’s time as pope has been marked with a series of scandals and controversies, including hundreds of new allegations of sexual abuse by priests”.

However, a non-Christian writer was more charitable, not so much to Benedict, but to the Catholic Church as an institution.  Farrukh Dhondy described himself as a deeply sceptical cultural, non-ritualistic Zoroastrian”[17]. He opined that “Nothing becomes Benedict’s office as his leaving of it”[18]. He felt that “through his resignation he demonstrated for our sceptical times that the papacy is not a throne, but a grave responsibility”[19].

He had words of wisdom for the church.  “No other religion in the world today has the means to boost such a humble and at the same time grand gesture.  It is an affirmation by a man of faith of the sacrifice that faith teaches.  The world knows that Roman Catholicism has been persecuted and was also a cruelly persecuting religion … but it has settled down.  It has no fundamentalists because it sees itself as fundamental.  It has no jihadists, no terrorist training camps, no official crooks or conmen founding cults and making money, no badly managed rituals in which people are crushed to death”[20].  He concludes that “with enhanced respect, there is also a pontiff who resigns power through awesome humility”[21].

The Economic Times (ET) looked at the papacy or the Catholic Church from the economic point of view.  Paris based business writer Bennet Voyles proffered some interesting information in the ET Magazine[22]. He says “The Church is still an enormous enterprise.  Shuttered churches in Europe and the US may give the impression that the Church is fading away, but a look at its account books suggests otherwise.  In the US alone, the “Economist” estimates, the church spends about 170 billion dollars on hospitals and other charities every year.  More money that 495 of the Fortune 500 earn … The church is the single largest land owner in Manhattan … In Italy the church owned about 20% of all commercial real estate … Worldwide estimates of church holdings were 177 million acres, which stitched together as a single parcel would amount to a country larger than France”[23]. So there was a lot more at stake than just doctrinal issues.  So much for the followers of him who had said, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; the son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mat 8:20).

In contrast, criticism of Francis’ papacy was muted, probably because of his very lovable persona and lifestyle that was indeed worthy of emulation.  The questions were more along the lines of what Rev Desmond deSouza CssR had raised.  “Was his papacy more a matter of style than substance?  Had he walked to the edge of the river, then seeing the raging torrent, stepped back?”  However, he left very little room for criticism from dispassionate observers.  The fiercest criticism, as was to be expected, came from the well heeled conservative lobby.

Speculation for the next pope was rife.  Even bookies got into the act; not having learnt their lessons.  After Benedict’s resignation in 2013, “Paddy Power, Ireland’s largest bookmaker, is now offering 11/4 odds on Angelo Scola, Cardinal of Venice, 7/2 on Peter Turkson of Ghana, and 9/2 on Marc Ouellet of Quebec, Canada.  Meanwhile, across the Irish Sea, Ladbrokes has Cardinal Turkson in the lead, followed by Marc Ouellet and Angelo Scola”[24]. They got it wrong.

A Reuters report in the Hindustan Times was titled “New Pope from Latin America, Africa?”[25] It observed that “the time may be coming for the Roman Catholic Church to elect its first non-European leader, and it could be a Latin American”[26]. Cardinal Kurt Koch of Zurich, Switzerland, had then said, “It would be good if there were candidates from Africa or South America”[27].  William Hall bookmakers had put odds of 2-1 on Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, 5-2 on Turkson, followed again by Ouellet.  All wrong.

Even deSouza, who had served at the Vatican, was off the mark.  Among the probables that he listed were Turkson again, followed by Monsengwo of Kinshasa, Robert Sarah from Guinea, all Africans; Luis Tagle of the Philippines, and five Latin Americans – Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras, Leonardo Sandri of Argentina, and three Brazilians – Odilo Scherer of Sao Paolo, Claudio Hummes and Joao de Aviz[28]. Nevertheless deSouza did have prophetic insight when he said “The cardinals will probably look for a pope who will retire after 10-15 years or so”[29]. This certainly proved true in the case of the one they chose – Francis.

The cardinal electors had gathered in Rome.  They entered the Sistine Chapel.  The seal of secrecy was imposed.  The question this time was, not so much who, as from where?  Again Europe and North America, the white supremacists, seemed to have been ruled out.  The toss up was between another Latin American, African or Asian.

At the previous conclave the major concern was the credibility of the church, hence they chose a credible face like Bergoglio.  Now the electors were looking for somebody with a background in moral theology and pastoral experience, not those sitting in curial bureaucratic offices.  They were also deeply concerned about the catholicity (universality) of the church, rather than its Roman appendage.

Crowds gathered.  TV Crews were looking for vantage points from where they could spot the chimney of the chapel, as also the balcony where the new pope would appear.  After the 7^th ballot, which was at noon on the third day, white smoke emerged from the chimney.  A pope had been elected.  The alacrity with which the choice was made indicated a great degree of consensus.

Before the Conclave began, the bookies were at it again.  Among the hot favourites were Pietro Parolin (born 1955) the Italian, who was Secretary of State, Luis Antonio Tagle (1957) Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelisation from the Philippines, Reinhard Marx (1953) from Munich who was also the Co-ordinator for the Council of Economy, Baselios Thottunkal (1959) head of the Syro–Malankara Rite from Trivandrum, Joseph Tobin CssR (1952) from Newark USA, Angelo de Donatis (1954) the Vicar General of Rome, Miguel Guixot (1952) of Spain in charge of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Jean-Claude Hollerich SJ (1958) from Luxemburg, Cristobal Romero Sdb (1952) from Rabat, Morroco and Diendonne Nzapalainga CSSp (1967) from the Central African Republic,.  The odds on favourites were Parolin (Italy) and Tagle (Philippines).

Though the white smoke had emerged at noon, till 4 pm there was no sign of the Camerlengo emerging with his Latin announcement “Habemus Papam”.  The crowd  got restive to see the next man donning the white robes of the pope. Tradition had it that the Vatican tailor would always keep three sizes of papal robes ready, so that at least one would fit the new incumbent.  At 5 pm the drapes parted and the Camerlengo appeared.  There was a hushed silence and then joyous shouts of Viva il Papa. Instead of the traditional Latin, the Camerlengo used the local Italian to announce “Noi abbiamo un papa”. Was this in itself a portent of what was to come?  Was the new pope an Italian after all? Oh the Holy Spirit and its surprises!  Nothing white appeared; neither a white face, not a white garment.  The face was ebony black, and the garment was a chocolate brown.  The man to emerge on the balcony was Cardinal Fridolin Besungu, a Capuchin, from the archdiocese of Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, earlier known as Zaire or the Belgian Congo.  It was the largest diocese in Africa.

This is an abridged version. A few months after its publication the relatively unknown Fridolin was made one of Pope Francis’ 9 advisors.

 [1] UDG No 37

[2] Ibid No 81

[3] Ibid No 79

[4] Ibid No 78

[5] Ibid No 42

[6] Ibid No 51

[7] Ibid No 57

[8] Ibid No 60

[9] Ibid No 62

[10] Ibid No 63

[11] Ibid Nos 68/70

[12] Ibid No 71

[13] Ibid No 74

[14] Ibid No 75

[15] Ibid No 86

[16] Ibid No 87

[17] “Leaving Office Early”, Farrukh Dhondy, Hindustan Times dt 15/2/2013

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid

[20] Farrukh Dhondy

[21] Ibid

[22] “Punting on the New Pope”, Bennet  Voyles, The ET Magazine dt 17-23/2/13

[23] Ibid

[24] Ibid

[25] Hindustan Times dt 12/2/13

[26] Ibid

[27] Hindustan Times dt 12/2/13

[28] “Glimpses into the Uniqueness of Recent Popes”, Desmond deSouza CssR, Pgs 41-43

[29] Ibid

The post After Francis, Who? appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

Dr. Fr. John Singarayar SVD –

At 9:45 AM on Easter Monday, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Camerlengo of the Apostolic Chamber, announced the death of Pope Francis from the Casa Santa Marta: “Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.” These solemn words marked the end of an extraordinary pontificate that transformed not just the Catholic Church but our collective moral imagination.

In an era wounded by division and moral uncertainty, Pope Francis did more than lead—he illuminated. For over a decade, his pontificate transcended religious boundaries to become a resounding moral imperative for humanity. With disarming simplicity and uncompromising conviction, he confronted our most pressing challenges—inequality, climate change, migration, and the erosion of human dignity—cutting through the cacophony of modern discourse with a voice that was both gentle in tone and revolutionary in substance. Francis did not merely describe the world’s problems; he demanded we confront our complicity in them.

The seeds of Francis’s prophetic voice were planted long before he became pope. Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Italian immigrant parents in Buenos Aires, his working-class roots—his father a railway worker, his mother a homemaker—shaped a worldview where theoretical justice never eclipsed lived reality. His journey from chemistry student to Jesuit priest in 1969 to Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998 was marked by an increasing radicalization toward solidarity with the marginalized. While other prelates inhabited palaces, he earned the title “slum bishop” by choosing public buses over limousines and the company of the poor over the powerful. When he ascended to the Church’s highest office at 76, these weren’t merely biographical details but the essential formation of a leader who understood oppression not from books but from walking alongside the oppressed.

From his first appearance on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in 2013, Francis signaled transformation. Rejecting the ornate trappings of his position for a simple white cassock, choosing a Vatican guesthouse over the papal palace, and traveling in an unassuming Fiat, he embodied his message before speaking a word. In a world obsessed with status and consumption, his lifestyle became a living sermon on priorities and values. These were not calculated gestures but authentic expressions of a man who understood that genuine authority comes through service rather than dominance.

Francis’s prophetic voice resonated most powerfully in his relentless advocacy for the marginalized. His 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium condemned an “economy of exclusion” that treats humans as disposable. Unlike many religious leaders who speak in safe generalities, Francis delivered specific, pointed critiques of economic systems that prioritize profit over people. He amplified the voices of refugees fleeing violence, workers trapped in exploitation, and indigenous communities displaced by corporate interests. During his 2015 Bolivia visit, he took the extraordinary step of apologizing for the Church’s role in colonial oppression, facing historical wounds with rare institutional humility.

His 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ cemented his prophetic legacy by framing environmental destruction as a moral crisis inextricably linked to poverty and social inequality. This landmark document wove together scientific evidence, spiritual wisdom, and ethical imperatives, resonating far beyond Catholic circles to inspire secular environmentalists and world leaders. By calling for an “ecological conversion,” Francis challenged humanity to heal our relationship with the planet not just through policy changes but through spiritual transformation. At global climate summits, his moral authority added urgency to technical discussions, reminding negotiators that environmental decisions are fundamentally about human values.

These positions inevitably sparked controversy. Catholic traditionalists accused him of diluting doctrine when he emphasized mercy over strict interpretation regarding divorce, same-sex relationships, and interfaith dialogue. His critiques of unfettered capitalism alienated conservative economic thinkers. His 2019 document promoting brotherhood with Muslim leaders triggered resistance from some Christians. Yet this very resistance underscored his prophetic nature—throughout history, authentic prophets have unsettled the comfortable and challenged entrenched power. Francis’s willingness to endure criticism reflected a commitment to truth over popularity.

What distinguished Francis’s prophetic voice was his dialogic approach. Rather than pronouncing from on high, he engaged with humility and openness. His historic 2021 meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in a modest home in Iraq exemplified how genuine dialogue builds peace through mutual respect. Within the Church, his push for “synodality”—a process of listening before deciding—sought to heal divisions through inclusive conversation. His universal appeal crystallized in Fratelli Tutti (2020), which envisioned global fraternity transcending borders and ideologies.

Perhaps most revolutionary was Francis’s embodied theology—his understanding that prophetic witness requires not just proclamation but incarnation. When he washed the feet of Muslim women prisoners, embraced a man with severe neurofibromatosis whom others could not bear to touch, or navigated war zones to console the forgotten victims of geopolitical chess games, he transformed abstract Christian principles into flesh-and-blood imperatives. These weren’t calculated photo opportunities but sacramental moments that proclaimed: true compassion crosses boundaries, touches the untouchable, and stands with those society has deemed disposable.

As humanity faces unprecedented existential threats, Francis’s voice echoes not just as comfort but as challenge. He claimed no supernatural insight, only the moral clarity that comes from standing with—not merely speaking for—the marginalized. Critics dismissed him as a political interloper or doctrinal diluter, but history’s verdict will likely be kinder than his contemporaries’. As Cardinal Farrell reflected in his solemn announcement, “His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and of His Church. He taught us to live the values of the Gospel with fidelity, courage, and universal love, especially in favor of the poorest and most marginalized.”

Francis’s true legacy lies not in ecclesiastical reforms or diplomatic achievements, significant though these were, but in his fundamental reframing of what constitutes authentic spiritual leadership in our fragmented century. He showed that prophecy is not primarily prediction but the courage to name present injustice and imagine alternative futures. As we commend his soul “to the infinite merciful love of the One and Triune God,” perhaps our most fitting tribute is not simply admiration but transformation—allowing our encounters with the marginalized to radicalize us as his did him, building the “culture of encounter” he envisioned until the day when no child of God is considered peripheral, no creature disposable.

The post Francis Challenged Us When We Needed It Most appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

By Lavoisier Fernandes –

Pope Francis’ 12-year papacy brings to mind the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, who described Providence as “prudentia Dei”—the prudence of God. This sentiment echoes with Pope Francis’ own words in one of his catechesis: “Our God is a God of surprises.”

Looking back at the Pontificate of Pope Francis, it is evident that he has been an undeniably  “providential” Successor of Peter, reflecting the divine prudence of God, which is filled with unexpected surprises.

When Pope Francis stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica for the first time, the world was caught off guard. Many had expected a different outcome, as he was not a frontrunner. Yet, his election marked a series of historic firsts: the first pope from the Western Hemisphere, the first from South America, and the first Jesuit to lead the Church. This unanticipated moment foreshadowed a papacy that would continually surprise and challenge expectations.

His leadership was marked by grace, often misunderstood, but always rooted in a deep commitment to living the Gospel. He became, to many, a Pope of surprises, unwavering in his trust in the God of surprises.

A Pope of Gestures and Pastoral Vision

Reflecting on the papacy,  it is clear that Pope Francis was not just a leader of words, but of gestures—actions that spoke of his deeply pastoral vision.

More significantly, for the Universal Catholic Church, he was a revelation—prompting the Church to move beyond tradition while remaining firmly rooted in the deposit of faith, always led by the Holy Spirit, and thus inviting the Church into a true encounter with Christ.

Discernment, encounter, and accompaniment were key themes of his pontificate whilst highlighting the mercy and tenderness of God. He revived pastoral theology, emphasized the importance of caring for creation, championed synodality —thus making synodality the heart of his approach to Church governance and dialogue.

So to his teachings and writings were not new in Catholic moral doctrine, they were just presented in a different style compared to his predecessors whilst having this exceptional ability to communicate in a simple language, engaging with pastoral challenges head-on, both in his writings and off-the-cuff comments, and as the late Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster and a close confidant of Pope Francis, once shared with me in a radio interview:

“Everybody relates to Pope Francis because he always meets people where they are. We all have ambitions; we all strive for holiness. But Pope Francis says, ‘This is who you are, this is where you are—now let’s take a step forward towards what is good.’ And people connect with that. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Catholic, Christian, from another faith, or have no faith at all—Pope Francis will still speak to you, he will be warm towards you, and he will engage with you.“

Embraced the Franciscan Attitude

Drawing inspiration from St. Francis of Assisi and his commitment to simplicity and humility, Pope Francis embraced these cardinal virtues of the Christian life, advocating a “poor church for the poor.”

From the outset, Pope Francis broke with papal tradition in both word and action. On his first Maundy Thursday, he washed the feet of women inmates, sending a powerful message of inclusion and equality. He chose to live in the modest Casa Santa Marta, for the luxurious papal apartments, and wore a simple pectoral cross—the same one he had as a bishop. Refusing the red papal shoes, the ornate mozetta (cape), and the white rochet (lace surplice), Pope Francis represented the spirit of servant leadership.

In keeping with his simplicity, Pope Francis also travelled in small, affordable cars like the Ford Focus and Fiat, rejecting the use of luxury vehicles. He preferred to refer to himself as the “Bishop of Rome” instead of the more formal titles of “Pope” or “Supreme Pontiff,” reinforcing his desire to remain close to the people he served. He also chose not to stay at the luxurious papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, enduring the summer heat in Rome to remain accessible to the faithful.

Reforming the Vatican Curia Unlike Any Since Vatican II

Pope Francis approached the long-standing issue of Vatican Curia reform with fresh eyes, seeking to restructure Church governance for greater efficiency and transparency. His apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangelium (“Preach the Gospel”) introduced significant changes that had been in discussion since Vatican II, marking the most significant reform to the Curia in decades and emphasized that :

“The Roman Curia is not set between the Pope and the Bishops, but is at the service of both, according to the modalities proper to the nature of each.“

A significant aspect of the reform was the inclusion of laypeople in important leadership positions within Vatican offices. For example, the reform now allows for a nun to be appointed as the head of the Dicastery for Bishops, and a female theologian to lead the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, a role that has traditionally been held by Cardinals. Additionally, the reform also paves the way for a layperson to potentially serve as Secretary of State, a position that has historically been reserved for clergy.

A pastoral reform was the update of matrimonial nullity trials, introduced in Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et misericors Iesus (2015). These reforms streamlined the process with a single judge system, focused on Pastoral accompaniment, and transferred the responsibility for implementation to local dioceses. By maintaining the Church’s commitment to the indissolubility of marriage while emphasizing pastoral accompaniment, these changes sought to make the Church more compassionate and responsive to individuals facing difficult marital situations.

Similarly, his commitment to transparency in addressing the clergy abuse crisis went further by enforcing zero-tolerance policies, mandatory reporting, background checks for seminarians, and safeguarding reforms. He also removed the former pontifical secrecy that had hindered investigations into abuse cases. This move played a key role in restoring trust in the Church, both within and with the wider public.

Championing Human Dignity and Social Justice

In the aftermath of scandals and crises that had significantly damaged the Church’s credibility in the new millennium, coupled with declining Church attendance, Pope Francis sought to restore the Church’s moral standing in public opinion. His papacy emphasized mercy, humility, and outreach to marginalized communities. Rather than confronting secularization head-on, Pope Francis engaged with it, reclaiming Christian values that had often been poached by secular society and presenting them as core principles—values with deep roots in Church tradition, not modern-day inventions.

Pope Francis also challenged conservative factions within the Church, much like Jesus challenged the Pharisees. He pushed for liturgical changes and confronted clericalism while staying deeply grounded in the deposit of faith and Church doctrine.

His advocacy for social justice—addressing issues like poverty, climate change, and the refugee crisis—redefined the Church as a champion of human dignity. His focus on issues such as divorce, same-sex relationships, and the struggles of those living in sin reinforced the Church’s commitment to compassion and mercy.

Along with these initiatives, Pope Francis also highlighted the significance of interfaith dialogue and global peacebuilding, aiming to promote understanding and collaboration among different religious groups.

“Remember to Pray for Me”: A Humble Request

Pope Francis began his papacy with a simple but profound request: “Remember to pray for me.” This call for prayer became a constant theme throughout his interactions with people, from world leaders to everyday faithful. During a 2013 flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome, he shared  that asking for prayers was a lifelong practice, especially after becoming a bishop. “I feel I have many weaknesses and problems; I am a sinner too,” he confessed, offering a deeply personal insight into his request.

As a man of prayer who sought to live the Gospel, Pope Francis challenged us Catholics to love, engage in genuine prayer, and to build a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

His spiritual discipline was well-known—he went to confession every two weeks and kept an early morning routine, rising at 4 a.m. to spend the first two hours in prayer, scripture study, and preparing for the day’s homily.

A Final Prayer

As we reflect on the gift of Pope Francis’ papacy, we continue to pray for him. Let us join in this prayer for our departed Papa Francesco :

“O God, faithful rewarder of souls, grant that your departed servant Pope Francis, whom you made successor of Peter and shepherd of your Church, may joyfully dwell forever in your presence in heaven, enjoying the mysteries of your grace and compassion, which he faithfully served on earth.”

The post Papa Francesco: The Pope of Surprises appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

In the heart of Velankanni, a small village in Nagapattinam district of India’s southern state of Tamil Nadu, lies a haven of hope for 36 orphaned and poor children.

The historic Basilica of Our Lady of Good Health is situated in Velankanni. This Marian Shrine is popularly known as the ‘Lourdes of the East.’

It all started in the early Nineties when Benedictine Brother Johnson Joseph came to Velankanni as a pilgrim. The pitiable condition of underprivileged children moved him. He was drawn by a sense of divine calling to begin a mission that would positively impact the lives of underprivileged and weaker children.

He then sought permission from his Order to begin his ministry to serve the orphaned children of Velankanni and its surroundings.

Over the years, the Divine Mercy Educational and Charitable Trust, founded by Bro. Johnson and ably supported by Sister Maria and Sister Margaret from Koinonia John the Baptist (KJB), has become a beacon of light for these young souls, providing them with a safe and nurturing environment to grow and thrive.

The trust’s mission has evolved over the years to become a comprehensive institution that not only educates but also spiritually nurtures its young residents.

Mercy Home for Children, the trust’s flagship institution, is a testament to the power of compassion and dedication. This home, established in 2010, is a place where children from various age groups and standards, from classes four to degree, come together to form a family that is truly divine. The home’s infrastructure, comprising comfortable concrete buildings with serene green surroundings, includes bedrooms, a TV room, study areas, and prayer rooms. This tranquil setting provides the perfect backdrop for the children to focus on their studies and personal growth.

The trust operates in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, ensuring that its residents receive the best possible care and protection. With a maximum capacity of 30 children (16 boys and 14 girls), the institution is committed to providing a personalized and supportive environment for each child.

The daily routine at Mercy Home for Children is filled with a mix of study hours, recreational activities, and spiritual practices. The children are encouraged to engage in prayers and yoga, which not only helps them develop physically but also fosters a sense of inner peace and calm. This holistic approach to education and personal growth sets the trust apart from other institutions.

What truly sets these children apart, however, is their unique spirit. Their smiles, discipline, and diligent gaze are a testament to the positive impact of the trust’s efforts. As you enter the gate, you are greeted with a warm welcome and a sense of belonging, as if these children are your own sons and daughters. Their smiles and soft voices share both their joys and pains, and their laughter and tears are a poignant reminder of the challenges they have faced.

Despite the hardships they have endured, these children have found a sense of belonging and hope at Mercy Home for Children. One of the girls is pursuing her studies to become a nurse and another one is keen on pursuing medicine. The trust’s commitment to their well-being and education has given them a sense of purpose and direction, and their smiles and laughter are a testament to the power of compassion and dedication.

Under government regulations, Mercy Home is now challenged with the prospect of having to separate the boys and girls as they attain puberty. There’s an urgent need to set up another facility to accommodate them separately and also to cater to more number of deprived children. This involves huge costs and infrastructure. The Trust’s meagre financial capability is under heavy strain. Any support to this cause is most welcome. Donations to the trust are tax-exempt under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act of 1961, making it easier for individuals and organizations to contribute to the noble cause.

For those who wish to contribute to the trust’s mission, there are several ways to do so. The trust’s bank details are as follows:

Divine Mercy Educational and Charitable Trust
Bank: South Indian Bank
Branch: Velankanni, Tamil Nadu – 611102
IFSC: SIBL0000913
Account Number: 0913073000000006
Email: mercyhomevelai@gmail.com
Mobile: +919952588519

By supporting the Divine Mercy Educational Trust, individuals can help provide a brighter future for these young souls. The trust’s commitment to empowering orphaned and poor children is a shining example of the power of compassion and dedication, and it is a beacon of hope for those who have lost some bit of their lives.

The post A Haven of Hope at Velankanni: Mercy Home Needs Your Help appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

 Trump has weaponized tariffs to subject both friend and foe. He has even weaponized (appropriated) the Bible to further his self-centred goals. Sacred Scripture, like anything else, can be used or abused. It’s like a knife. It can be used in a well-lit kitchen to chop vegetables, or in a dark alley to slit throats.

When I turned 18 my father, who prayed the Bible every morning, gave me a verse on the armour of God from St Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph 6:14-17). It was a life lesson for me.

In the last verse Paul says that the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17). The author of the letter to the Hebrews, earlier believed to be Paul, uses the same simile, “The Word of God is something alive and active; it cuts more incisively than any two edged sword; it can seek out the place where soul is divided from spirit, or joints from marrow, it can pass judgement on secret emotions and thoughts” (Heb 4:12-13).

Peter uses another simile. “Your birth was not from some perishable seed but from the imperishable seed, the living and enduring Word of God” (1 Pet 1:23). The seed is life giving, the sword is life saving; both essential for one’s spiritual well being.

How were these apostles attracted to the Word of God? From their guru, Jesus. We have just entered Lent. The gospel reading for the first Sunday was about Jesus’ temptation (cf Lk 4:1-13). We would have heard myriads of sermons about it. The focus invariably is on the temptations, not on how Jesus countered them. A careful study shows that Jesus used the Word of God as the sword to ward off temptation. Not surprisingly, the Tempter also used the Word to counter punch Jesus.

The first temptation is at the physical level, to the stomach, after 40 days of fasting. A taunt is also thrown in, “If you are the Son of God” (v4). Throughout the Gospels Jesus is being tempted to prove that he is the Son of God, a trap that he avoided. His counter punch is by quoting scripture. “Scripture says that human beings live not on bread alone” (ibid), a quote from (Deut 8:3).

The second temptation is from a great height showing him “all the kingdoms of the world” (v6). This is believed to be a hill top outside Jericho that is now inhabited by Greek Orthodox monks. I visited there in 1980. One can see eagles flying below, not above. Vast expanses meet the eye. This temptation is for power, a psychological/ emotional level. The quid pro quo is to do homage to the devil (v8). Jesus quotes Scripture for the second time. “You must do homage to the Lord your God, him alone must you serve” (v8, cf Deut 6:13).

Seeing Jesus’ propensity for Scripture the tempter now changes tack, using it against him. While repeating “if you are Son of God” (v9) he asks him to throw himself down from the parapet of the Temple in Jerusalem (v 10) saying that “He has given the angels orders about you, to guard you … They will carry you in their arms in case you trip over a stone” (v 10, cf Ps 91:11-12).

This third was the most dangerous temptation, using Jesus’ own logic against himself. It was another taunt to prove his divinity. For the third time the temptation is countered with scripture “Do not put the Lord your God to the test” (Deut 6:16). We see that Jesus effectively uses scripture to defeat temptation.

There is more to the third temptation, going beyond the physical and psychological to the messianic or eschatological level – the proof of divinity. What would have happened to Jesus had he actually accepted the tempter’s challenge? In all probability he would have died a natural death, torpedoing his salvific mission. Hypothetically, even if he had risen after such a death, it would have been devoid of meaning, defeating his purpose. The tempter would have been victorious. Our primary lesson here is that if Jesus used Scripture in his own defence, how much more so should we?

Another important lesson is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, the gift of discernment, of how and when to use Scripture. This is because there are many well meaning Christians (I don’t mean Trump) who misquote Scripture to bolster their arguments.

There are some fundamentalist Christians who refuse medication or vaccination, believing that God would look after them. Recently a pastor’s son was bitten by a venomous snake. He refused the anti-venom serum and died. That pastor was mistakenly quoting “The infant will play over the den of the adder; the baby will put his hand into the viper’s lair. No harm will be done” (Is 11:8).

In moral theology this is called the sin of presumption – presuming that God will intervene miraculously to solve problems or prevent negative outcomes. Jesus foresaw such situations which is why he assiduously avoided the image of a miracle worker. After most of his miracles it was again the tempter that tried to project Jesus as the Son of God, while he himself cautioned against telling anyone about it (cf Mat 8:4, Mk 1:34, 3:12).

It is in this context of spiritual discernment that we need to revert to the quotation from the Hebrews: two edged sword, incisive, can judge thoughts and emotions. Firstly, what is a two edged sword? Some swords, like sabres, are heavy and have only one sharp edge like the chopper that one uses for breaking coconuts. This, however, could not pierce heavy metal armour. The two edged sword is more like the epee that is used in modern day fencing, light and pointed. It can pierce the chinks in the armour, be it chain or plate armour. That’s what the Word of God is like. It is fine and delicate like a surgeon’s scalpel or what biology students have in their dissection kit.

Separating soul and spirit, joints and marrow, thoughts and emotions, means the ability to dissect and discern. All through life, especially for those in authority, decision making is called for; decisions that affect not just one’s own life, but that of others dependent on us. The Word of God is that touchstone, litmus or Ph test, to distinguish between right and wrong. This Lent we are invited to use this spiritual tool in our decision making.

Jesus’ use of Scripture is not limited to his temptations in the desert. Shortly thereafter, at the beginning of his public ministry in his native Nazareth he enters the synagogue, takes up the scripture scroll and reads (cf Lk 4:14-19). He concludes by saying “This text is being fulfilled today even while you are listening” (Lk 4:21). It is an invitation to all of us to make Scripture an intrinsic part of our daily lives, so that those who listen to us may experience fulfilment.

Jesus also quoted Scripture to silence his critics. When questioned about his disciples picking ears of corn from a field on the Sabbath Day, he threw back at them the case of David taking his hungry followers to the House of God where they ate the loaves that were reserved for the priests (cf Lk 6:1-5).

Jesus’ last temptation was not a sexual fantasy as some novelists would have us believe. The tempter was back to his old trick; “Save yourself if you are God’s son and come down from the cross” (Mat 27:40). Perhaps sensing Jesus’ two mindedness, the Father gave him the ultimate jolt, the feeling of being separated from God, as sinners experience. It is then that Jesus cries out in anguish “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mat 27:47), a direct prayer from the psalms; “Eli, Eli lama sabachthani” (Ps 22:1). Jesus is reminded that his mission is not to prove himself but to fulfil his salvific purpose. So even his last agonising words were from Scripture.

Even after his Resurrection he was talking Scripture to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. Their hearts burned and they recognised Jesus (cf Lk 24:27-32). We too are invited to share God’s Word to touch the hearts of others and make Jesus known.

Before concluding, a word of caution from Vatican II. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (DV) says that the words of God have been expressed in human language (DV No 13). It is the Word of God in the Voice of men. We may need scholarly guidance to distinguish between the two.

During this holy season of Lent may we rediscover the joy, solace, wisdom and beauty of the Word of God. Let us prioritise Scripture, not weaponize it.

The writer is a layman with no formal studies in Sacred Scripture

The post Weaponising Scripture appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.

By Lavoisier Fernandes

Each month, the Holy Father Pope Francis invites us to pray for a specific intention. In February, his focus was on vocations to the priesthood and religious life, urging prayers for young people discerning their call to serve Christ’s mission.

As we consider the global decline in vocations, especially in regions outside of Africa and Asia, it becomes essential to explore the underlying causes.

A Growing Church but Fewer Vocations

According to 2022 Church statistics, the global Catholic population continues to grow, especially in Africa and Asia, where baptisms have risen by 14 million—with Africa alone seeing a 3% increase. However, priestly vocations are declining worldwide, except in these regions. As the number of priests decreases, the average number of Catholics per priest has risen to 3,373. Women religious are also declining, with 10,588 fewer sisters.

So why are vocations flourishing in some parts of the world but not in others, and are the changes brought by Vatican II to blame, or are other broader societal factors at play?

Is Vatican II Responsible for the Decline in Vocations and Broader Societal Issues?

The simple answer is no, as the data from Africa and Asia doesn’t support that claim.

A common belief among some well-intentioned Catholics is that the crisis in vocations is linked to the changes introduced by Vatican II—such as priests facing the congregation, the use of vernacular languages instead of Latin, interreligious dialogue, perceived lack of reverence in the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form of the Mass), reception of Holy communion on the hand, the inclusion of female altar servers and many more.

They argue that these reforms have watered down the faith, leading to a decline in religious vocations, scandals within the Church, and ineffective preaching of the Gospel.

While there may be some truth to concerns about a few isolated cases of liturgical abuse and a perceived lack of reverence, but these issues are not directly caused by Vatican II. Instead, they have become more visible due to the rise of social media. In fact, liturgical abuse existed long before the Council.

Certainly, the sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church is both deeply troubling and serious. However, its prevalence is not statistically higher than in other institutions, including families, where approximately 30% of sexual abuse cases are committed by family members, or in society at large, where over 90% of abuse cases occur. Estimates suggest that between 3-5% of Catholic clergy worldwide may have been accused of abuse during the 20th century, with fewer reports in earlier years due to societal taboos and institutional secrecy.

Another factor often overlooked is the impact of the 1970s sexual revolution, which attacked the foundation of society—marriage—the basic fabric that holds together the domestic church (family life). These broader societal changes not only impacted the Church but also had a profound effect on the family—the domestic church.

The Overlooked Role of the Domestic Church

While much focus has been on the Universal Church’s role, we must ask whether the domestic church—the family—is fulfilling its calling. Ultimately, religious vocations aren’t something that appear out of nowhere—they are nurtured in the domestic church (the family).

Could it be that the true crisis in vocations is rooted in the weakening of family life rather than the reforms of Vatican II?

What Exactly is the Domestic Church?

The family is often referred to as the “domestic Church” or “Ecclesia domestica,” emphasizing its role as a miniature representation of the larger Church.

This term highlights the family’s importance as the foundational unit of the Church, reflecting the communal and familial nature of the Universal Church. In essence, the domestic Church is the Christian family seen as a “small community” that mirrors the Universal Church’s mission as God’s family.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (English Orthodox rabbi, philosopher, theologian, and author) describes the family as:

“Where we are Blessed and we become most like God himself, bringing new life into the world for the sake of love. It is our first school, a miniature welfare state, a healthcare, centre, a tutorial in responsibility. And yes, there is something spiritual about it. It is solitude redeemed”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #2207) offers a deeper definition:

“The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife give themselves in love and life. Authority, stability, and relationships within the family are the foundation for freedom, security, and fraternity in society. It is the community where moral values are learned, God is honored, and freedom is shaped. Family life is an initiation into society”

So each family member, through their role, participates in the baptismal priesthood, contributing to the family’s identity as a space where God’s love is encountered and shared.

So then, What’s the Family’s (Domestic Church) role in Faith Formation?

Faith is first introduced in the family, particularly to children. This makes the family a “school of human and Christian virtue”—a place where the seeds of vocation are first planted.

In the family, individuals experience key elements needed to become responsible members of both society and the Church. Families are entrusted with the task of spreading the Good News, praying together, and witnessing to their faith through daily actions. In this way, parents are seen as the primary evangelizers of their children, shaping their values and guiding their spiritual journeys.

Has the Domestic Church Fulfilled Its Mission?

When reflecting on the role of the domestic church, we must ask: Has the family truly fulfilled its mission within the Universal Church? The answer is not straightforward, as families face many challenges, as outlined by Pope Francis in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia on the pastoral care of families.

So, what are these challenges?

1. Secularization: A Major Challenge for the Domestic Church

Secularization poses a significant threat to the family’s role as a domestic church. As secular values dominate daily life, practices like prayer, catechesis, and Mass attendance often take a back seat. So, how can families reclaim their spiritual mission in a world that seems to have moved on from faith?

2. The Breakdown of Family Structures: A Crisis of Stability

Rising divorce rates, civil marriages without the sacrament, and cohabitation are weakening the traditional family structure. Families that do not live out the sacramental understanding of marriage often struggle to pass on the faith. This raises a pressing question: How can the Universal Church support families in living out their sacramental calling more fully?

3. Time Constraints and Modern Lifestyles: Are We Too Busy for Faith?

Modern life is busier than ever, with long work hours, hectic schedules, and constant digital distractions. Amidst this chaos, many families find it hard to make time for prayer or faith discussions.

Can families find ways to integrate faith into their daily routines without feeling overwhelmed?

 Materialism and Its Impact on Family Faith

Economic pressures and a materialistic culture also strain the spiritual life of families. When success is measured by possessions rather than spiritual well-being, how can families refocus on faith as their true wealth?

5. Educational and Catechetical Challenges

Finally, the challenge of providing proper catechesis remains. Without strong faith education, how can young people navigate the challenges of the modern world? If the broader Church or parents cannot offer this education, how can the domestic church fulfil its mission to form future vocations?

A Call to Rebuild the Domestic Church

The Church is often described as the “Body of Christ,” with Christ as the head and all baptised as its members. This reminds us that the Church is not just the clergy or the religious —it’s you and me.

The role of the family in nurturing vocations is not just an isolated concern—it is part of the broader mission of the Universal Church, of which we are all baptised members. If we want to see the renewal of vocations with Holy and committed religious, we must first look to the strength and faithfulness of the domestic church. Rebuilding the domestic church is where we can begin.

The real question is: Are we ready to invest in renewing the domestic church to secure the future of vocations and thus the Universal Church?

This path forward first begins within our homes!

Post Script

For the month of March, Pope Francis’s prayer intention is for broken families. Let us join in prayer for the healing and renewal of the domestic church in our society.

Lavoisier Fernandes, born and raised in Goa, is currently based in West London. His faith is “work in progress”- and a lifelong journey. He has always been fascinated by the Catholic faith, thanks to his Salesian schooling. He’s passionate about podcasting, theology, the papacy, and volunteering. He has hosted ‘Talking Faith’ series for Heavens Road FM, Catholic Radio, connecting with ordinary men and women within the Catholic faith, other faiths and examining issues affecting both the Church and society. He has also been a host on Shalom World Catholic TV for two episodes of the ‘Heart Talk’ series. He presently contributes for the Goa Diocesan magazine Renevacao.

The post Hope for Vocations: The Unseen Power of the Domestic Church appeared first on Indian Catholic Matters.