(ZENIT News – The Denver Catholic / Denver, 04.03.2025).- My brother, a medical doctor, says that I got my MD from Google University. He is not wrong.

I’m a theologian, not a doctor. But, like Pope St. John Paul II before me, I have been fascinated with God’s creation of male and female. In particular, as we have been exploring over these past few columns, the differences in the lived experience of being male or female and the questions around how much of that difference is due to how we were created and how much to the influences surrounding us.

And so, I have been googling a lot.

Here is what I have learned: while the architecture is similar, subtle but profound differences exist in the functioning of men’s and women’s brains. And while neurology can’t possibly explain every difference between persons, it does have a significant impact.

Early clues came in studies done by psychologist Herbert Landsell of persons with brain damage. The right brain controls visual and spatial functions, “big picture,” emotional and abstract thinking and recognition of shapes and patterns. Meanwhile, the left brain controls verbal and linguistic functions, details and practical and concrete thinking. Landsell discovered that men with right-sided brain damage did badly in tests related to spatial skills, abstract thinking and other functions related to the right brain. Likewise, men with left-sided brain damage struggled with language skills, concrete thinking, orderly sequencing and other left-brain skills. But strangely, women with the same types of damage did not struggle in the same ways. Numerous subsequent studies have confirmed Landsell’s findings.

Why would this be? Why would men and women respond differently to essentially identical brain damage?

This is why: in women, language and spatial skills are controlled by both sides of the brain, while in the male brain, each is limited to one hemisphere. So, when one side was damaged, the women could compensate, whereas the men could not.

Other differences have been found in emotional processing. One study found that, in functional MRI tests, women used different neural pathways to regulate emotion. Another found that women often show greater activity in the limbic system, where emotions are processed, indicating greater sensitivity to emotional stimuli. And a third study found that women tend to remember emotionally charged events better.

The most fascinating difference to me relates to the corpus callosum, the connector between the two halves of the brain. Multiple studies indicate that the corpus callosum in women’s brains is larger than in men’s brains and that, as a result, communication between the two hemispheres is easier for women. This would explain why we women tend to have an easier time accessing, identifying and discussing our emotions — because they more easily connect with our verbal centers. This is why studies consistently show that women can better identify other people’s emotions by reading the expressions on their faces.

Meanwhile, men’s brains are more specialized. With skills housed exclusively on one side and less interplay between the hemispheres, men’s brains are more compartmentalized. In the emotional sphere, this makes them less attuned to their feelings. It also makes it easier for them to focus and makes them less distracted by superfluous information.

Of course, as I have said in every installment of this series, these are only tendencies. There are so many other influences on our brains and our behavior. Every human person is unique, and none can be pigeonholed into a neat category.

There is so much more to this science. You can find a nice summary of much of the recent research here. Otherwise, Google is your friend.

But let’s take a minute here to discuss the “why.” Why did God make us with these differences? St. John Paul II wrote extensively about the concept of “complementarity” — the idea that men’s strengths tend to be women’s weaknesses and that women’s strengths tend to be men’s weaknesses. It’s a beautiful reminder that “no man is an island,” and we were created to go through life together, not alone.

Also, on a deeper level, think about this: these brains are housed in different bodies. Women’s bodies give birth. Men’s bodies do not. What do women need after having a baby? Well, the ability to read emotions without verbal cues would come in awfully handy when dealing with a child who can’t yet speak, wouldn’t it? Also, when a woman is focused on recovering from labor while providing for her baby, she is less able to fend for herself. So, she needs protection and provision. And what does the father of her child need when he is out hunting game with a spear so his family can eat? For starters, he needs higher muscle mass and more endurance and aggression. He needs a keen ability to strategize. And he doesn’t need to be distracted by superfluous information or have his feelings poking through and upsetting him. “We had a fight, and now I’m sad.”

“Wait a minute.” I can hear some of you now. “Babies? Are you saying women are only good for having babies?”

Of course not.

In primitive societies, male and female roles were well-defined. Women, with lower muscle mass and a tendency toward pregnancy, were not well equipped to protect the family, and men were not even slightly equipped to give birth.

But today, we live in a world with grocery stores, alarm systems and baby monitors. Parents have a lot more flexibility in how they structure their families’ lives. Different families work it out in different ways, based on their individual strengths and what they judge to be best in their own situations.

Pope St. John Paul II wrote extensively about the “feminine genius” and how women are uniquely gifted, particularly in the interpersonal realm. Maybe it’s the impact of estrogen on the brain, maybe it’s the easy communication between the hemispheres, or maybe it’s the way we process emotion. Whatever it is, he said that women overall have heightened interpersonal gifts to an extent that men overall do not tend to have.

Once again, this is not to say that all women score astronomically high on the EQ meter, or that all men are relational luddites. Individuals vary. Having encountered so many wonderful men in my life — family, friends, relationships — I know that men have their own beautiful gifts in relating to the people who are important to them. No man bashing here. Just saying, along with JPII, that women tend to have an extra bump when it comes to insight into the individual human person.

St. John Paul II was very clear that all areas of life need women’s gifts.

“Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future: leisure time, the quality of life, migration, social services, euthanasia, drugs, health care, the ecology, etc. In all these areas, a greater presence of women in society will prove most valuable, for it will help to manifest the contradictions present when society is organized solely according to the criteria of efficiency and productivity, and it will force systems to be redesigned in a way which favors the processes of humanization which mark the civilization of love.” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Women, 1995)

The idea of complementarity is not bad. It does not and should not imply that women are less suited than men to public life or that women’s gifts are limited to the narrow sphere of the domestic. It simply says that men and women, each uniquely gifted, together can accomplish far more and bring about the Kingdom of God far more effectively than either can alone.

And I find that beautiful.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Why Men and Women’s Brains Are Wired Differently — And How It Affects Us All appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Acton Institute / USA, 03.28.2025).- On August 31, 2023, the French Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports issued a statement titled “Respect of Republican Values” (Respect des Valeurs de la République), forbidding pupils to wear the abaya in public schools throughout the national territory.

The abaya, also called qamis, is part of traditional Middle Eastern clothing that has become increasingly popular in recent years among France’s Muslim population. Despite its not being a religious garment per se, contrary to, for example, the Islamic veil (hijab), the statement estimated that the qamis still “ostensibly manifests a religious affiliation” in the French context and therefore declared that it “cannot be tolerated” in public schools.

Since then, the move has been vindicated twice by rulings from the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest administrative court, which rules over disputes between the state and its constituents. The court’s approval was grounded in the article L-141-5-1 of the Code of Education, itself a materialization of the now famous law of March 15, 2004, which outlawed all “signs or clothing through which pupils ostensibly manifest a religious affiliation.” Moreover, polls showed that the decision was supported by no less than 81% of the French population, which added plebiscite to legality.

All this may at firsthand seem nothing short of tyranny to the common American mind. The informed reader would probably perceive it as yet another confirmation of the “illiberal” tendency at the core of French secularism, while those still unfamiliar with France’s management of religious pluralism would be shocked by what they could only recognize as an infringement on one’s sacred freedom to express and practice their religion. Looking for explanations, they might remember that the French Revolution was, after all, plagued from the beginning by antireligious tendencies; that the Communards kidnapped and executed priests, just as Robespierre guillotined Carmelites; and that Tocqueville himself opposed the religious but “free and enlightened” United States to a French Republic threatened by “incredulity” and victim of “stupidity and ignorance.”

Indeed, despite France’s being one of the first countries that, like the United States, entrenched secularism in its constitution, the French version of secularism has since the late 18th century been perceived and depicted by many as inherently opposed to the American understanding of religious freedom as defined in the First Amendment. For the past three centuries or so, the dominant American perception of laïcité has thus been characterized as “anticlericalism” and “atheism,” in which political and social hostility toward religion supersedes the protection and upholding of religious freedom.

In fact, this perception of revolutionary France as an anti-clerical and essentially godless nation irritated the writings of prominent intellectuals and politicians of the age. John Adams, perhaps the most conservative of the Founding Fathers, famously shared his circumspection about the Revolution unfolding in France in a letter to one Dr. Price in 1790, confessing that he did not know “what to make of a republic of 30 million atheists.” In 1794, Noah Webster condemned what he perceived as the French revolutionary government’s attempt to suppress religious morals and replace them by a vague and artificial “cult of reason.” Similarly, in History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution some 11 years later, Mercy Ottis Warren critiqued the French spirit of “impiety” and denial of the existence of God. And during the campaign for the presidential elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson’s opponents, chief among them Alexander Hamilton, warned voters about a “decadent, irreligious, and immoral” Francophile candidate who would flood the country with the “torrents of atheism set free by the French insurrection.” And the list could go on.

The dominant early-American skepticism regarding the then-burgeoning and “radical” French blend of secularism still influences attitudes to this day. Consider, for example, the outrage that the tasteless depiction of the Last Supper in the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics sparked in the United States last summer. Shocking, sure. But surprising? I remember American friends of mine essentially raising their shoulders in a resigned sigh. “It’s France, after all,” they all said, as if this was to be expected. The “republic of 30 million atheists” trope is alive and well.

As argued by Amandine Barb in Incompréhensions transatlantiques: le discours américain sur la laïcité française (2014), laïcité has historically functioned as a counter-model to American secularism, simultaneously shedding light on the singularities and fragilities of the American approach to the relation of church and state. And while its inner mechanisms and implications have significantly evolved since the Bastille fell, in matters pertaining to secularism and religious freedom, France remains to this day that quintessential “Other” through which the “I” is best reaffirmed.

~~~

What is it, then, about the French understanding of secularism that appears so peculiar to the American mind? First, “secular” (or more exactly laïque) is mentioned in the first article of the French Constitution of October 4, 1958, as one of the defining characteristics of the Fifth Republic, along with “indivisible,” democratic,” and “social.” Note that there is a subtle yet fundamental difference from the formulation found in the Bill of Rights: While the First Amendment effectively prohibits the establishment of a state religion and protects religious freedom, the article does not explicitly define the United States as a secular republic, nor establishes secularism as a central characterizing feature. Consequently, debating secularism implies far more to the French than merely discussing a particular policy or organizing political principle: In the French context, it is one of the fundamental elements of French political identity. Institutionally, this is translated by the recognition of laïcité as defined by the seminal law of December 9, 1905, on the separation of church and state as a principle of constitutional value, placing it on the very top of the legal hierarchy within the French system. The juxtaposition of the terms laïque and indivisible should, therefore, not be taken lightly: It means that, to the French, abandoning laïcité would, in a sense, be akin in magnitude to losing Normandy.

Second, the French approach to the relationship of church and state is essentially different from the American one in both its content and scope. Laïcité goes well beyond the mere separation of political and religious institutions. While in America the state is legally bound to an attitude of neutrality vis-à-vis religion, the latter’s presence and open expression in the public sphere is nevertheless accepted, if not encouraged, as a safeguard of democracy, tolerance, and civic vitality. In the American conception, civic and religious virtue can be seen as the two separate columns of the same national edifice, each necessary to avoid the crumbling of the whole structure. In contrast, the French conception resembles two separate buildings standing side by side with no communicating corridors, such that getting inside one of them necessarily requires getting out of the other. It consists in the establishment of a sort of security perimeter, of a minimal distance between the political and the religious. “I want what our forefathers wanted … the state in its home, and the church in hers,” wrote Victor Hugo. This “distancing” of civic from religious life is manifested in the imperative of strict division of the private and the public spheres, with religious expression being confined to the boundaries of the former.

Does that mean that, in France, one may wear a cross, a yarmulke, or a hijab at home but must remove it as soon as he or she goes out to the grocery store? Not quite. Aristide Briand, prominent French political figure and one of the “fathers” of the law of 1905, opposed such outright interdiction and reminded everyone that the neutrality of the state implies that there is no distinction between “religious” and “non-religious” garments. He reportedly joked that if one wished to “dress up” by wearing a friar’s robe while walking down the street, the state would not forbid him to do so. Accordingly, far from banning it, the law of 1905 makes no explicit mention of religious clothing. This allows for a clarification of another issue facing the principle of laïcité: that of the ever-moving boundaries of the public sphere. While the early interpretation of the law of 1905 limited the obligation of neutrality to the state and its representatives, France has witnessed an ongoing extension of the public spaces where this obligation applies, including, for example, public schools, transformed into “sanctuaries” where pupils must be preserved from any sort of religious influence.

Could, then, the American remonstrance against the French model and its “radical illiberalism” be justified, all duly considered? Understood, certainly. Justified, less so. According to French academic Patrick Weil, laïcité is “first of all the freedom to believe or not to believe without exogeneous pressure.” However, for these criteria to be realized, the public sphere must be one where individuals are perceived and treated purely as “citizens,” and where the exercise of religion must be limited so as not to impede on the others’ right to live the life of their choosing in complete freedom, including from religious influence. French MP Jean Jaurès did not say otherwise when he praised laïcité in an article in the newspaper La Dépêche in 1889, exalting it as “this living freedom which refuses no problem and denies itself no height.”

In France, the law’s protection extends beyond mere freedom of conscience in the positive sense. Rather, the freedom to exercise one’s religion finds its limits in the negative understanding of freedom of conscience, manifest in the explicit consecration of the right “not to believe.” Art. 31 of the law of 1905 accordingly provides for the same punishments for those who would prevent someone to believe in or practice a religion as well as for those who would force them to. An early controversy provides a telling illustration of this last point: In the aftermath of the 1905 law’s adoption, atheists in French communes complained that they did not want to hear church bells ring all day, leading mayors to strike compromises with the local Catholic population to ring them on specific occasions to accommodate the latter’s freedom to exercise their religion with the former’s freedom to be secure in their lack thereof. The principle, at heart, and however paradoxical it might seem, remains a fundamentally liberal one. By banning headscarves and abayas in public schools, the Republic, to quote Weil’s words, frees individuals from the “entrapment” of “the only place where they feel at home, the house of a faith,” and makes them enter into “the space of citizenship.” There come the two buildings.

Therefore, when we look at such things as bans on religious clothing from beyond the Atlantic, one must begin by remembering that laïcité remains a decisively French answer to universal problems and cannot be fully understood nor sincerely investigated in abstraction of the historic, political, and social context in which it was first formulated. France, since the Revolution, has essentially been fighting off the haunting memory of the collaboration of the historically Catholic majority religion with the “oppressive” and “illegitimate” Ancien régime. But still, one might ask, why not follow the same course as America and adopt a liberal-pluralist approach? Why this need, to this day, to restrict religion to the private sphere and to dissociate it from civic life altogether?

Maybe in part because the Colonies were yet a nation in the making, a political terra nullius with starting points as numerous as the ships arriving to and the languages spoken on its shores, and a horizon so vast that it could fit every aspiration. Everything was yet to be done, and there were no palaces to take, no gardens to be reused, no government buildings to simply step into and redecorate. The French revolutionaries, in a sense, were heirs to a past that was too heavy for them to be entirely rid of, and prisoners of a space whose boundaries were too rigid to move, no matter how hard they tried. While America resolutely advanced toward what could be, France wanted to prevent what had been in order to escape the past.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post French Laïcité vs. American Secularism appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Asia News / Beirut, 03.27.2025).- The rise to power in Syria of a Sunni Islamist regime and the agreement on the application of United Nations Resolution 1701 in the southern sector have radically changed the geopolitical situation in Lebanon.

The country of cedars is gradually, but with difficulty, freeing itself from the grip of Hezbollah and Iran. However, caught in the crossfire, it must learn to manage the new tensions.

On the border with Syria, with the exception of the border posts controlled by the army, the Shiite Party of God continues to be present, even if it now has to face the army of Damascus, mainly composed of Sunni groups that are still not very integrated.

The latter no longer tolerate the trafficking of goods and people controlled by Hezbollah and the allied Shiite tribes, which prevailed under the dictatorship of former President Bashar al-Assad.

A week ago, violent clashes broke out between Syrian forces and traffickers in the village of Hoch Sayyed Ali. This area near the border is crossed by a river that divides it in two, with one part in Syria and the other in Lebanon.

At least 10 people were killed in the clashes, which only stopped following the forceful intervention of the Lebanese army on 17 March. Furthermore, Damascus accused Hezbollah of having instigated the kidnapping and killing, by traffickers, of three soldiers from Hay’at Tahriri al-Sham (HTS), the core of the new Syrian army, something that the pro-Iranian movement formally denied.

Village on fire

Seven Lebanese were killed in the fighting, including the son of a Shia tribal leader. With the arrival of the Lebanese army, the Syrian forces finally withdrew from the Lebanese part of the village, but not before looting and setting fire to houses.

This incident clearly reflects the fragility of a situation that could easily be repeated, given that Lebanon shares a 330-kilometre border with Syria, with no official demarcation at several points.

Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria in 2013, initially motivated by a concern to preserve its communication links with Iran, strengthened its grip on the border villages.

The Shiite clans, who chose to belong to Lebanon in the 1920s, still live on both sides of the fragile border. Until recently, the absence of state control allowed free movement between the two countries, transforming the region into a lawless zone and a free trade area.

And it is precisely to deal with this emergency situation, and others that could occur, that the new Lebanese Minister of Defence, Miche Menassa, will travel to Damascus tomorrow, 26th March, to meet his Syrian counterpart, Mourhaf Abou Qasra. On the agenda will be the smuggling of arms, petrol and drugs, which affects part of the population of the Bekaa.

Israeli reprisals

In southern Lebanon too, the new government in power in Beirut is facing a situation of profound instability. Last week the situation almost got out of hand when three rockets were fired anonymously at Metoulla, the largest city and the one closest to the Israeli border, and intercepted by Israel.

No one claimed responsibility for the attack and Hezbollah washed its hands of it, denying any involvement. However, this didn’t stop Israel from going on the rampage and carrying out at least 18 military operations against the South, killing eight people. One of the raids also hit the city of Tyre. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz threatened to bomb Beirut and intense contacts were initiated at the highest levels, with Washington and Paris, to avoid a very dangerous escalation that could cause a full-scale conflict to break out again.

At the moment there are three hypotheses regarding the identity of the perpetrators of the attack from the Land of the Cedars to the Jewish State. The Lebanese army found three makeshift launch ramps in a remote valley north of the Litani River. Some have linked this incident to the resumption of war in the Gaza Strip, others to Israel. It is surprising that the ramps escaped Israeli surveillance, whose drones fly over southern Lebanon day and night.

Finally, some believe that the perpetrators of this attack are rogue elements within Hezbollah; a perspective fuelled by the current phase, in which the November agreement – which in practice amounts to a capitulation – has widened the gap between a ‘moderate’ political wing loyal to Naïm Qassem, the new secretary general, and a military wing represented by Wafic Safa. The arrival in Lebanon in April of Morgan Ortagus, Donald Trump’s new special envoy to Beirut, will reveal whether Israeli pressure is just the beginning of a new military offensive, or blackmail to provoke new violence and push Lebanon into normalising relations with the Jewish state.

Joint Islamic-Christian holiday

It was in this climate of tension that Lebanon celebrated the Annunciation on March 25, declared a joint Muslim-Christian holiday in 2010. Considered a milestone in the process of coexistence in Lebanon, this year’s celebration will centre on a ceremony in the city of Jbeil, with the participation of local bishops and Sunni and Shiite dignitaries.

The programme includes exchanges of visits between churches and mosques, readings from the Gospel and the Koran and words of praise, simultaneous tolling of bells and calls of the muezzin, as well as psalms broadcast over loudspeakers. The event will end with an iftar, as this year the fasting of the lunar month of Ramadan coincides with Lent.

Everyone, except the fundamentalists, is pleased with the level of civilisation that characterises this celebration, which takes place in the spirit of the Abu Dhabi Declaration of Brotherhood signed by Pope Francis and the Imam of al-Azhar, but which remains without any real popular significance.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Clashes with the Syrians and Israeli reprisals: The fires that kindle Lebanon appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The Victorian Catholic Education Authority (VCEA) commissioned public policy experts at the Centre for International Research on Education Systems at Victoria University to compare post-school outcomes of people from the public, Catholic and independent school systems. The researchers focused on labour market, health and wellbeing, and community participation.

The HILDA survey data they drew from is a long-term study of around 17,000 Australians from across the nation and from all backgrounds. The study has been following the same participants since 2001 and aims to continue for the course of their lives. It provides greater depth of insights about Australians via that representative sample than can be gained from census data, and health, education and social services use it to make or improve their policies.

The VCEA study revealed that people who attended Catholic schools earn higher wages on average compared with government school attendees and are more likely to be employed. Beyond financial metrics, the study also found Catholic school graduates are more likely to work in industries that directly benefit the public.

VCEA chief executive officer Prof Elizabeth Labone says that the research ‘quantifies what people in our sector know intuitively, that Catholic schools do a great job preparing students for life’. She emphasised that Catholic education’s holistic approach supports the development of ‘well-rounded individuals who will succeed and be happy and confident in the world during and after their schooling.’

Artist James Murnane supports this claim. In addition to his creative career, he has also spent 12 years in disability support, working with adults with acquired brain injuries. He describes this work as ‘the privilege of being able to walk alongside and to assist people in their day-to-day lives’.

He attended St Clare’s Primary School in Box Hill North and Whitefriars College for his secondary education. ‘The richness of the faith life of St Clare’s really set a grounding for my faith life as an adult,’ James says. He credits his high-school art teacher with encouraging him to pursue a career as a professional artist—she remains a mentor more than two decades after graduation.

‘There’s a strong focus within Catholic education of holistic formation of the human person—spiritual, psychological and [physical],’ he says. He describes it as ‘that beautiful marriage of the active and contemplative life’.

Audiologist Ewa Ng, who went to Sacred Heart Regional Girls College in Oakleigh, says Catholic education instilled crucial values that shaped her life.

‘A Catholic education has helped me professionally, insofar as going to a Catholic school instilled discipline,’ she says. ‘While we were certainly beautifully guided by the teachers, it did instil a self-belief and also self-discipline.’

Ewa describes her school environment as ‘extremely strict’ compared to public schools, which taught her to take responsibility for her own actions, but also set her on a path of academic achievement.

The VCEA study indicates Catholic school attendance correlates with higher personal health scores and improved life satisfaction—benefits that extend well beyond scholastic success. These findings remained statistically significant even after adjusting for individual and family characteristics, the VCEA says.

Ewa believes her Catholic education fostered a sense of social responsibility, supporting the study’s finding that Catholic school graduates are more likely to choose careers benefiting society.

‘[There’s] an understanding that you’re a citizen of the world and using your talents not only to make a living, which we all have to do, but also for the betterment of society,’ she says. ‘So, it’s not just a focus on yourself and what you can do. Definitely I think the Catholic education helped there.’

This outlook has influenced Ewa’s professional choices and volunteer work. Following the Black Saturday bushfires, she volunteered to help people who had lost their hearing aids. She also works with Indigenous communities, addressing childhood hearing issues that can affect their education.

‘Coming from the Catholic sphere, there was a sense of the disparity between the health outcomes of First Nations and non-First Nations Australians,’ Ewa says. ‘It’s my responsibility to use my talents as much as possible to help them.’

For James, the value of his Catholic education is how it shaped his understanding of success and purpose. While he initially pursued status through his art career, his Catholic formation led him to redefine what constitutes true success.

‘What my faith life has afforded me is a sense that true success is living a life of love, living a life of being able to seek the good of others, and being open enough for people to seek good for me as well.’

‘Both Catholic education as well as my overall faith formation has afforded me [the understanding] that a life of truest worth is one where I am able to make a gift of myself,’ James says. ‘The gifting of myself is far more precious than this rabid attempt to accumulate things.’

Ewa says the values taught at her Catholic school reinforced those she learnt at home. Her parents, particularly her father, who came to Australia as a refugee, ‘instilled in us that … while my parents provided us with everything we need to be quite successful, we’re also taught to appreciate what we’ve got and to help others around us.’

She adds that Catholic education ‘strengthens one’s own faith when you’ve gotten that foundation at the school.’

According to VCEA, Catholic education continues to attract families seeking more for their children’s education. Currently, one in five Victorian students attends one of the state’s 495 Catholic schools.

CEO Prof Labone attributes this interest to parents seeking a ‘kind of holistic approach’ while also wanting an affordable private schooling for their children. She says the results of the study affirm parents’ choice of Catholic education.

‘It’s an education that’s underpinned by faith development [which] drives academic excellence.’ Teachers and principals strive to set their students up for life, ensuring ‘they grow up to make a really positive contribution to our society.’

More information on VCEA study can be found here.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post ‘A really positive contribution’: study reveals lifelong benefits of Catholic education appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The study analyzed data from over 107,000 patients and found that individuals who underwent transition-related surgeries faced significantly higher psychological distress compared to those who did not. Men who had feminizing surgeries reported a 25.4% rate of depression—more than double the 11.5% seen in those who avoided surgery. Among women, the disparity was also evident, with 22.9% experiencing depression post-surgery compared to 14.6% of their non-surgical counterparts. The researchers further highlighted that men who transitioned surgically were at particularly high risk for substance use disorders.

Despite these troubling statistics, the study did not call for an end to transition-related procedures. Instead, it emphasized the need for «gender-sensitive» mental health support following surgery. This conclusion, however, raises concerns about whether the medical community is truly addressing the root causes of gender dysphoria—or merely reinforcing an approach that may be exacerbating suffering.

Debunking the “Gender-Affirmation” Narrative 

For years, media outlets and advocacy groups have promoted the idea that gender transition surgery is not only beneficial but essential for the well-being of those experiencing gender dysphoria. However, mounting evidence suggests otherwise. Multiple studies indicate that “affirming” gender confusion—particularly in minors—carries significant risks, especially when individuals lack the emotional maturity and life experience to fully comprehend the irreversible consequences of medical interventions.

Statistics show that over 80% of children who experience gender dysphoria naturally outgrow it by the end of adolescence without medical intervention. Moreover, data consistently demonstrates that transition-related procedures do not resolve the elevated risk of self-harm and suicide among gender-dysphoric individuals. In fact, some studies suggest that these procedures may actually heighten psychological distress by reinforcing confusion rather than addressing its underlying causes.

Adding to these concerns is the growing number of «detransitioners»—individuals who underwent medical or surgical transition only to later regret it. Many have spoken out about the physical and emotional harm they suffered, as well as the lack of thorough psychological evaluation before being pushed toward irreversible procedures. Some have accused the medical establishment of bias, arguing that certain professionals approach gender transition with a predetermined conclusion rather than objective analysis.

A Silent Crisis: The Long-Term Fallout 

Further underscoring the risks of transition surgeries, a massive peer-reviewed study published last year found that individuals who undergo these procedures face a suicide risk «twelve times» higher than that of the general population. The research, which examined over 90 million patients across 56 healthcare organizations in the U.S., analyzed suicide attempts, deaths, self-harm incidents, and PTSD within five years post-surgery.

The numbers were sobering. Among those who had undergone gender-related surgeries, 3.47% were treated for suicide attempts, compared to just 0.29% of non-transitioning individuals who visited emergency rooms. Yet, despite this staggering difference, researchers once again stopped short of calling for a reevaluation of gender transition practices. Instead, they concluded that the data highlights the need for better psychiatric support following surgery.

In 2016, «The New Atlantis, A Journal of Technology and Society» released a landmark report summarizing nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity. Researchers Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh of Johns Hopkins University found no scientific evidence supporting the claim that gender identity is an innate and fixed characteristic independent of biological sex. Their report challenged the notion that individuals can be «born in the wrong body» and cautioned against the widespread use of medical interventions based on ideology rather than empirical science.  

The Human Cost of Misinformation

Beyond statistics and academic studies, the human toll of gender transition procedures is deeply personal and often tragic. One heartbreaking case is that of Yarden Silveira, a young man who took his own life in 2021 after undergoing gender transition surgery. In a farewell letter, he expressed profound regret, calling the belief that sex can be changed “a dangerous and unethical lie.”

“I wish I had never listened to the medical and psychiatric community when they told me it was possible to change sex. What a lie,” he wrote. “The truth is, sex reassignment surgery is experimental, but they don’t tell you that. Never do. Maybe if I weren’t autistic, if my brain weren’t so broken, I would have realized this before it was too late… I was just a confused, lost kid.”

His words serve as a chilling reminder of the consequences of a medical approach that prioritizes affirmation over critical evaluation. He lamented that doctors and therapists had failed him, leading him down a path he could never undo.

«The transgender ideology and its lies, along with the pro-LGBT media, the medical community, and the psychiatric establishment, have killed me,» he wrote. «This should not come as a surprise to anyone.»

The Urgent Need for a Rethink

The medical community faces a pressing ethical question: should these procedures continue to be promoted as a solution to gender dysphoria? Or is it time to acknowledge that the current approach may be causing more harm than good?

The evidence is increasingly difficult to ignore. If the goal is to reduce suffering, it is imperative to shift the focus toward addressing the psychological and emotional struggles underlying gender dysphoria—rather than prescribing irreversible surgeries that may only deepen them.

While researchers continue to advocate for post-surgical psychiatric care, the real question remains: should these surgeries be happening at all?

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Oxford study confirms that “sex change” operations increase suicide and depression appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Among rulers of the Left, on February 24 Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum denounced those who are «against» Pope Francis for his «very progressive» vision and for his questions about «neoliberalism»: «Of course, all those who defend another vision of the Church are against him. What is terrible is that they call themselves Christians. You should not wish anyone ill, even if they are your adversary,» she said. It is worth remembering that Claudia is Jewish.

The Mexican President reiterated her hope that he recovers very soon, because he is a man who represents a lot for humanity, even beyond the Catholic religion.» She highlighted the «humanist» position of Pope Francis, with whom she met in February 2024, before beginning her campaign for the presidential elections last year, in a country with a large majority of Catholic voters.

She quoted texts of the Pontiff about “the protection of nature, which is something very progressive, and, in addition, the defense of the planet Earth, in a very important way.” The other text was about “consumerism, of which the essence of humanity was lost with that system.”

On February 22, leftist Bolivian President Luis Alberto Arce said on the X network: “We express our sincere solidarity with His Holiness, Pope Francis, for his delicate state of health. In these difficult times, from the Plurinational State of Bolivia we hope for his speedy recovery so that he can continue to guide millions of people around the world with his message of hope, strength and tireless dedication to the most vulnerable.»

The Puebla Group, made up of 59 progressive leaders of 18 countries, which defines itself by the challenges of political thought for a new progressive impulse, expressed on February 22 on the X network: «Francis: Our first Latin American Pope. The Pope who carries the voice of the excluded. We join in the wishes for his speedy recovery. The world needs you!”

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, organized a Mass on Wednesday, February 26, in the Chapel of the Alvorada Palace, the Government’s National Palace, for Pope Francis’ recovery. Lula expressed his great affection, respect and admiration for him and for his life’s mission. Taking part also in the Mass, celebrated by Cardinal Raymundo Damascdeno, were the First Lady and Vice-President Geraldo Alckmin. 

On February 23, La Vanguardia newspaper reported the commentaries of Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, concerning Pope Francis’ health. He described the Pontiff as a “real friend” and “soul companion.” His message pointed out the Pope’s importance as spiritual leader and defender of the poorest, and expressed his desire that the Pontiff recover. 

Last February, Nicolas Maduro, President of Venezuela, also expressed his good wishes for Pope Francis’ health. Maduro said he raised prayers to Dr José Gregorio Hernández, now beatified, to accompany the Pope in his recovery. He highlighted that Pope Francis is an ethical and spiritual leader, admired by many religions and peoples. 

Among the more rightist politicians, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni  visited the Pope on the afternoon of February 19, a press note of the Chigi Palace reported.  The President of the Council of Ministers expressed to the Pope her desire for his speedy recovery in the name of the Italian Government and of all the nation. After the visit, she said: “I’m very happy to have found him alert and receptive. We’ve joked, as always. He hasn’t lost his proverbial sense of humour. 

As ZENIT reported on February 24, President Donald Trump expressed his support to Pope Francis. The U.S. President was informed about the Pope’s condition on Saturday, February 22, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, expressed the President’s concern , affirming: “Trump has been informed and we are praying for the Pope.”

Leavitt added that the President would give a statement in due course, although his thoughts were with the Catholic leader. During a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in the White House, Trump addressed publicly the situation and wished Pope Francis a speedy recovery. “It’s a very difficult situation. I hope he will improve soon,” he said. 

On March 4, ZENIT also reported Vice-President JD Vance’s position, who, during the annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast combined reconciliation and conviction to Pope Francis’ recent criticisms of the United States’ immigration policies. The Vice-President reaffirmed the Trump Administration’s position on Immigration, although Vance adopted a measured tone toward the Holy Father, expressing profound respect for his leadership and offering prayers for his health. 

Javier Milei, President of Argentina, expressed his support and prayer, together with that of his government, for Pope Francis’ speedy recovery. Presidential spokesman Manuel Adorni said that the President and his team pray for the Pope and are in constant communication with the Vatican. 

Milei visited the Pope in the Vatican in February of 2024, and he and the Supreme Pontiff embraced, assuring that it was “a very important moment for Argentine history. After the meeting, the Argentine Chief Executive changed his tone of expressions about the Pope, as in December of 2023, before becoming President, he criticized him harshly, accusing him of being the representative of the Evil One on Earth.”

The reactions of rulers’ interest in the Pope’s health, where they exposed their attitude close to or very distant to faith, are added to those that have written official notes of a diplomatic character, where the words used reveal their indifference to religious values. Also relevant is the attitude of those who have remained silent or have ignored the situation.

The post World Leaders of the Left and Right Pronounce Themselves on Pope’s Health appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In an interview with Corrière della Sera on February 22, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin said that what is important at this time is the Pope’s health, his recovery and his return to the Vatican. The media talks about Pope Francis’ possible renunciation, hospitalized in the Gemelli Polyclinic, but presents the yellowish side of the information. 

Given the spread of false news about the atmosphere in the Vatican, the Cardinal said: “Honestly I must say that I don’t know if there are such manoeuvres and treatment, in any case, I stay out of it. Moreover, I believe that it’s quite normal that uncontrolled rumours can spread or an inappropriate comment be made. It’s certainly not the first time it happens. However, I don’t think there is any particular movement and, up to now, I haven’t heard anything like that.”

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, was interviewed by the Argentine newspaper La Nacion on February 21 and said: “I’m not aware of a pre-conclave atmosphere. I don’t hear talk about a possible Successor more than what was talked about a year ago, that is, nothing special. For me, it’s important that the Pope’s body has reacted well to the current treatment.”

As regards pressure for the Pope’s renunciation given his illness, the Argentine Cardinal added: “It makes no sense that some groups exert pressure for him to resign. They have already done so over the last years, and this can only be a totally free decision of the Holy Father for it to be valid.” 

Cardinal Giovanni Re, 91, Dean of the College of Cardinals, excluded the alarmist position in face of the Pope’s illness. Nevertheless, given his position, it’s his role to communicate the news of the Pope’s death and to preside over the funeral as Dean of the Cardinals. 

In order to clarify the Cardinals’ role, it’s good to recall that it corresponds to the Cardinal Camarlengo, Kevin Joseph Farrell, to administer the assets of the Church if the Pope dies and to initiate the process of preparation for the Conclave. During the period of the See’s Vacancy [Sede Vacante] the College of Cardinals is in charge of the affairs of the Church, but without taking decisions that imply permanent changers. 

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, Prefect Emeritus of the Dicastery for Culture, said that Pope Francis can resign “if he has serious difficulties to carry out his service,” however, his great wish is to fulfill at least the Jubilee. This decision is up to him alone. “He will be the one who decides, of course. Perhaps he will ask for advice, but he, in conscience,  will evaluate the last word himself,” he said to Corrière della Sera. It will be about a possible resignation in case of serious health problems.

Cardinal Ravasi also said: “If he were in a situation in which his capacity to have direct contact with the people would be very limited, then I believe he would decide to resign.” And he reminded that Pope Francis already handed a letter of conditional renunciation to the Cardinal Secretary of State, at the beginning of his pontificate. 

Cardinal Paolo Lojudice, Archbishop of Sienna, criticized harshly the spread of false news about Pope Francis’ health, in an interview with ACI Press, labelling them as “fantasies” and an “absolute lack of respect.” He lamented that “every time there is a sick Pope, certain circles stir these fantasies,” which, he said, are proper to a society of “compulsive hyper-communication.” 

Cardinal Lojudice also pointed out that the media promotes these rumors and “are not very interested in the good of the Church or in the good and health of the Holy Father.” Hence, “it seems to me that there is nothing new in the media, not even in this. Unfortunately, it has always happened. Every time there is a sick Pope, certain circles agitate these fantasies, this false news. “

Moreover, he recalled that in moments of uncertainty, the tradition of the Church is to trust. “It must always be taken into account that the Church is guided, first by the Holy Spirit, and second, that the first and fundamental Teacher and Shepherd [of the Church] is Jesus.” 

Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline of Marseille, a man trusted by the Pope, said on February 20 that Pope Francis has a clear position: “If you really want him to rest, you have to admit him to hospital, because otherwise he will never rest.” Cardinal Aveline did not discard the renunciation of the Head of the Church: “Everything is possible!”, he said.

Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said on February 20 that the narrative is morbid to fuel speculation about the Pope’s serious state and create a pre-conclave atmosphere.

He added to ACI Press that it’s “right to be concerned” about the Holy Father’s health. However, the concern “must be kept within limits,” and he lamented that many speculations about his health have generated a “morbid atmosphere.” 

“The situation, undoubtedly, is delicate and the Pope has not held back in his efforts, unfortunately, from a certain point of view. The Pope «is recovering and will return to the Vatican in a few more weeks.”

The post Is There a Pre-Conclave Atmosphere in the Vatican? Cardinals From Around the World Break the Silence Given the Pope’s Health appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Asia News / Moscow, 03.05.2025).- he surprising positions taken by the new American administration raise the question of the new balance between the USA, China and Russia, a much discussed topic also in the Russian media at home and abroad.

On 27 February, Lin Jian, a representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, observed that ‘relations between China and Russia will continue to develop steadily, despite changes in the international situation’.

These statements came the day after the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, declared in an interview with Fox News that Donald Trump intended to modify relations with China, to ‘prevent any form of dependence’ on it.

On 28 February, the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, Sergei Shoigu, immediately travelled to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping and senior Chinese foreign policy officials to ensure that Moscow adheres to China’s positions on all regional and international issues. He himself emphasised that ‘the meeting was arranged at very short notice’, basically admitting that he had been ‘summoned’ by the Chinese leadership.

Merkhat Sharipzhanov, a commentator for Radio Svoboda, wonders if the Chinese leadership believes that ‘there is an attempt by Washington to provoke a schism in Russian-Chinese relations’, and to what extent the impromptu summit is due to the irritation of Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wan Yi.

Another worrying sign for Beijing was the vote at the UN on 26th February, when the USA refused to approve the resolution condemning Russia’s aggression, assigning Europe the responsibility for security in Ukraine, leading various European leaders to declare the need to become independent from the USA in order to look after the whole of the European Union.

This sudden ‘chaos in the enemy’s camp’, according to Sharipzhanov, ‘should be considered by China as a positive factor’, with Moscow’s diplomatic successes in resolving the conflict in Ukraine, something that the leadership in Beijing had been hoping for since the beginning of the Russian invasion.

In reality, in this way ‘China loses the opportunity to calmly observe the conflict’s exhaustion, remaining on the sidelines’, considering the war in Ukraine a ‘test of the West’s resilience’.

Many observers have expressed the opinion that the confrontation between Russia and the West over Ukraine makes China the only real beneficiary of the whole situation, and that Beijing only supports Moscow with words, while offering some (very cautious) support in circumventing sanctions and in the production of armaments.

The war weakens Russia and allows China to expand its influence over Siberia, the Far East and all of Central Asia, and makes the West less capable of defending Taiwan from Beijing’s ambitions.

Now the U-turn by the Trump administration radically changes the situation, allowing Moscow to come out of international isolation, thanks to Washington’s support. With the possible end of the Ukrainian conflict, comments Sharipzhanov, ’ the descendants of the great Confucius lose the chance to remain sitting on the branch, like the wise monkey waiting for the end of the fight between the two tigers, in which one of the two destroys the other in a deadly embrace, but remains so weakened that the monkey only has to jump on it to achieve full victory’.

China has not forgotten a similar circumstance that brought ideological enemies closer together: in 1971 Henry Kissinger arrived in Beijing to prepare for Richard Nixon’s visit the following year, which allowed China to come out of the closet on the international markets and begin the phase of its grandiose economic development, a circumstance that is also being recalled these days by Marco Rubio.

Kissinger himself later admitted that the turning towards China played an important role in weakening the USSR, and many are wondering if today the opposite effect might not occur, encouraging Moscow to hit back at China.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Beijing calls Moscow to account for its new relationship with Trump appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Mercator Net / USA, 03.04.2025).- For all his towering theological acumen, Joseph Ratzinger was a very practical man. When asked by a Bavarian journalist in 1991 whether it was the Holy Spirit who chooses the pope, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave a down-to-earth answer:

I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus, the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.

If electors heed the Spirit’s voice in such a way during any particular conclave, they will weigh several factors to narrow down the pool of candidates to a handful, any of whom they would consider competent to lead the Church for the foreseeable future. Though few would admit it, geopolitics is one such factor.

Prior to the modern conclave, political motivations were commonplace, if not necessary, for the election of the Bishop of Rome. After all, for well over a thousand years, the popes wielded temporal, not just spiritual, power. Even in the fourth century, it was normal for imperial authorities to determine who would succeed Peter.

The emperor Constantine effectively appointed Julius I to the pontificate single-handedly in 337. Innocent I, who began his reign in 401, may have risen to the papacy for no other reason than that his predecessor, Anastasius, was his father (though some dispute what St. Jerome meant when referring to the former as the latter’s “son”). Although never formally recognized by the Church, a jus exclusivae had been exercised by several Catholic monarchs to prevent candidates from being elected. The institution of the conclave in 1276 and its various instantiations since then have streamlined the process and mitigated the abuse of political power in the election process.

Nevertheless, it would be naïve to think geopolitics had nothing to do with the election of Karol Wojtyła in October of 1978. Appearing on the balcony for the first time, the Polish pope acknowledged that the cardinals called him “from a far-away country” though he was “always near in the communion of faith and the Christian tradition.” Those who knew the Archbishop of Kraków knew that he was a man of extraordinary talent, and they were able to convince others of the same.

He would have been a strong candidate no matter where he came from. Yet no one knew the authoritative, systematic repression of Christianity in Poland better than Wojtyła’s main advocate, the Archbishop of Warsaw, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński. It is not as if Wojtyła’s nationality was either the main reason or even an overt reason for him to have collected nearly 100 of the 111 votes that year. But each of those votes tacitly represented the acknowledgment of an opportunity, albeit risky, to encourage Christians suffering in the Eastern Bloc and perhaps send a message to an already tiring Soviet regime.

Although Joseph Ratzinger had spent almost a quarter century working in the Roman Curia, nobody had forgotten that he was a German. He is now listed among half a dozen German popes spanning back to Gregory V in the 10th century. Unlike his German predecessors, however, Ratzinger’s CV included a line indicating his former affiliation with the Hitler Youth, an organization he was required to join at the age of fourteen and something the press was obsessed with reminding us of after his election in 2005.

More often than not, the media continued to consider his nationality a major liability, such as when Benedict visited Yad Vashem in 2009 and stopped short of stepping out of his white robe and acknowledging personal responsibility for the Shoah. Yet, every soul in the Sistine Chapel casting a vote for him in 2005 knew deep down that no one understood the crisis of European culture better than the former Archbishop of Munich and Freising. In fact, the speeches Benedict gave in Regensburg, Paris, and London proved that he understood the crisis even better than anyone thought.

It was only a matter of time before the cardinals would elect a pope from the Americas. If they had been specifically searching for one, they had a handful at their disposal. Cardinals Ouellet, Maradiaga, Scherer, and even U.S. prelates Dolan and O’Malley fit the bill (the last two, though conceivable under an Obama administration, are unimaginable under Trump). But again, it was unlikely that geopolitics would be elevated as the prime factor of consideration.

Yet, every vote cast for Jorge Mario Bergoglio in March of 2013 signaled at least an openness to a different mindset reflected in the Argentinian cardinal’s “peripheries” speech amid the general congregations held before the formal election process commenced. Think what you will of our ailing pontiff, but never forget that he hails from a part of the globe that approximately 40 percent of Catholics throughout the world call home.

If you have any doubt that geopolitics should play a role in papal elections, think of this: while choosing someone to step into the shoes of the poor fisherman from Galilee, the cardinals are also electing the head of a sovereign, juridical entity under international law that actively participates in bilateral and multilateral international relations through the accreditation and reception of diplomatic representatives and the ratification of treaties. If you think the Holy See has lost its power to influence global affairs through that sovereign status, think again.

Most of what she accomplishes or attempts to accomplish through her diplomatic activity goes unnoticed. But having been behind the scenes, I can assure you that it is anything but insignificant, and there are enough cardinal electors well aware and appreciative of its significance to make geopolitics a factor in the next conclave, even though few would admit it and practically none would make it the primary factor.

There’s no question that geopolitics are a factor in electing popes, though the office’s primary spiritual mission ensures that they will never be the factor. How much a factor they are and in what way will only be determined by historical circumstances that are contingent and ever-changing. But, as a very practical pope reminded us, the Holy Spirit can work with those too.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Geopolitics and Papal Elections appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In the flow of news about the Pontiff’s health, for some days now there has been a growing number of false photographs and animations created with the aid of AI. Some of them are in the limbo between the devotional and the absurd, with Jesus, Mary and Angels next to the Holy Father’s bed. 

Others are built to be particularly truthful, in addition to insidious: resuscitation machines, oxygen masks, cannulas. The result of the so-called deepfake, the latest toxin of misinformation, capable of infecting even quite a few prayer messages of the unsuspecting. Ironically, many of the «best» fakes were made with Grok, the artificial intelligence of X, the boast of Elon Musk.

On one hand, Pope Francis demonstrates to be a viral phenomenon with few rivals. On the other, the urge to stand out — even at a time that worries most believers — is irresistible to some, and it’s worth the risk of crossing the line into bad taste.

Falsifications of this sort have the potential to generate confusion, support factions’ propaganda, not to speak of their role in scams. Common sense should be a sufficient antidote against certain poisonous manifestation of the Net, but it’s no guarantee. 

It is worth recalling that it’s not very probable that genuine photographs of Pope Francis in hospital will be available. Since 1996, fifteen years after the attack against John Paul II (and of one of the most famous photographs of his pontificate, in which he appeared  smiling and sore in a hospital bed), Pope Wojtyla’s own Apostolic Constitution «Universi Dominici Gregis» makes it clear that «no one is permitted to use any means to take images of the Supreme Pontiff, sick in bed or dead, nor to record his words with any instrument and reproduce them» (n. 30).

Proof that morbid curiosity, and a certain type of speculation, know no time. Only, in times that were no less suspicious but less technological, it was necessary to limit oneself to the oldest of stratagems: theft.

The now controversial archaeologist Riccardo Galeazzi Lisi, the «Pope’s doctor,» resorted to this in 1958. On the night of October 5 of that year, Pius XII suffered ischemia. While he was in a coma, intubated and watched by a nun, Galeazzi Lisi secretly took some photographs of him, which he sold to the French magazine Paris Match. The next day, unexpectedly, Pius XII recovered, only to die on the morning of the following October 9. Galeazzi Lisi was also responsible at that time for the grotesque embalming of the Pope’s body. Because the problem does not lie in the overabundance of AI, but in the defect of natural intelligence, and of ethics.

Translation of the Italian original into Spanish by ZENIT’s Editorial Director and, into English, by Virginia M. Forrester.

The post The False Photos of the Pope in Hospital: Such Are the Ones That Make Us Think appeared first on ZENIT - English.