Europe: A Region or a Continent?

Europe is often a central focus of global conversation. Whether that is in history, other social studies, world politics, or otherwise, people often speak of a place called Europe, where a lot of the world's most influential countries have been. Usually, people speak of Europe as a continent, a loose category by itself. What is it that all European countries have in common? In most atlases, Europe's boundary includes a line going through a lot of land on the eastern margin through Russia, a line about as wide as the width of Europe itself. What is it, then, that distinguishes Europe from the rest of the Eurasian landmass, or the rest of the world for that matter?

For starters, we have religion. Before "Europe" was a common name, there was the idea of "Christendom": the contiguous area where Christianity was the most common or official religion. This idea held sway in the Middle Ages, right up to the overseas expansion of Portugal, Spain, and other countries called European. This is also kind of like the Ummah, the contiguous area stretching from Senegal to Pakistan and from Somalia to Kazakhstan where Islam predominates. The problem here is that the "boundaries" between these religious areas have shifted over time. For example, Spain and Portugal would have been in the Ummah in the 8th century, and the Balkans were essentially in the Ummah too from the 15th through the 18th centuries. Likewise, some nations in northeastern Europe were holdouts of paganism into the late Middle Ages. One nation, the Sami people, were a pagan remnant in Scandinavia even into the 1700s. I also doubt that any new colonies of Spain and Portugal in the 16th centuries were automatically considered a part of Christendom, so the focus now turns to natural boundaries.

I have seen a very common dividing line for Europe get drawn along the Ural Mountains, the Russia-Kazakhstan border or the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea, the Turkish Straits, and somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. This is one common way to split off Europe from the rest, but what about the islands? The British Isles are conventionally considered a part of Europe, and so are many Mediterranean islands. Iceland is sometimes a bit of a gray area, but it is usually considered a part of Europe as well due to its similarity to the Scandinavian countries. Does this mean the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago in the middle of the ocean, are included as well? The question becomes one of how far out islands have to be before they are included with Europe or any "continent". One could perhaps use the Atlantic Ridge as a dividing line, but the problem is that Iceland and the Azores themselves are along that ridge, meaning they would only partially be in Europe. Also, do we use the rift between the Eurasian and African plates? In that case, the Canary Islands and Madeira are a part of Africa and Italy itself would be split. Notice, though, that Europe does not have a distinct plate and is mainly on the same plate as China. That brings up, again, a possible cultural divide. It is often said that Europe and Asia are split because of differing cultures. We already looked at religious boundaries, but what about linguistic ones? Europe mainly has three language (sub-)families: Romantic (i.e. derived from Latin), Germanic, and Slavic. There are others, such as Baltic, Albanian, Greek, and Finno-Ugric, a family by itself, not to mention the language isolate Basque. However, that linguistic boundary cannot be applied without physical boundaries also. Similar to the problems with Christendom, these language families have become dominant in other places across the world, especially the Americas. However, just as a new Christian area is not automatically included in Christendom, a new Romantic or Germanic speaking area is not automatically included in Europe. Speaking of languages, though, the name "Europe" itself comes from ancient Greek and originally referred to parts of today's Balkan region. The Greeks later applied the name to all the land they knew of north of the high Mediterranean Sea, west and north of the Anatolian peninsula, and west again of what we would know today as the Crimean Strait, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River.

Ancient Greek map of the world, with the whole waterway from the "Phasis" (perhaps the Don) to the Strait of Gibraltar as the boundary of Europe.

The Greeks did not have a northern boundary for Europe, since many lands were still unknown to them, such as Scandinavia. Not even Rome knew much about Scandinavia. It was the missionary fervor of Christians in the Middle Ages, and the Viking raids at the same time, that really introduced Scandinavia to the rest of Europe and integrated Scandinavia within it.

If we take the ancient Greek boundaries of Europe on its south and east, what are its western and northern boundaries? Personally, I think that the margin of the continental shelf is a good one. By using this boundary, all the British Isles are included, but not the islands in the middle of the ocean such as Iceland, the Azores, etc. Those islands deserve their own isolated category (pun intended) since they are so far from the European mainland. As for continuing the boundary from the continental shelf to the Don River, I think the established system of waterways through Russia from the White Sea to the Don River makes a good boundary. Most of the waterway is along rivers, and other parts are canals built or remodeled in Soviet times. Considering how Norsemen knew how to navigate and portage across this waterway before the canals, I think there is good cause to establish the waterway as an eastern boundary of Europe, by which Norsemen and others knew how to get to non-European lands such as Persia or Anatolia.

The system of rivers and canals through Russia, going from the Sea of Azov to the White Sea, which I consider a good northeastern boundary of Europe.

Now that I have defined what I consider to be Europe, does it really qualify as a continent? I think not. For one thing, "continents" are almost completely surrounded by water, whereas the so-called continental boundary between "Europe" and "Asia" is hundreds of miles wide. On the other hand, there are other areas in the Eurasian landmass that have defining characteristics, such as the Arabian peninsula or "Middle East", the Indian subcontinent, Indochina, etc. Some of those regions are about as big as Europe itself but are not considered continents. That being said, we often speak of the "Indian subcontinent" consisting of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and all the other countries south of the boundary made by the Himalayas and nearby mountain ranges. I would argue that Europe is a region or subcontinent of Eurasia, the real "continent" as far as being a landmass almost surrounded by water is concerned.

The Latin Mass Question

Last week, Bishop Martin, of the Diocese of Charlotte in North Carolina, announced that the diocese would no longer have mass in the style of the 1962 Missal, commonly called Latin Mass, in any parish churches, limiting it to one chapel. This was done in accordance with the pastoral letter Traditionis Custodes, which under Pope Francis restricted where the Latin Mass could be celebrated and by whom. The Latin Mass, in general, has been a talking point among Catholics ever since the new missal and Roman Calendar was introduced in the '60s, and especially since Traditionis Custodes.

The Latin Mass, also called the Tridentine Mass, has a variety of features that the "new" mass does not. One, obviously, is that all the prayers except the Kyrie are in Latin (the Kyrie is in Greek.) Another is the priest facing the altar rather than the people for most of the mass, usually praying in a quiet voice. A third is the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at a special railing while kneeling. I could go on, but the point is that the Latin Mass is so different from how (most) masses are celebrated today that it could be its own rite within the Catholic Church. Let's hold that thought.

When the Second Vatican Council happened in the early '60s, the latest missal in the Tridentine style was hot off the press. While the Second Vatican Council had a lot of new and interesting developments of Church doctrine, it seemed to have less to say about changing the liturgy than what would end up happening by the end of the decade. For example, Latin was still held to be the language of the mass, though local languages could replace Latin in any prayer of the mass. Organs and Gregorian chant were still the instruments/musical styles of choice for sacred music, but some instruments were permissible for the mass besides. As for the changes that actually ended up happening to the mass, see A Perfect Storm: What happened to the Mass after Vatican II (I will admit the documentary is biased against the changes, but it is well researched).

Ever since the changes to the mass happened in the '60s, there have been some holdouts of people who aren't interested in celebrating the new style, often called Novus Ordo or the New Mass, and prefer to continue celebrating Latin Mass and live Catholic life essentially as it was in the 20th century before 1962. Some outright rejected the new mass, creating schismatic-ish organizations such as the Society of St. Pius X while still considering themselves Catholics (and to be fair, their liturgies are the same as the Roman Catholic Church's were for roughly 400 years.) Various smaller schismatic groups came about as well. On the other hand, religious groups such as the Institute of Christ the King were created that recognized the legitimacy of the new mass while also celebrating the Latin Mass exclusively. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (or "FSSP") broke off from the Society of St. Pius X in the '80s as a Latin Mass group that, like the Institute of Christ the King, recognized the legitimacy of the new mass but exclusively celebrates the Latin Mass.

There have always been a variety of opinions about the Latin Mass and its devotees. On one hand, those who enjoy the Latin Mass often say they have much to gain, spiritually speaking, from attending such masses and have numerous arguments for why the Latin Mass is better for individuals and the Church as a whole. On the other hand, opponents of the Latin Mass consider it to be backward since the Church has adopted the 1969 Missal as the ordinary form of the mass. Furthermore, they see the Latin Mass as deficient because most people will not understand what is being prayed and will feel more like spectators than participants, especially with the priest looking away from the people for most of the mass. I myself have gone between these two extremes of opinions. In 2017 and most of 2018 I was basically an opponent of the Latin Mass, but in 2020 through 2022 my preference for the Latin Mass was somewhat strong. Now I'm somewhere in between, where I would just like the liturgy to be relevant and appropriate enough to produce great benefit for the participants (though I do very much prefer organs and chant to guitars and "praise and worship" music).

Different popes have had different takes on the Latin Mass since the new mass came about. Pope St. Paul VI instituted the new mass in the first place, but did not mandate all parts of the mass to be in either Latin or the local language. He also acknowledged that there were some bad consequences, "the smoke of Satan", in the Church after the new mass was instituted. Pope St. John Paul II accepted the foundation of the FSSP and had no problem with Latin Mass being celebrated through them. Pope Benedict XVI made it easy for any priest to celebrate the Latin Mass, within or without the religious orders that specialize in it. It was only Pope Francis who made the great turn-around in Traditionis Custodes, thereby restricting the availability of the Latin Mass. Pope Francis also shared that he did this to try to get the Latin Mass-goers to go to Novus Ordo masses instead.

The problem that soon arose from Traditionis Custodes was that, as I mentioned before, Latin Mass-goers see the Latin Mass as better than the Novus Ordo, some to the point of attending SSPX (Society of Pius X) churches. Pope Francis intended to unite the Latin Mass-goers in with the Novus Ordo mass-goers, but if anything, he made them resentful. Many wondered how much longer people could attend Latin Mass. Some major advocates for the Latin Mass, such as Bishop Strickland (of Tyler, Texas) and Cardinal Burke (of both La Crosse, Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri in the past) were punished under Pope Francis, with Bishop Strickland being forced to resign and Cardinal Burke losing his apartment in Rome and his salary. Now, we have seen Pope Francis pass away and Pope Leo XIV take the seat. Many are wondering what Pope Leo XIV will do as pope regarding the Latin Mass, especially in reaction to Bishop Martin's announcements.

There are a few options, some good and some bad, for what will happen to the Latin Mass. The most extreme option, on one hand, would be to suppress all orders that specialize in the Latin Mass and not even allow chapels to be used for the Latin Mass, which would cause a schism and a likely expansion of the Society of St. Pius X or schismatic groups that do not recognize the legitimacy of the current pope (these are called "sedevacantists".) The other extreme would be to convene a council or synod that replaces the Novus Ordo mass with some form of the mass prior to 1969 (which I highly doubt would happen given the opinions of most bishops today, but it might cause a schism of another sort.) As for some options in between, Pope Leo XIV could publish a pastoral letter that undoes Traditionis Custodes in some way, whether that be by restoring the way it was before or loosening the restrictions. His Holiness could also advocate for a middle ground, keeping Traditionis Custodes in place but also mandating some Latin, communion rails, veils, altar crucifixes, organs, Gregorian chant, or any other thing that some parishes currently have in their Novus Ordo masses (for example, I have seen Novus Ordo masses where organs and Gregorian chant are used, some prayers are in Latin, communion rails are used, and even some masses where the priest faces away from the people.) Finally, there is an option which I find the most interesting: creating a new rite or church sui juris for the Latin Mass.

In a previous schism, the East-West Schism, Christians of Western and Eastern Europe found themselves at odds. This was when Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split from each other over centuries of liturgical and slight theological differences. However, some of the schism was not forever. Almost all of the other particular churches besides the Roman Catholic Church, as they are called, were created when Oriental or Eastern Orthodox groups decided to re-enter the communion of the greater Catholic Church. These all have their own rites and dioceses, but are still in communion with the pope, who is recognized as the visible head of the Catholic Church. One major mistake happened in the Diocese of St. Paul, however, when Bishop John Ireland did not recognize the Eastern Catholic masses/divine liturgies in his diocese. As a result, many Eastern Catholic clergy in the United States founded the Orthodox Church in America. Therefore, given the historical precedent, getting rid of the Latin Mass in any diocese would be a bad idea. Anyway, what if we had a particular church for the Latin Mass? I think that, ironically, that hypothetical church should keep the name of Roman Catholic Church, since the use of the Latin language makes it very clearly Roman. As for the rest of what is the Roman Catholic Church today, it could be called the "General Catholic Church" given the worldwide use of local languages or the "Ordinary Catholic Church" given the title of Ordinary Form for the Novus Ordo mass. The unity of the Catholic Church would be preserved, and the uniqueness of the Latin Mass would also be preserved.

I pray that Pope Leo XIV will choose wisely what happens to the Latin Mass both in certain dioceses and across the world-wide Church. Optimally, the unity of the Church is preserved, reverence returns to the mass everywhere, and communication between both sides will result in much spiritual and numerical growth within the Church.

British Colonies Still Exist

Last week, the news came out that the United Kingdom and Mauritius agreed to turn over the Chagos Archipelago (in the middle of the ocean south of the Maldives) to Mauritius. This came after decades of pressure from both Mauritius and the United Nations. To me, this is just one more colony that the British Empire has given up. I refer to any part of the world where the Monarch of the United Kingdom is the head of state (and where the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is their Prime Minister) as a part of the British Empire. That means the British Empire looks like this:

Most people seem to think the British Empire is gone, and some place its end at the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997. I think that is quite mistaken. Although the United Kingdom does not directly govern areas of land larger than Britain anymore, it still has plenty of colonies. The words "colony" and "empire" are unwanted to 21st century ears, and no government officials of any country seem to speak of themselves as empires having colonies. However, it only takes a beginner map-reader to notice that there are pieces of land distant from their "mother countries" where their capitals are. Often, these "mother countries" are in Europe. Well then, where were the empires of two or three hundred years ago? Most were in Europe. Which countries had overseas colonies? Most were in Europe. Therefore, you can see that today's so-called "overseas territories", "crown dependencies", etc. are really just leftover European colonies.

What is an "empire" or a "colony", anyway? People will have different opinions, but here is mine. An empire is any country that has expanded its boundaries since its foundation. Therefore, a colony is any piece of land that is now within a country that did not have that land when that country was founded. (Yes, that means the United States is an empire too. Yes, that also means all the states west of the Mississippi are colonies, and that's okay.)

Although the United Kingdom does not rule any part of mainland America or Africa anymore, it still rules pieces of land close by. Notice how many lands the United Kingdom has in the West Indies, and Gibraltar just north of Morocco. The Cayman Islands, one of the British colonies in the Caribbean, were taken by the British even before some of the 13 Colonies that became the United States. Likewise, Gibraltar was taken from the Spanish mainland (ironic - one empire colonizing another) about 70 years before the 13 Colonies fought for their independence.

The British Empire will soon lose the Chagos Archipelago, but what about the other colonies? The United Kingdom has 13 other "British Overseas Territories", a cute way of calling their current colonies. Most are in the middle of the ocean, but some are near enough to other countries that there is some contention with them (e.g. Spain wanting Gibraltar and Argentina wanting the Falkland Islands). Usually, decolonization happens when an empire gives a colony back to the country it was taken from (e.g. China getting back Hong Kong), or when a colony is given independence (too many examples to list). The ironic thing is that for the three colonies that have had referendums on decolonization in the past few decades - Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, and Gibraltar - the citizens decided (sometimes in overwhelming numbers) to stay British. Therefore, unless some dramatic change happens, the British Empire will still be around for a long time. 

Remembering the Minneapolis Tornado of 2011

Last Thursday, May 22nd, was the anniversary of the EF-1 tornado that struck Minneapolis and some of its suburbs in 2011. I was living there at the time and, although the main path of destruction was over a mile away from my house, it was the closest I've ever been to a tornado, and my house might have been on the edge of it.

I remember that day being somewhat cool and cloudy, and we were aware of a severe weather risk, but I didn't think it would be that close to home. I don't remember much of the progress of the storm, but soon enough we had a tornado warning. My family was wise enough to go to the basement, but we looked outside for a little before going down. Once we saw the trees dancing in all sorts of directions, we went downstairs. No power went out, so we were watching the weather alerts live on TV. We got back upstairs once we were no longer in the tornado warning.

According to later estimates of the tornado's path, the tornado began in St. Louis Park, a western suburb, and ended near Blaine, a northern suburb. However, the strength was not constantly an EF-1. If you look at a "before and after" satellite image of the area, you will find that the damage scar is almost entirely within north Minneapolis. A comparison between a 2009 image and a 2012 image works pretty well, but any image from up to 10 years after 2011 works pretty well too to see the damage scar.

The tornado path through north Minneapolis, highlighted in red. You might notice how pale it looks compared to the rest of the image; the tornado destroyed a lot of trees.

The weather after the storm was rather quiet and warmer than the morning, and my block didn't get much damage other than some fallen branches, but there were many puddles. Since Memorial Day weekend was just a week after the storm, I remember my family taking a bike ride to Webber Parkway, near the Mississippi River. We saw many fallen trees, some of which we had to go around. Dowling Avenue, which my family drives on frequently, had not just fallen trees but torn roofs and, at worst, a completely destroyed garage. Theodore Wirth Parkway, on the other hand, which my family also drives on often, did not have much tornado damage. That road is on the bottom left corner of the image above, which leads me to believe that the damage was mainly in north Minneapolis. Therefore, I think the strongest stage of the tornado entirely within Minneapolis city limits - no more, no less. Once the tornado crossed the Mississippi River, it seems that the worst of it was over.

Generally, the tornado wasn't a killer, but it did destroy a lot of trees and damaged the homes in the center of its path. One man did die, however, from a tree falling on him. The tornado certainly wasn't as infamous as the one that happened in Joplin, Missouri, that same day. Nonetheless, it is a significant one in Minneapolis history, and certainly within my own life. There is also a playlist on YouTube with lots of footage and news reports from that event.

Are the Kurds Giving Up Their Independence Movement?

This week, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a longtime thorn in Turkey's side, announced it would disband. Earlier this year, the Syrian Democratic Forces also announced it would gradually integrate with the other Syrian rebel forces that took down the Assad regime last December. This makes me wonder: are the Kurdish people giving up their cause for independence, and what does this mean for the region?

The Kurds are an ethnic group related to Persians and many other groups found in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan. They have long been a nation without a state, and for centuries most of them have been under Turkish rule, starting with the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s. When the Ottoman Empire was defeated at the end of World War I, Kurds hoped they might gain independence. There was a plan for an independent Kurdistan in the Treaty of Sevres, but that idea was tossed aside by the new Republic of Turkey. The new Turkish government has persecuted Kurds just as heavily as the Ottomans, and that persecution, coupled with the hope of national independence movements during and after World War I, has brought about decades of various conflicts. For about a century, "Kurdistan" has been split between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

Kurds have generally stayed Muslim, but some independence movements have taken a socialist or communist stance. The armed groups founded by Kurds include the Kurdistan Workers' Party (Turkey), the Syrian Democratic Forces (Syria), and Peshmerga (Iraq). The Kurdistan Workers' Party has been the most troublesome for Turkey and other NATO countries, aligning itself with communist ideology until the '90s and using terror tactics that make it get labelled as a terrorist group by Turkey and many other countries. (On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't be fighting Turkey at all if Turkey would just give Kurds the independence they desire.)

The Syrian Democratic Forces deserves attention by itself. When the Syrian civil war began, the SDF soon decided to join the rebellion against Assad, seeking to set up a democratic, autonomous region for the Kurds and others. Soon, their attention turned to ISIS, whose wicked presence was not only swallowing up land in Syria but threatened Kurdish lands as well. The SDF and other armies started focusing on getting rid of ISIS on the map, and the SDF started to get attention from American government officials and the media. SDF fighters are often women, which is unusual for an army (and a Muslim one at that), and the SDF was taking more land from ISIS than most other armies. As a result, the SDF had almost all the land east of the Euphrates, and it was the SDF that delivered the final blow to ISIS (territorially) on March 23, 2019, a day I remember well. 

Turkey, on the other hand, has decided on a few separate occasions to invade Syrian territory. The first time was justified in that ISIS was right on the border, and so Turkey took over some ISIS territory in Syria. In the same offensive, however, the Turks invaded SDF territory, and Turkey has launched three more offensives against SDF territory since then. Turkey sees the SDF and the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) as one and the same. I can't believe how stupid that is. The SDF has not invaded Turkey, neither does it commit terrorist attacks, and has often been a force of good against ISIS especially. The political ideologies of the SDF and PKK are very different as well. The US has often cooperated with SDF forces, and the SDF has proven to be a reliable ally. Turkish offensives against the SDF have not only made Turkey look bad (and neo-Ottoman) but it also gives ISIS a chance to resurge. The Turkish offensives also make a mockery of the hope for peace in Syria with such names as "Olive Branch", "Peace Spring", and "Dawn of Freedom", despite being new escalations of the Syrian civil war, which now appears to be a proxy war between Israel and Turkey.

Anyway, since the fall of the Assad regime, the SDF has recognized the need for Syria to unite and rebuild. They announced back in March that they would gradually fold into the new Syrian Armed Forces. Last week, the PKK laid down their arms and disbanded. I never heard the reason why, but maybe they took note of what the Syrian Kurds were doing. I haven't heard about what Peshmerga, the Iraqi Kurdish army, has done, but maybe they will decide to quietly disband next. Whatever the case, I hope that the countries in which the Kurds live, especially Turkey, will stop persecuting the Kurdish population so that peace in the northern Levant might actually become a reality.

Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV

Habemus papam! We have a pope! ...And he's an American!

But not too American.

Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, a native of Chicago, was elected pope on May 8th. I was checking live conclave updates every now and then while at work, and I happened to be just going on break while my coworker played the live scene of the announcement, and public presentation, of our new pope. I tried to follow along with the Latin, and I caught the papal name, Leo XIV, but not the cardinal's name. Then, I saw his name appear on the bottom of the screen. It was both exciting and surprising: an American cardinal had been chosen, but I didn't think that would happen. On the other hand, it makes sense that if an American would be chosen, it would be Prevost, for I heard how he spent much time in Peru, gaining Peruvian citizenship there. In a way, then, he is the first Peruvian pope in addition to being the first American pope.

That name, Leo XIV, is interesting for a few reasons. This is the first pope Leo in over a century, as Leo XIII was a pope who barely lived to see the 1900s before he died. Many people, secular and Catholic alike, immediately looked for connections or inspirations from this previous Leo. Pope Leo XIII was pope during a time of significant change in the world: the spread of telephones and light bulbs, video and sound recordings, the invention of automobiles, the dramatic expansion of European colonies in Africa, the close of the "Wild West", and, of course, the rise of labor-centric ideologies such as progressivism and socialism. It was this last topic that keenly interested Leo XIII. In light of all the new things happening in the world, Leo XIII wrote an encyclical literally translated into English as "New Things", discussing the Church's position on social issues, particularly those related to labor and economics. This has prompted speculation that our new pope will have a focus on Catholic social theory, which I would look forward to.

I was not expecting an American to be elected pope at this time, but I understand why it was Prevost who would be elected from all the American-born cardinals. On the live ABC News coverage I was watching, a reporter commented that Prevost was chosen because he is somewhat quiet and humble, going against the stereotype sometimes associated with Americans. Also, even though he was born and raised in the United States, he has spent years in Peru, where he had his only episcopal assignment as the Bishop of Chiclayo, Peru. It's been a hot minute since he spent a large chunk of his life in the United States. He holds Peruvian citizenship, and so far as pope he has spoken very little English apart from the first paragraph of his homily yesterday. He has, however, spoken some Spanish. I even remember hearing before the conclave that if any American cardinal was elected, it could be Prevost, because again, he was the "least" American of the American cardinals. While I was somewhat hoping that a sub-Saharan African such as Robert Sarah would be elected, having a "native" American pope sure is exciting! (It turns out that Leo XIV does, in fact, have some African-American ancestry as well).

Leo XIV appears to be a kind of "moderate", given his biography. He might not be as "conservative" as Benedict XVI, who spoke against applause during mass, nor might he be as "liberal" as Francis, who put restrictions on the older forms of mass. That part does not surprise me, and I look forward to seeing what Leo XIV will do during his pontificate. Yesterday, during his homily, he mentioned a point I've been waiting for someone to say: "Today, too, there are many settings in which Jesus, although appreciated as a man, is reduced to a kind of charismatic leader or superman. This is true not only among non-believers but also among many baptized Christians, who thus end up living, at this level, in a state of practical atheism." What do practicing Christians do? They pray and go to church. What do "practicing" atheists do? They don't pray and they don't go to church. Therefore, self-proclaimed Christians who don't pray and don't go to church end up looking like atheists. I thank His Holiness for making that point.

In conclusion, the papal conclave has produced a surprising but exciting result (which seems normal for conclaves to do). I think Leo XIV will be a good pope. My thoughts align closely with those of Jimmy Akin, who I nickname the "Catholic cowboy": his commentary can be found here.

Some Good "Candidates" for Pope

With the unfortunate death of Pope Francis, cardinals of the Catholic Church will convene once again to elect the next pope. This will be the first papal conclave since 2013, and the first following the death of a pope since 2005. Media across the world love to speculate on who will be the next pope, which is tough, especially this time around with a record number of eligible cardinals. A presidential election in the United States is a mere coin toss by comparison. Given that no cardinal runs a campaign for pope, and given how cardinals are not supposed to have any outside influence in these conclaves, it's not right to speak of "candidates" for pope. Technically, the cardinals' will isn't even what elects the next pope, but rather God's will, for cardinals are supposed to vote based on who God thinks should be pope, not based on their own preferences. But anyway, here are some cardinals I personally think would be good popes.

Raymond Leo Burke

Cardinal Burke would be a good choice mainly for keeping the Church on the path of tradition and orthodoxy. Many times, he has expressed concern about unorthodox movements in the Church, such as the Synod on Synodality. He is not always taken seriously, but one growing group does take him seriously: the traditional Catholics. Cardinal Burke has always been friendly to the traditional, Latin Mass-going community. While he does not advocate for a return to the 1962 Missal, he does enjoy that liturgy, and he always celebrates mass in any liturgical style with reverence and beauty. Speaking of beauty, he envisioned the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin, while he was bishop of La Crosse. The shrine was built in 2005 but has the style of a grand Renaissance cathedral. This shrine keeps him coming to La Crosse on special days of the year such as the Feast of St. Juan Diego on December 9. In 2022, I attended a mass he celebrated on that day and even had a short conversation with him after mass. He is eligible for election to the papacy, and another good sign is how passionate he is about choosing the right cardinal, shown by this novena he's encouraging people to pray. However, in the brief conversation I had with him, he told me that he's making fewer trips due to his age, so maybe he won't be elected because of his slowly declining health. Nonetheless, I think he would make a good pope, especially to heal the resentment some traditional Catholics have had after the restrictions on the Latin Mass that happened in July 2021. He would be the first pope from North America, also.

Robert Sarah

Cardinal Sarah would be a good choice as an austere, pious man as well. He reminds me of Benedict XVI. He seems mostly interested in theological work and does not like some of the bizarre things that happen at some modern masses. His book, The Power of Silence, which I read, is generally about how silence is a great benefit for our worldly and religious lives. In one part, he criticizes the idea of celebratory moods at funerals, saying that funerals should be for reflecting on the fact that a soul has departed and needs our prayers. I learned recently that there is a saying, "fat pope, thin pope", meaning that popes seem to alternate between progressive and traditional theology. If that pattern is true, then perhaps a pope with a similar personality and theology as Benedict XVI is coming. Cardinal Sarah could be that man. Also, if a streak of non-Italian popes from new countries holds, then Cardinal Sarah could become the first pope from Guinea and sub-Saharan Africa by extension.

Pierbattista Pizzaballa

Cardinal Pizzaballa would be a good choice as someone with a lot of experience with people of many faiths, and as someone who regularly advocates for peace and sympathizes with those affected by war. He is the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, dealing with other denominations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and others. His role would make him well-equipped for dialogue with secular and religious leaders from all over the world, and he has seen the strife between Israel and its enemies (especially recently!) He may be Italian by birth, but his international and interfaith experience as the Patriarch of Jerusalem look like a good combination. He is one of the cardinals the media have mentioned as a possible pope-elect.

In conclusion, these are the cardinals I've thought of by name that I think would be a good pope. Will they be elected? Who knows but God alone, who is technically the one who will choose. It is up to the cardinals convening at this conclave to hear the name God puts in their ears.