Peacemaking and Hierarchy at Pope Francis’s Funeral

Sitting hunched forward, facing an also-hunched-forwardUkand very intense President Zelensky of Ukraine, both men’s unadorned chairs being surrounded by bald yet beautiful marble-floor in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican just before the funeral of Pope Francis, U.S. President Trump sought to close a deal that would end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Pope Francis would have been proud. Perhaps the pope, who had tirelessly preached an end to the militarized aggression not only in Ukraine, but also in Gaza, would have been even more proud had Russian President Putin been there too, hunched forward with his rivals to make peace, but that president was wanted by the International Criminal Court on allegations of having committed war crimes in Ukraine. Enemies making peace, and even extending in acts of compassion are necessary to gaining access into the kingdom of God, as preached by Jesus Christ in the Gospel faith-narratives.

The fact that both Trump and Zelensky were staring eye-ball to eye-ball, finally getting down to real business rather than insults and even talking points, is itself progress. That U.S. President Trump subsequently formally shook hands with E.U. President Von der Leyen is also something the dead pope would have liked, though he would likely have preferred the E.U. leader to have been sitting with the two other presidents when they had been discussing a deal for 15 minutes just before the funeral.

That the E.U.’s president had deferred to the governors of some large states, such as France, to take the lead for the entire E.U. left the U.S. president without the balance that the E.U. president could have supplied concerning the value in holding onto the principle of territorial sovereignty applied to Ukraine, lest otherwise invading another country unprovoked could be rewarded de facto. Fortunately, Trump furnished some balance himself in observing on the trip back to Washington, D.C., “There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through ‘Banking’ or ‘Secondary Sanctions?’ Too many people are dying!!!”[1] To be sure, that Zelensky was willing to sign an exclusive mineral-rights contract with the United States was not lost on the business-oriented American president, mais sans doute, c’est la vie en les États-Unis. In spite of the American pecuniary interest, Pope Francis would have been pleased with President Trump for sticking up for Ukrainian civilians.

Ironically, the pope would perhaps have been less pleased with the way the Vatican arranged the viewing of his corpse and his funeral because of the extent of hierarchy terms of proximity of viewership. During the three days of public viewing in St. Peter’s Basilica, ushers wearing suits kept the ordinary people moving, while ushers wearing tuxedos greeted the line of people inside the temporary barrier as they passed through and maybe sat on chairs for a while. By the later folks, I am not referring to heads of state or Catholic clergy primarily, for most of the “very important persons” were rather ordinarily dressed, and this made the suit versus tuxedo distinction look pretentious and fake, and thus as an artifact from a desire to put some groups of people above others beyond what merit would legitimate. Were the deceased pope’s spirit watching and able to speak to the living there, the recommendation would likely have been that if there has to be a hierarchy, then give the poor parishioners of the Rome diocese the best view, and the most connected people the worst view, with the people who had known the pope being situated somewhere in the middle. So too at the funeral, sections spanned out from those seating the most important people—the Cardinals and visiting heads of state and prime ministers—to those sections seating priests and then finally the general public in the very back. I hope some of those people had binoculars.

During the funeral, the most important people sat in the two squares at far-right, while the general public sat in the eclipse at far-left, many of whom did not even have a direct view of the altar, which was under the small white square, far-right, between the Cardinals and the government dignataries. There is even a slight color difference between the two squares (center) opposite the two light-colored priest-squares. Visually, all this was hierarchy to the maximus, contra benevolentia universalis. 

That the value behind Jesus’s preachment that (most of) the first are last and the last are first, is worthy of being put into practice even by a pope was not lost on Pope Francis, who spoke truth to power and on behalf of the poor and marginalized. It is unfortunate, therefore, that power and prestige, connections and wealth, had the best seats at that pope’s funeral and the closest viewing of the open coffin during the three days of viewing. I think the pope would have been surprised and pleased were the most well-dressed ushers tasked with greeting the general public passing in front of the barricades, while other ushers, wearing mere suits, tasked with directing the insiders.

Perhaps the fact that that having the general public behind the smaller area of viewing better suits the larger number of people in the public group in terms of space. This in turn indicates that hierarchy is to some extent, absent the distinction of suits and tuxedos, natural, for fewer people could be accommodated inside of the barriers, whereas more people would not fit there. Also, perhaps people who had known the pope in person deserved a chair and a longer look than, say, a tourist passing through Rome. Nietzsche considered hierarchy to be natural for human beings. But it can also be argued that human organizations can take the matter of differential preferences too far. The tuxedo/suit dichotomy is a clear example of artificial rather than natural hierarchy.

That a small number of people representing marginalized groups, such as transsexuals, had been set up in front of the burial church to “greet” the arriving coffin is not enough to evince Jesus’s teaching. In fact, situating officially marginal groups at such a marginal part of the day’s events actually cements the groups’ marginal status in the public consciousness. Bringing marginalized groups, including victims of military aggression in Ukraine and Gaza, that had been particularly dear to Pope Francis to view the casket at the Vatican in front of the temporary barriers would have sent a very different message. In the case of transexuals, the Cardinal-in-charge could have practiced kindness to one's enemy and that the last are first. The combination of these two principles lies at the core of Jesus's preaching on the kingdom of God, which Jesus emphasizes in the Gospels. Faith in Jesus as God is for naught, Paul wrote, if there is not love, and he and Augustine insisted that God itself is love. I would add that agape (self-emptying) love is evinced not only metaphysically, but also in the practice of the two spiritual principles. Come on, guys, be bold; turn the world on its head; it may finally see itself for what it is, and even that an alternative paradigm is possible. In the Gospels, Jesus dies for that paradigm, and yet you still don't get it. The blind following the blind gets nowhere.

Perhaps it is to compensate for an innate human instinct to extenuate hierarchy that the Roman Catholic religious organization should attempt to apply Jesus’s teaching that recognizes the last, including the marginalized, as first, and the first as last. With compassion and peacemaking with one’s enemies, putting the last first can be said to be an excellent means to indwelling the spirit of the kingdom of God, which does not operate in the ways of the world, but as God would analogously would like to see the world. Reflecting the worldly excessiveness of hierarchy rather than instantiating a counter-example, the high-ranking Vatican clergy-officials can legitimately be accused of failing as disciples and even of hypocrisy. At least they were willing to give space for two political leaders to try to get to a deal that would end a long war that had already been so destructive of civilians in Ukraine. The deceased pope would have been proud.

---

1. Darlene Superville and Aamer Madhani, “Trump Expresses Doubts Putin Is Willing to End the Ukraine War, A Day After Saying a Deal Was Close,” AP News.com, April 26, 2025.

A Bishop's Partisanship Overshadows Her Christianity

On the first full day of U.S. President Trump’s second term, the president and vice president attended a multi-faith prayer service at the National Cathedral. Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde delivered the sermon on what is necessary for imperfect political unity in a country such as the United States. I contend that in trying to influence the president on immigration policy in a partisan way, she undercut the credibility of her message that there is strength in loving rather than retaliating against one’s detractors and even political enemies. The sacrifice of which she spoke concerning being kind in reaching out in humanity to people we dislike could be applied to herself in resisting the temptation to be partisan. That she lapsed at the expense of Jesus’ most important message is particularly striking.

Rev. Budde claimed that recognizing the dignity of even one’s enemies as being worthy of respect is one of three elements in achieving an admittedly imperfect (for we are imperfect beings) political unity, which in turn can be understood as “a way of being with one another.” To hold different perspectives or opinions as “valid and worthy of respect” does not require agreeing with them, and it is indeed permissible to proffer corrections on faulty reasoning. Such differences can exist within a deeper political unity if there is also compassion with another person’s humanity, as in the context of natural disasters.

Helping another person even though dislike exists in either or both directions involves sacrificial love as we give of ourselves for the sake of others, regardless of whom they voted for in the last election. In his Sermon on the Mount, the priest said, Jesus advocates loving not just our neighbors, but to love our enemies. Such love can seem vague, and the term “enemies” can easily be dismissed as too extreme to apply as the term does not include people who simply don’t like us or whom we don’t like. Being willing to be compassionate and kind in not just sympathizing, but also helping even people whom we regard as assholes is none other than the content of the kingdom of God, according to Samuel Hopkins, an American theologian who followed his relative, Jonathan Edwards, in the First Great Awakening. God is incarnate in our world in the interpersonal dynamic that only exists when a person disregards dislike in choosing to respond in kindness to another person’s needs when doing so is inconvenient interpersonally.   Valuing this divine presence in the world and enabling it to manifest by helping out in humaneness is something that anyone can value without necessarily believing in a god-man. Indeed, the litmus test in Christianity could be changed in line with this focus on the kingdom of God, whose mysteries Jesus says in the Gospels he came to discuss. Put another way, were actual acts of kindness to people who have been rude or even mean the focus for Christian intention, interpersonal peace might just break out as from a mustard seed. The world would change dramatically, and a president could lead the way by example.

Had the priest left her message at that, the impact would have been greater than it was, but she went on to bring up Jesus’ position on societal outcastes in order to beg President Trump to have mercy on people in the United States who have entered illegally. Reminding the president of Jesus welcoming outcastes in the Gospels, she pleaded for mercy on the hard-working people in the U.S. who don’t “have the proper documentation” to be in the country but “are not criminals.” I submit that not having the proper documents is a function of having broken U.S. law, and thus being criminals by entering the U.S. illegally. The problem lies not with documents, but with the willful decision to enter another country without permission, which, I submit is rather presumptuous. To label this as not criminal is not only incorrect factually, but glosses over the sheer presumption in sneaking into another country. I submit that the attitude of “laws don’t apply to me” is indeed presumptuous, and in fact is inconsistent with being in a society at all. For it is only in a Hobbesian state of nature that laws do not apply.

So, I submit that by “getting political” in a misleading or artful way, the priest undercut the immense credibility that lies in the strength of forgiveness by helping out people who have been most unkind—a kind of strength that is often dismissed in the political world, as it is by the Romans in the Gospels. In his writings, Nietzsche argues that this sort of strength is actually weakness. He even points out how it is preached as a means of gaining power over the politically strong. This is exactly what the priest was doing in trying to make the president feel guilty for objecting to people whose first act in the U.S. was to break its laws by entering illegally. That they have no right to be in the U.S. does not undercut their dignity, for they have done that themselves in audaciously sneaking into a country (or staying beyond a court date). The priest herself said that honesty is a major element of political unity.  

Unfortunately, the focus was not on whether serving the humanity of even political adversaries in acts of kindness rather than seeking retribution constitutes strength or weakness. Christianity stands for the former, whereas Nietzsche provides a counter-argument wherein the religion is useful for the weak who are not strong enough to be politically powerful. It could be that valuing not only turning the other cheek, but responding to the humanity of detractors in acts of kindness is the or ought to be the definitive litmus test by which a person can decide in the privacy of one’s own heart whether one is a Christian. Were this the focus of the religion, then the earthly city might really change. Being opportunistic in seeking political influence, on the other hand, is unfortunately already well-ensconced, and is thus easily recognizable.