The Swedish Government has said it planned to criminalise virginity checks, virginity certificates and virginity interventions.
The Conservative administration has also proposed that failure to disclose forced and child marriages be criminalised.
The planned moves aimed to strengthen the protection of girls and women who lived in a so-called “honour context”, it said.
“Honour norms limit the freedom and life chances of girls and women, but also boys and men. It is often about power and control. And for those who try to defy control, the consequences can be devastating – in the worst case, fatal,” Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer said.
“By criminalising these serious abuses, we are strengthening the protection of the personal integrity of girls and women who live in an honour context in a very concrete way.
“A woman’s right to decide over her own body and sexuality is a fundamental human right. Violating it is unacceptable and it is therefore extremely important that the protection of these rights is now strengthened,” he said.
Minister for Gender Equality and Working Life, Nina Larsson, added: “Virginity checks and virginity procedures must stop.”
In recent years, the number of virginity checks in Sweden has reportedly increased, particularly within certain immigrant communities where honour-related cultural norms — often linked to Islamic traditions from the Middle East and North Africa — have remained influential.
These tests have been frequently requested by strongly religious families, despite being medically unfounded and illegal in Sweden since 2022.
Examinations of a woman’s virginity may take place ahead of marriage and conducted by accommodating healthcare professionals, relatives, religious leaders, or other individuals with authority or influence within their communities.
They occurred both within healthcare settings and in private spheres. In some cases, girls and women residing in Sweden have been subjected to virginity checks or procedures while abroad.
Mainstream medical professionals have long maintained that it was impossible to determine, through physical examination, whether a girl or woman had engaged in sexual intercourse.
Nevertheless, the possible results of such “investigations” can be severe, ranging from social ostracism to physical punishment and honour-based violence.
Under the proposed legislation, performing a virginity check or procedure could carry a penalty of up to one year’s imprisonment. Issuing a certificate of sexual “innocence” would be punishable by either a fine or up to six months in jail.
The government also proposed to tighten child-marriage legislation by criminalising a failure to report knowledge of an impending forced or underage marriage — potentially implicating wedding guests or other bystanders who remained silent.
The ruling coalition parties argued that a conviction should be possible even where the girl or woman appeared to have given consent. They cited the high likelihood that such consent may be given under pressure or fear of the consequences of refusal to do so.
Authorities noted that such honour-based crimes were often veiled in silence, making them particularly difficult to detect and address.
Sweden’s Government said it aimed for the legislative amendments to come into force on 1 December 2025.
The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has hit a historic watermark, and is now the most popular party in Germany for the first time ever, reaching 26 percent. The poll, from Forsa, shows the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in second place with 25 percent.
If the vote were held today, the two parties set to enter government, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the CDU, would not have enough votes to enter government. The SPD is at 15 percent, giving the two parties a combined total of 40 percent. The poll showed that support for the Greens dropped a point to 11 percent and the Left Party also dropped a point to 9 percent.
BREAKING: 🇩🇪The AfD party is now the most popular party in Germany for the first time ever, soaring to 26%.
The main German parties are working to ban the AfD, and a vote on a ban is expected in the coming months in the new Bundestag.
The news comes at a time when the left is racing to vote on a ban on the AfD in the German parliament, the Bundestag, a topic covered in detail by Remix News. However, despite inital reports that the CDU would back such a ban, the picture is becoming muddier.
For one, there are more and more voices in the CDU and its sister party, the CSU, who are calling for “more calm” towards the AfD, including from the influential vice-chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Jens Spahn. Spahn even said that the AfD should be able to lead some of the committee in the Bundestag, which would give the party more say and power. Given that it received the second-most votes during the German election, it should, like all other parties, have access to these committees, but many want to shut it out completely, especially from intelligence committees.
The issue could lead to a major split in the coalition between the CDU and SPD. SPD Bundestag member Ralf Stegner told Welt his party has “absolutely no sense of humor” on any attempt to go easy on the AfD.
He said any kind of rapprochement would represent a “maximum stress test” for the new coalition govenrment.
“Anyone who wants to form a coalition with the SPD cannot join forces with right-wing radicals. And joining forces also means voting for enemies of democracy,” he said. The MP, known for his left-wing views, instead is calling for a ban on the AfD if the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) classifies the party as “confirmed right-wing extremist.”
“If the Office for the Protection of the Constitution upgrades its classification, then we also have a duty to work towards initiating a ban on the party,” Stegner said.
However, Welt reports that CDU is rejecting an “automoatic” approach to banning the AfD.
The CDU/CSU, in turn, rejects this automatic approach: “To derive an obligation to initiate ban proceedings from an upgrade by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution clearly ignores the legal situation,” said Günter Krings, legal policy spokesman for the CDU-CSU parliamentary group. He instead wants to “fight the AfD politically by exposing its extremism…The best recipe against the AfD is concrete successes by the new federal government, especially in migration, security, and the economy.”
He also claims that initiating proceedings “would only make the AfD rub its hands together and use it as free support for its victim myth.”
Meanwhile, the AfD is slamming calls for a ban. “The renewed call for an AfD ban is completely unfounded and would be completely hopeless,” said Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the AfD. “Instead of engaging in absurd and anti-democratic ban fantasies, Mr. Stegner should be thinking about why his party has been losing voters in droves for years.”
Sahra Wagenknecht, who is the leader of the left-wing BSW, told Welt: “First gigantic electoral fraud, then the ban debate: could it get any more stupid? The fact that such proposals are now coming from the self-proclaimed ‘democratic center,’ of all places, is disgraceful and will further strengthen the AfD.”
She went so far as to say it was a purely autocratic move.
“No question, in an autocracy, the ‘problem’ would be solved in exactly the same way.”
Even in the SPD, there is debate about a ban.
SPD Minister President of Saxony Stephan Weil (SPD) warned a ban could also fail, which would be “a feast for the AfD.”
Following the German parliamentary elections in February, which pushed the Greens out of government, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has started embracing environmental issues in a way that would have seemed unlikely not so long ago..Rather than dismantling the green agenda, the CDU has chosen to adopt it, giving it a patriotic twist: climate protection is no longer presented as a global moral duty but as a national obligation.
However, the broader green agenda, now being embraced across Europe’s center-right, still comes with real economic costs: weakening European industry and deepening reliance on components made in China.
But the CDU is following a clear agenda: to weaken the Greens and attract their voters without breaking with Brussels’ climate mandates.
While during the campaign the CDU heavily criticized measures such as heating mandates or the gradual elimination of combustion engines, they are now merely softening—not repealing—those policies. The KlimaUnion, an internal party faction, has already claimed that repealing climate laws without equally effective alternatives would be unconstitutional.
The climate lobby has also taken the reins within the centre-right camp. An example of this new approach is the group Heimatwurzeln (“homeland roots”), whose leader, Florian Wagner, openly states that protecting the environment is “an expression of patriotism.” In his narrative, which especially resonates with nostalgic conservatives, the rural middle class, and precarious sectors, the energy transition must distance itself from the progressive language of global justice and instead embrace traditional, Christian, and community values.
The narrative is no longer one of a “climate emergency” demanding personal sacrifice, but rather an opportunity to regain industrial sovereignty, energy security, and national pride. It is also a way to appeal to voters tempted by the AfD, without abandoning Brussels’ green rhetoric.
This shift toward “green patriotism” is not exclusive to Germany. At the plenary session of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg on March 11, a similar change in rhetoric could be observed. During the debate on the Clean Industrial Deal, the Commission’s new ecological plan, multiple groups—including the European People’s Party (EPP)—adopted the language of sovereignty and self-sufficiency to justify green policies that, until now, were considered utopian or leftist.
Those opposing decarbonization were accused of serving foreign powers like “Putin’s Russia” or “Trump’s America,” and the abandonment of fossil fuels was presented as a patriotic obligation. European Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné even defended the opening of new “ecological” mines in Europe and the imposition of tariffs as ways to protect the continent’s economic sovereignty.
The CDU, like other EPP forces across Europe, wants to take environmentalism out of the hands of the Left. But rather than confronting it head-on, they have chosen to reinterpret it through a national lens.
Muslim anti-Israel demonstrators attempted to force their way into a synagogue in Switzerland, the latest in a string of attacks on synagogues in Europe.
The protest took place on Saturday, during the Jewish Sabbath, in front of the Beth Yaakov, or Grande, Synagogue in Geneva, according to JTA.
The Intercommunity Coordination Against Anti-Semitism and Defamation watchdog organization (CICAD) reported that a Muslim woman wearing a niqab (veil) first attempted to enter the place of worship while waving a PLO flag and holding a placard saying “Every synagogue is an Israeli embassy” on Saturday morning but was prevented from doing so.
The woman then returned that night accompanied by three men, and a second Muslim woman also then attempted to enter the synagogue.
The group told police they were simply exercising their right to protest and promised to return the following Saturday.
CICAD said the incident was the first of its kind since the the start of Operation Protective Edge, and said it set a dangerous precedent.
“With this first public demonstration of hostility towards the Jewish community in Geneva since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza, an unacceptable step was taken,” the anti-hate group said.
“Synagogues should not become the new places of expression of hatred against Israel,” it added, calling on politicians and supporters of the “Palestinian cause” to condemn such anti-Semitic attacks.
Europe has seen a shocking rise in anti-Semitism since the start of the escalation between Israel and Gazan terrorist groups, with anti-Semitic incidents being reported on a daily basis.
Most attacks have been carried out by Muslims, and a significant number have targeted synagogues specifically.
In several other countries, synagogues have been targeted by anti-Semitic vandals who have shattered windows and daubed anti-Israel and anti-Semitic graffiti.
Euromoonbats have been importing them by the millions while using the welfare state to further increase their numbers exponentially. The end game is already in sight.
In the Netherlands, Islamic paramilitary groups are openly training — preaching physical, mental, and ideological supremacy. They call themselves “Full Force”—a brotherhood fueled by calisthenics, wrestling, and jihadist vision.
Islamists have promised “a million October 7ths.” They won’t all happen in Israel.
BEÄNGSTIGEND❗️
In den Niederlanden trainieren islamische paramilitärische Einheiten.
„Alhamdulillah, die Armee wächst durch Allahs Willen. Wir werden bald die Welt erobern, Inshallah.“
« En Belgique, la commune organisait un défilé d’un Saint Nicolas qui jetait des bonbons. Un jour il a reçu des cailloux en retour. La commune a décidé de renoncer à cette fête pour ne plus choquer les musulmans. »@Maaroufi9 sur le podcast du @CERIFrerisme de @FBBlackler.… pic.twitter.com/xenWCnHyHX
Translation: "In Belgium, the municipality organised a parade with a Father Christmas who threw sweets. One day he was pelted with stones. The community decided to abandon this festival to stop offending Muslims."
@Maaroufi9 on the podcast by @CERIFrerisme by @FBBlackler . Full: https://youtu.be/gi9HJ4dWGQY?si=xaxXO0poFblTaNGZ
Travellers on the 7.02 a.m. train from Le Havre to Paris had a big scare on Monday morning. As their regional train (TER) arrived in the Paris suburbs, one of the passengers from Seine-Saint-Denis shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ several times into the train, asserted that he had placed explosives on the train and threatened to detonate them. Some passengers, frightened by the man’s behaviour, ran to the front of the train. The person, who suffers from a mental disorder, was to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.
At 9.20 a.m., police officers incapacitated the 56-year-old man at Achères – Grand Cormier station with a weapon. The man was taken into police custody for ‘glorification of terrorism’. Following a psychiatric assessment, he was finally declared not criminally responsible. The 56-year-old, who had not previously attracted the attention of the police and suffers from psychiatric disorders, was apparently mentally unbalanced. He had to be compulsorily committed.
The new German federal government is planning hundreds of billions of euros in new debt. With this, Germany joins the ranks of the heavily indebted states of the euro zone. Officially, the funds are intended for military capability and infrastructure development. But what strategy is the government really pursuing? The coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD is prepared to burden German taxpayers with over one trillion euros in debt. That’s a steep price for a policy that continues the stagnation of the Merkel years: no economic reforms to promote the private sector, but instead a push for greater centralization.
Germany’s fiscal turnaround signals a small revolution in the bond market. Massive bond issuances are already driving interest rates upward. The announcement of the debt program caused yields on ten-year government bonds to surge by 40 basis points. The return of the bond vigilantes looms—those investors who critically scrutinize the debt positions of struggling debtors. For decades, German government bonds were synonymous with stability. But with public debt projected to rise from 63% to as much as 95% of GDP—barring a deeper recession—that image is starting to crumble.
It was Bloomberg that revealed the secret: Until now, Germany’s relatively conservative debt policy made it an unlikely candidate for the role of a reserve asse—a product that banks and investors can use as collateral to secure liquidity and credit. In Europe, that role was ironically filled by Italy, which, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 140%, offers a sizable bond market. Now, however, Bloomberg suggests German government bonds could become an alternative to the globally dominant system of U.S. Treasuries. The idea is enticing: a liquid market of euro-denominated securities offering investors a hedge while the U.S. pushes its own fiscal and monetary limits.
But will international investors actually accept German government bonds as credit collateral? That’s highly doubtful, given the economic and fiscal troubles of the euro zone. The urgency has grown since the U.S. Federal Reserve rapidly raised interest rates and shows no willingness to follow the swift easing course of its European, Japanese, and Chinese counterparts. Investors will carefully consider whether they can trust these new European securities amid the Ukraine crisis, energy problems in Europe, and the EU’s reluctance to embrace market-oriented reforms.
But behind the façade of fiscal responsibility, the euro zone’s paper empire relies on fragile trust—and Germany is printing its way into the heart of it. The credibility of euro-denominated debt rests less on sound economics than on political cohesion and institutional promises. In such a system, any serious deviation—economic, geopolitical, or fiscal—could trigger a confidence shock with far-reaching consequences.
Germany’s rising debt is not an isolated event. It fits into a long history of European debt policy that relies on state intervention rather than reform. The tariffs introduced by U.S. President Donald Trump give the EU an excuse to further centralize political power and meddle in markets. Brussels dreams of grandeur while the coffers run dry—a prime example is the air taxi startup Volocopter, which, despite €150 million in subsidies from the federal government and Bavaria, filed for insolvency in December 2024 because neither the market nor investors believed in the vision. Yet these measures fall short of securing Europe’s competitiveness. Europe continues to lose direct investments to the U.S.; in 2023 alone, a net total of around €20 billion in investment capital flowed from Europe to North America. Jobs are being created there in the private sector, while Europe relies on state subsidies and believes the government can efficiently allocate capital.
A look at the numbers reinforces the skepticism. While the U.S. benefits from its role as the world’s reserve currency and a dynamic economy despite high debt (over 120% of GDP), the euro zone struggles with stagnation. Germany may create a larger bond market with its new debt, but it lacks credibility. Yields on ten-year U.S. Treasuries currently stand at around 4%, while German bonds, despite a recent uptick, barely exceed 2%. For investors seeking safety and liquidity, the dollar remains more appealing—not least due to Europe’s geopolitical uncertainties.
German government bonds will only add to Europe’s debt mountain. Without far-reaching social reforms and a return to market-oriented policies, the EU faces significant socioeconomic tensions. The momentum cannot be underestimated once citizens realize their money is losing purchasing power faster than the EU can point to external culprits. The federal government hopes its debt programs will secure Germany a new role in the global financial system. But the reality is sobering: without fundamental reforms, Germany—and with it the euro zone—will continue to lose ground. The bond vigilantes are watching, and markets don’t forgive illusions. German government bonds as an alternative to US Treasuries? A bold hypothesis that, in practice, is likely to falter on Europe’s weaknesses.
When British PM Keir Starmer visited the White House, he rejected J.D. Vance’s claim that free speech is restricted in Britain. “We’ve had free speech for a very long time in the UK,” Starmer retorted, “and it will last for a very long time”.
Unfortunately, Starmer’s Home Office seems not to have taken notice. Because it has just blocked a famous French writer from entering the UK to give a speech on the dangers of mass immigration, while in the courts British lawyers are trying to legalise Hamas.
The writer is Renaud Camus, 78, author of “Le Grand Remplacement” (The Great Replacement). British officials have informed Camus that his “presence in the UK” is “not considered to be beneficial to the public good”.
So it seems the UK can control its borders whenever it wants to do so, after all.
1984 hasn’t been literature for a long time.
Never before has a European government blocked a writer, a man of letters, from entering the UK because he expresses non-violent ideas that the mainstream doesn’t like. And I remember that Voltaire found asylum and exile in England, because of his controversial writings and clashes with the French authorities, between 1726 and 1728.
“They seem to fear that I may replace the British people, and yet I am 78 years old and gay,” wrote Renaud Camus with no small amount of irony. “I would have gone to England despite the ban, but I would be annoyed to give Macron and his Foreign Minister the worry of a second French writer in his eighties with cancer imprisoned in a Muslim country.” A reference to Boualem Sansal in Algeria.
For years, Camus, who was about to replace Julien Green among the “immortals” of the Académie française before risking his career and name by attacking mass immigration, has isolated himself in the castle of Plieux in the Pyrenees, the land that gave birth to D’Artagnan (he self-published his books after the big publishers abandoned him). From up there, the libertine writer casts a pessimistic glance at the fate of Europe and is also evoked by Emmanuel Macron. Camus has few defenders and friends, and one is the Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut.
From this fortified castle atop a hill overlooking rolling fields dotted with groves and farms, Camus issues dire warnings about the demographic catastrophe of Europe.
Camus today is like Oriana Fallaci twenty years ago, when she shouted her anger at Islamic aggression and her pride in defending the dignity of the West.
Even the UN Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has denounced Camus’ theory “Great Replacement,” or the upheaval of mass immigration, as dangerous.
This is why the Associated Press – the most important agency in the world – has gone so far as to prohibit journalists from using the expression “illegal immigrant.” They want to sweeten, rewrite and repress reality.
And so the Iranian dissident Maryam Namazie was banned from some English universities, because her defense of free speech would have “offended” students of the Islamic faith.
And so the Iranian dissident exile Niyak Ghorbani was arrested in London for interfering in pro-Hamas protests by holding a sign that said “Hamas are terrorists.”
In the meantime, however, the volumes of jihadist imams find a place on the shelves of British public libraries.
In the meantime, the protesters who were filmed while waving the flag used by Al Qaeda, al Shabab, Boko Haram, Jabhat al Nusra, Hizb al Tahrir and the Islamic State during a march in central London “have not committed any crime”, say the police.
It had already happened. In May 2023, when Camus was supposed to march through the streets of the Brussels municipality of Saint-Josse, the march ultimately did not take place. Mayor Emir Kir, a Turkish socialist who denies the Armenian genocide, issued an order banning Camus from attending. “Saint-Josse symbolizes the Great Enrichment, not the Great Replacement,” the mayor said. “We are proud of the mosaic of nationalities in our municipality”.
Interesting, the “Great Enrichment” and the “mosaic”. Let’s look at the data, which even goes back a few years. Saint-Josse is already 49 percent Islamic. But the problem is a Camus walk…
A series of personalities who are critical of Islamism and who live under the protection of the police are banned from the English capital. Like Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician protected by a military unit of the Dutch army generally responsible for ensuring the security of an embassy in Afghanistan. He too has been denied entry to London. Like Robert Spencer, the founder of Jihad Watch.
London, where extremist imams are free to foment a “holy war” against the West and parliamentarians are killed even inside churches, is becoming a truly strange place…
When he arrived at Heathrow Airport, Wilders was greeted by two plainclothes English officers who put him back on a flight to Amsterdam. “So Britain welcomes a democrat?” Wilders said. “I was invited by one of your members of Parliament. I am a representative, an elected political representative. I am a democrat. I use my freedom of speech.” Yes, freedom of speech…
It is not looking good in England when even the head of MI6 (the British secret service), Sir John Sawers, has recommended self-censorship, warning the British not to offend Islam if they want to prevent terrorists from launching further attacks in the country: “If you show disrespect for the fundamental values of others, then you are going to provoke an angry reaction. We in the West must be moderate.”
For the same reason, Britain refused to offer asylum to Asia Bibi because it could cause “violent uprisings” by the Muslim population of England. Asia Bibi is the living definition of someone who needs asylum: a woman in danger, threatened with death, who has spent ten years in prison for no other reason than because she follows the Christian faith and has been the target of an insulting accusation of “blasphemy against Mohammed.” Countries that profess to be liberal should have competed to offer a safe haven to this persecuted Christian. Yet London said “no” to Bibi’s arrival in the UK because it “would risk inflaming community tensions.” To preserve Britain’s multicultural peace, Bibi must be kept out. And Camus must stay in his castle.
This is why Islam gets preferential treatment. A teacher in Batley was forced to leave his school and home after receiving death threats for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons during a lesson on freedom of expression. Now the professor, who was also suspended from school, lives in a “safe house” with his wife and children. We are talking about the country of the Magna Carta, a country where, due to accusations of “Islamophobia”, the book of a journalist like Julie Burchill was sent to the shredder and where “museums and libraries house dozens of images of Mohammed, but they remain out of reach of the public”, as the Guardian explained.
This is the tragic truth: some European governments are realizing that their fifth column is now too big to be governed and are using the repression of critics as appeasement.
This is why Sweden had tried and decided to deport the Iraqi Christian refugee Salwan Momika (this before an Islamist entered his home and killed him in front of the cameras). A murder that has fallen under a silence that not even the Soviet Union achieved at the time of Chernobyl.
Eighty years ago, “Radio London” was broadcast throughout Europe under the grip of Nazism. The broadcasts began with “London speaks,” not with “We are moderate.” Today it might begin like this: “Londonistan speaks, we are submissive.”
As for Mr. Camus, he could forgo the Eurostar from Paris to London in favor of a dinghy. In that case, the English authorities would welcome him with open arms, Amnesty International would make him a testimonial, and the newspapers would fight for him. And if, before setting sail from Calais, he remembered to throw away his passport and declare himself a “refugee,” he could stay in England as long as he wants.
US Vice President JD Vance meeting Pope Francis at the Casa Santa Marta a day before his death (Credit: Vatican)
Pope Francis has died today, aged 88.
Pope Francis’s health had been steadily declining in recent months. He had suffered persistent breathing problems through the winter and was admitted to Rome’s Gemelli hospital on February 14 for bronchitis but was then diagnosed with double pneumonia in what was first described as a “complex” then a “critical” medical scenario. He suffered a number of respiratory crises and failures and presented with symptoms of “mild” kidney failure during his hospitalization. Discharged back to the Vatican after 38-days, Francis began a 2-month convalescence as his doctors revealed he nearly lost his life twice in the spring hospitalization.
He was last in public on Easter Sunday to give the Urbi et Orbi blessing, but looked notably weak, being barely able to raise his arms and with a particularly strained voice.
The Argentinian prelate had led the Catholic Church as Pope since March 13, 2013. He emerged to the world as a surprise successor to Benedict XVI, following the German Pope’s shock resignation in February 2013.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained on December 13, 1969 and was raised to become Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires in May 1992, before assuming control of the see in 1998. Created cardinal by Pope John Paul II in February 2001, he served as the vice-president and then president of the episcopal conference of Argentina from 2002 – 2011.
In the papal conclave following Benedict XVI’s resignation, Cardinal Bergoglio was elected to the Papal throne on March 13, 2013, at the age of 76.
Styled as the “pope of confusion” by commentators, his reign was marked by a rapid diversion from Catholic teaching on numerous issues, with his pronouncements and writings leading to widespread confusion amongst Catholics on topics such as LGBT issues, divorce and “re-marriage,” nature of the priesthood, role of the laity in ecclesial governance, adherence to Tradition, and the permissibility of the traditional Latin Mass.
Indeed, the issues arising from his pontificate do not end here, since they also include the gutting of the Pontifical Academy for Life and re-filling it with supporters of abortion; the championing of “climate change” and globalist policies; the promotion of taking abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections as a moral duty; pushing an irreligious concept of “human fraternity” which was widely accused of rejecting God and subsequently welcomed by Muslims and Freemasons; being involved in the reported cover-up of a number of high-profile abuse cases, such as Father Marko Ivan Rupnik, Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick; remaking the Vatican curia with individuals noted for their rejection of Catholic teaching on numerous points.
Announced as the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church on March 13, 2013, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected on just the second day of the conclave. Many have argued that his election was a result of a longstanding and coordinated plan by the secretive St. Gallen group or mafia. (More details on his election are provided further below in this obituary).
Citing concern for the poor as his reason, Bergoglio chose the new papal name of Francis in imitation of St. Francis of Assisi, though he had in fact not visited Assisi at that point. Addressing the crowds in St. Peter’s Square on the evening of his ascent to the throne, Francis avoided using the term “Pope,” presenting himself instead as “bishop” of Rome. “You know that it was the duty of the Conclave to give Rome a Bishop. It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to get one… but here we are… I thank you for your welcome. The diocesan community of Rome now has its Bishop.”
His appearance on the balcony of St. Peter’s was notable for is departure from tradition: gone were the Pope’s red shoes which symbolized martyrdom; gone were the Papal pectoral cross and ring, with Bergoglio choosing his own instead; gone also was the traditional red mozzetta.
He also dispensed with the usual order of a papal blessing, asking the assembled crowd to pray for him, before imparting a blessing.
The evening was a revelatory one, with many commentators already remarking on the new Pope’s disregard for customs.
He created over 140 cardinals in nine consistories through his reign, and issued well over 3,500 documents, texts or speeches. Among this number were 4 Encyclicals: Lumen Fidei, largely written by Pope Benedict and finished by Francis; Fratelli Tutti, which expounded a form of irreligious fraternity dubbed as “blasphemous”; Laudato Si’, which advocated for “climate change” measures and formed the basis for his future ecological writings and interventions; Dilexit Nos, on the Sacred Heart.
One of the most notable and impactful aspects of Francis’ tumultuous pontificate is his attack on the Church’s traditional Mass, which was affected over a number of years. His July 16, 2021, motu proprio TraditionisCustodes abrogated Pope Benedict’s 2007 Summorum Pontificum, declaring that the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, or the NovusOrdo, is the “unique expression of the lexorandi of the Roman Rite.”
The immediate fallout of the text saw closure of traditional Masses in various locations around the world. It was supposedly born out of a survey by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which claimed devotees of the traditional Mass fostered “disagreements,” ruptures in the Church, and the “peril of division.”
However, the implementation of the restrictions was not swift or widespread enough, prompting Francis’ perfect of the Congregation for Divine Worship (Cardinal Arthur Roche) to issues increased restrictions in December 2021, followed by yet more restrictions in February 2023. The results of the CDF’s survey were never published, and are believed never to have been seen by Roche’s dicastery implementing the restrictions.
Canonists have argued that Traditionis Custodes itself was not canonically legal, and prelates such as Cardinals Raymond Burke, Robert Sarah and Bishop Athanasius Schneider repeatedly spoke out against the papal moves. Schneider has stated that to comply with the restrictions would be a “false obedience,” Sarah decried them as “diabolical,” and Burke styled them as being a “persecution.”
By virtue of these various documents against the traditional Mass, Francis thus ordered traditional Masses out of parish churches, forbade newly ordained priests from automatically being able to say the traditional Mass, limited the number of priests already with that permission, restricted the use of the traditional sacraments, and removed diocesan bishops’ powers to exempt their priests from the papal restrictions.
In addition to this, the Pontiff repeatedly took aim at devotees of Tradition, describing them as “rigid” and highlighting this as a problem related to “clericalism.” In one such characteristic discussion, Francis argued that devotion to the traditional Mass was a “nostalgic disease” resulting in “indietrism.”
In a quasi-autobiographical book published in January 2025, Francis also accused Catholics who attend the traditional liturgy of having a “mental imbalance, emotional deviation, behavioral difficulties, a personal problem that may be exploited.”
Indeed, further restrictions on the traditional Mass had been rumored to be enacted over the summer of 2024, with Francis reportedly having the document on his desk ready to sign. But following an outpouring of public support from groups and individuals, the rumored text never emerged.
On December 18, 2023, the Vatican published the Declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which contained approval for “blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.” Written by CDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, and approved by Pope Francis, the document caused instant and widespread consternation throughout the global Church.
The Declaration argued that offering blessings to same-sex couples did not change the teaching on marriage, or validate the “status” of such relationships. It came in apparent contradiction to the CDF’s 2021 note which ruled out the possibility of blessings “unions of persons of the same-sex,” stated that blessings could be provided to individuals who came alone, seeking a blessing.
Fiducia Supplicans was swiftly welcomed by LGBT advocates and heterodox clerics, while vocal opposition was found predominantly in Africa along with a steadily growing number of dioceses in the U.S., Europe, the UK, and amongst religious orders.
Notable prelates – Cdls. Müller and Zen and Sarah, Abp. Viganò, Bp. Schneider – all penned their rejection of the document’s proposal for same-sex blessings, many doing so repeatedly. Sarah went so far as to state that FiduciaSupplicans proposes a “heresy that gravely undermines the Church, the Body of Christ, because it is contrary to the Catholic faith and tradition.”
Francis and Fernández defended the document strenuously from critics, with Francis arguing that “those who vehemently protest [FiduciaSupplicans] belong to small ideological groups.”
In one March 2024 interview which exemplified the rationale often used by the Pope, Francis stated that “I do not bless a ‘homosexual marriage,’ I bless two people who love each other and I also ask them to pray for me.”
FiduciaSupplicans’ publication arguably caused one of, if not the greatest, tumult in the Francis pontificate up until that time, with the global backlash against the text on a scale previously unseen in the prior 11 years of Francis’ reign.
The late Pope’s record on homosexuality and apparent promotion of it, is of proportions previously unseen by the Vatican. He was repeatedly praised by LGBT activists for regular comments appearing to break with Church teaching opposing homosexuality and gender ideology.
This record infamously began with his 2013 in-flight comments “who am I to judge” when asked about the existence of a gay lobby within the Vatican and the practice of homosexuality. Such support took a marked increase in the wake of the CDF’s March 2021 responsum condemning same-sex “blessings,” as Pope Francis made numerous public statements praising and supporting advocates of LGBT ideology and same-sex civil unions.
Numerous times he appeared to suggest that homosexuals could present themselves for Holy Communion, though without stating so explicitly. Such statements often took the form of the Pope refusing to answer specific questions with the relevant aspect of Catholic teaching on chastity or the immoral nature of homosexual actions. Notably, when speaking with Portuguese Jesuits in August 2023, he appeared to suggest that homosexual should not be encouraged to practice chastity if “they are not yet mature, or are not capable.”
The Pope also argued strongly against anti-sodomy laws – in contradiction to the teaching of saints and Church Fathers – saying that criminalizing homosexuality is “unjust.” He criticized bishops who supported anti-sodomy laws, calling for them to “undergo a process of change to recognize the dignity of everyone.”
As part of his LGBT advocacy, he repeatedly welcomed prominent LGBT activists at the Vatican, such as Fr. James Martin S.J., along with transgender individuals and groups. He also allegedly told dissident U.S. activist and professor Aaron Bianco, who is in a same-sex “marriage,” to continue his efforts to make the Church more open to homosexual unions.
A duo of pro-LGBT advocates – Sr. Jeannine Gramick and the openly homosexual Juan-Carlos Cruz – respectively claimed that Francis wasn’t aware of the text of the CDF’s 2021 note prohibiting same-sex blessings and that he subsequently fired the officials responsible for the text. {This CDF text was of course contradicted by Fiducia Supplicans in 2024} Cruz himself attested that Francis told him that “God made you gay;” Cruz was brought by Francis to join the Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
Due to his policy of public inaction against bishops repudiating Catholic teaching on homosexuality, bishops in both Belgium and Germany approved plans and documents for same-sex blessings, despite the church’s prohibition of such. Prior to FiduciaSupplicans’ publication, Belgium’s Bishop Johan Bonny claimed on a number of occasions to have the Pope’s personal approval for the Belgian bishops’ same-sex “blessings,” a statement which supported the German bishops’ approval of same-sex blessings in March 2023.
Such was Francis’ record on LGBT issues, that the CEO of one of the most influential pro-LGBT pressure groups in the U.S. – GLADD, which describes itself as “the world’s largest Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization” – praised him for his actions, during the 2025 World Economic Forum’s Davos meeting.
The emergence of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in April 2016 was a seminal moment for the Catholic Church, due to the text’s promotion of Holy Communion for the divorced and ‘re-married.’
In the brief lines of the infamous footnote 351 in Chapter 8, Pope argued for the “integration” of those in “irregular unions” into the life of the Church. In the footnote, he stated that this “integration” can, “in certain cases,” involve admittance to the sacraments, including the Eucharist.
Fielding questions on the text, he answered by saying there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitiaexcept the one provided by the bishops of Buenos Aires allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried.
The Pope was also asked during an in-flight press conference if the text contained a “change in discipline that governs access to the sacraments” for Catholics who are divorced and “re-married,” Francis replied, “I can say yes, period.”
The document served as a catalyst for many Catholics – clerical and lay – who had hitherto been trying to interpret Francis’ increasingly obvious heterodoxy in line with Tradition. Within months, a group of Catholic scholars issued a letter to all the cardinals and patriarchs, warning that AmorisLaetitia contained “dangers to the faith” and appealing for a correction.
Then on November 14, 2016 four cardinals publicly released a letter, the Dubia, which they had privately sent to the Pope on September 19 but had gone unanswered. The four signatories – Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner – issued the Dubia only ten days after Francis’ comments to the Buenos Aires bishops – an interpretation of Amoris Laetitia which Brandmüller had previously warned would be heretical.
Their Dubia consisted of five questions each requiring a simple answer of “yes” or “no,” and positing Amoris Laetitia in juxtaposition with Catholic Tradition.
The letter was never officially answered, with Caffarra and Meisner dying some years before Francis.
However, responding to aDubia from Cardinal Dominik Duka O.P. on the same issue in 2023, the CDF provided an answer to the 2016 Dubia. Duka asked whether Pope Francis’ response to the Bishops of Buenos Aires – when the Pope stated there was “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitiaexcept the one provided by the bishops of Buenos Aires in allowing Communion for the divorced and “re-married” – can be considered “a statement of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.” Fernández wrote that since Pope Francis’ words were published in the Vatican’s official compilation of documents, the ActaApostolicaeSedes, they were “authentic Magisterium.”
Pope Francis also refused to issue Catholic teaching on the prohibition of Holy Communion for politicians complicit in promoting abortion. He regularly argued “Communion is not a prize for the perfect,” that clergy should not “go condemning” pro-abortion politicians, and that he has never refused Communion to anyone.
Then in October 2021, Francis made waves when he reportedly told the radically pro-abortion U.S. President Joe Biden to “keep receiving Communion,” calling Biden “a good Catholic.”
Some months later, at a Papal Mass, Nancy Pelosi was permitted to receive Communion, despite having only recently been banned by her local bishop {Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone} due to her support for abortion.
Francis’ 2022 Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi, in which he reaffirmed his restrictions on the Latin Mass, also contained his argument that Communion was to be offered to all, leaving out the “essential topic of repentance for sin for the worthy reception of the Eucharist.” This prompted a group of prominent bishops, priests and lay scholars to write a statement warning that Francis’ claim of “garment of faith” as the only requirement for the reception of Holy Communion, “contradicts the faith of the Catholic Church.” Their statement went unanswered by the Vatican.
During the 2019 Synod on the Amazon held at the Vatican, Catholics were shocked when pagan idols were afforded center stage in an idolatrous ceremony. One of the offerings made to the idols was later placed on the altar inside St. Peter’s Basilica.
On Friday, October 4, Pope Francis took part in the “highly symbolic tree-planting ceremony” in the Vatican Gardens, during which an Amazonian group prostrated themselves before a number of carvings, including two nearly identical wooden Pachamama statues depicting a naked, pregnant woman. Pope Francis was offered a statue of the image, which he blessed; he then set aside his prepared speech at the event, and instead simply recited an Our Father.
The Pachamama is a pagan goddess of the “figure of life,” an Incan fertility goddess, and is revered among Indigenous groups.
