Rest in Peace, Your Holiness

 

My reflections on  Pope Francis's death, published today in Atlantico Quotidiano. This is my English translation of the original Italian text. 

A practicing Catholic would never wish for it to happen, yet it happens anyway, and you’re always caught off guard. Statistically, the event of a pope’s death occurs multiple times in a Catholic’s lifetime, and the emotions are always powerful. I wouldn’t want to make comparisons—almost always inappropriate—but I can say that, at least in my case, the intensity with which one experiences the event is never the same. This, of course, depends on many factors, both subjective and objective. 

Pope Francis’ death, however, is the most surprising. Almost everyone had done their best to convey relative optimism about the pontiff’s illness—doctors and the media had given us false hope. So, the news yesterday morning left us unprepared and stammering. “Francis is dead,” you repeat it to yourself almost to believe it. 

Was he a great pope, like—for different reasons, to varying degrees—his predecessors from Pius XII onward? Time will tell. Certainly, to us conservatives, he was never particularly dear, unlike for progressives. 

Memorable was his association with left-wing secularists like Eugenio Scalfari, which seemed to suggest, if not an outright alignment, at least a particularly bold and perilous leaning. His gestures “in that direction” were many, theologically speaking. Politically, we won’t even go there. Those in the opposite direction, in matters of theological doctrine, could be counted on one hand. 

It’s impossible not to recall his outburst against the “faggotry” (frociaggine in the original Italian) in the clergy (hierarchy included) and his repeated warnings about the existence of the devil. No pope, as far as I remember, had gone that far. Personally, I loved him in those moments. Just as I always appreciated his call for simplicity, in prayer as in life. But his worldview, in the opinion of many—and rightly so, I believe—was very much that of a “pope from the ends of the earth,” to quote his first words. 

Argentina is far away, perhaps too far for us Europeans, despite the blood ties for us Italians. The German pope was more “ours” (and then Joseph Ratzinger had become Roman…), just like the Polish pope—but in that case, we’re talking about a giant, Karol the Great, one of a kind, the man who changed the world. 

It would be neither fair nor correct to compare Jorge Mario Bergoglio to his predecessors, but if, as they say, the heart wants what it wants, reason too has its own paths and bonds that aren’t easily shaken off. In short, comparisons shouldn’t be made—yet they are. But always with goodwill, never “with a hatchet,” always with moderation and good taste. 

What matters, for a Catholic, is that the Pope is the Pope, always and no matter what. Before him, the believer kneels to receive his blessing, even if they disagree with much of what he says and teaches. And before death, all judgment is suspended, and one prays. In silence, even amid the deafening noise of these occasions. 

Rest in peace, Your Holiness.

 

Twenty Years Ago

Twenty years ago, Saint John Paul II the Great left this world. What he was for humanity and in the eyes of history is well known to all, and it is hardly debatable that he was a giant—one of those men who leave an indelible mark.

What he was for me, however, is almost impossible to put into words. He was—and still is—an emotional tsunami, capable of transforming words, gestures, facial expressions, and the tone of his voice into a living miracle of faith, greatness, beauty, and spiritual strength.

His memory is one of the very few things that can still bring a lump to my throat and tears to my eyes. For years, even from afar, I witnessed the pages of history he wrote with his own hands. I had this incomparable privilege, and I remain deeply grateful to the Lord for it.

The least I can do is try not to be entirely unworthy, in hindsight, of the gift I was given. An impossible task, I know—but I'm doing my best...

If I Ever Found Myself Sinking into Depression

 

Cistercian Abbey of Follina (Tv, Italy)

My take on Marcello Veneziani's heartfelt oration in defense of Vittorio Sgarbi—now ravaged by depression—in the hope that he may rediscover his will to live and passion for all that made him famous. Click here for an Italian version of this post.

Marcello Veneziani has gifted us with a heartfelt oration in defense of Vittorio Sgarbi—a moving and intelligent tribute to the great art critic, now ravaged by depression—in the hope that he may rediscover his will to live and passion for all that made him famous. An exhortation that will likely linger in the minds of Marcello’s readers, as well as Sgarbi’s admirers, tailored so precisely to its subject that it holds no universal value. Because Sgarbi is truly one of a kind—an Oscar Wilde-like figure, a Po Valley Dorian Gray, both carnal and spiritual, a hedonist yet open to the sacred all at once.

Yet beyond the merits of Veneziani’s article and the truths so vividly evoked, I found myself reflecting—in a way that mirrors my own inner world. In short, I wondered what I would need to hear from a friend, ideally one as inspired as Veneziani, if it were me falling into depression. After all, I’m around the same age, with my own share of aches and pains. By the grace of God, though, I’m not depressed.

Hermitage of Camaldoli (Ar, Italy)

Well, the answer comes to me easily: I’d want to hear a heartfelt plea for silence. The silence I’ve known and revered since my youth—ever since I was fortunate enough to cross the threshold of a Benedictine, Cistercian, or Trappist monastery, or a Camaldolese hermitage, and savor their stillness, broken only by Gregorian chant and the measured, monotonous footsteps of monks pacing the cloisters. And those scents, those stones, those Romanesque columns, the well at the center, the chime of a bell calling the faithful to the Liturgy of the Hours before dawn or at twilight.

   Cistercian monks

I’ve told myself a thousand times that, by some miracle, there’s a silent monastery within me, enclosed within the walls of my body and soul. And inside it, there’s profound peace—even if only for a moment, before being overtaken by a loud, overwhelming wave of reality. But only temporarily, because sooner or later, that inner hermitage inevitably resurfaces and restores the silence. And in that absence of noise, somehow, everything around me regains meaning, becoming something worth caring about again. A Camaldolese monk once gave me a definition of that mystery: a silence inhabited by God.

Yes, I believe that if I were to plunge into depression, the only exhortation with any real chance of reaching me would be an invitation to let myself be enveloped by a silence inhabited by God.

 

A Friend for Trump in Italy

Between the Two Sides of the Atlantic... searching for the West.

Why we must hope that the efforts of the Italian Prime Minister are crowned with success.

My latest on American Thinker, in which I explain to American readers how Europe views the latest developments in Trump's peace initiative—including the spat with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office—and the role Giorgia Meloni could play in restoring unity within the West.

Never in recent history have relations between the United States and Europe been as tense as in this period —  that is, since the Trump administration began taking its first steps and revealing its foreign policy orientation.  Over the last few days, the situation has worsened further, or more accurately, it has reached a boiling point, due to the approach — deemed too aggressive by the Europeans — taken by President Trump to the Russo-Ukrainian war and especially to Volodymyr Zelensky.  The final straw was the tense public confrontation with President Trump and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office.  It was the most heated public exchange of words between world leaders in the Oval Office in memory.  The meeting, as we all know, ended with Trump reportedly abruptly instructing his aides to ask Zelensky to leave the White House.

The event, shocking in and of itself — though essentially due to Zelensky’s presumptuous behavior — also sent shockwaves through Europe, where political leaders immediately rallied to Ukraine’s side, forgetting that it is only thanks to Donald if, after three years of war and slaughter, peace is finally being discussed.  “There’s an aggressor, which is Russia, and a people attacked, which is Ukraine.  We must thank all those who helped and respect those who have been fighting since the beginning,” French president Emmanuel Macron told reporters, after reportedly talking to Zelensky.  Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed his country’s stance, declaring, “We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.”  He also accused Trump of “deliberately escalating” tensions with Zelensky.  U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer said: “Three years on from Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, we are at a turning point.  Today I will reaffirm my unwavering support for Ukraine and double down on my commitment to provide capacity, training and aid to Ukraine, putting it in the strongest possible position.”

The leaders of Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands were among those who posted social media messages backing Ukraine.  There were also supportive messages from political leaders in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Sweden, and Slovenia.  European Union chiefs António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen assured Zelensky in a joint statement that he was “never alone.”  “We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace,” they said.

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán was the only one who didn’t join the chorus of support for Zelensky.  “Strong men make peace, weak men make war,” he said.  “Today President Donald Trump stood bravely for peace,” he continued, “even if it was difficult for many to digest.  Thank you, Mr. President!”

What about Italy?  Where does Europe’s second-largest manufacturing country and one of the E.U.’s founding members stand?  Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, merely expressed “sympathy” for Zelensky, carefully avoiding distancing herself from Trump.  “She cannot — and doesn’t want — to turn her back on Ukraine because she has gone too far in supporting Kyiv and Zelensky.  On the other side, she doesn’t want to give any hint of criticism of Trump, who has attacked Zelensky,” Stefano Stefanini, Italy’s former ambassador to NATO, told the Financial Times.

“She is hedging — she hasn’t decided which way to go,” said Beniamino Irdi, an Atlantic Council senior fellow and former Italian government security policy adviser.  “She still thinks that the special relationship she has built with Trump and Musk may be of more value than her relationship with European allies.”

However, on Tuesday, Meloni rejected a plan by France and the United Kingdom to support Ukraine’s war against Russia by sending Italian soldiers.  “Italy has expressed doubts regarding the proposal of France and the UK on sending European troops,” she told Italian TV channel Rai1.  “I think it is very difficult to implement, I am not sure about its effectiveness, that’s why we announced that we will not send Italian soldiers to Ukraine,” she added.  Moreover, speaking on Sunday at Downing Street, she stressed the need of unity between the two sides of the Atlantic:

The only thing that we really cannot afford is a peace that does not remain, and this cannot be afforded.  Ukraine cannot afford it, Europe cannot afford it, the United States cannot afford it.  For God’s sake, everything can explode.  It’s not good news.  So everything I can do to keep the West united and to strengthen it, I will do.

Meloni also proposed hosting a summit between European leaders and the U.S., to build bridges after the relationship between the longtime allies strained over the war in Ukraine.

On the day Donald Trump suspended military aid to Ukraine, Giorgia Meloni’s attempt to remain equidistant between Trump and the European Union was put to the test during a special summit that saw all 27 countries agree to Ursula von der Leyen’s “Rearm Europe” plan, but which also highlighted a serious divide over the approach to take.  The final text — signed by 26 and hailed as a watershed moment — speaks about “peace through strength,” military assistance and security guarantees for Kyiv, all of which the Hungarian prime minister has strongly opposed.  Orbán, who prior to the summit had signaled his intention to veto the E.U. statement, argued that it ran contrary to U.S. president Donald Trump’s deal-making initiative, to which he has firmly aligned himself.  The European Council president, António Costa, who called the meeting, said, “Hungary has a different strategic approach on Ukraine, but that means Hungary is isolated among the 27. ... We respect Hungary’s position, but it’s one out of 27.  And 26 are more than one.”

As for the rearmament plan, Meloni’s stance is a “yes” but with reservations that could be refined at the formal European Council on March 20–21. “That’s where the decisions are made,” Meloni reminded everyone.  There is time to fine-tune the points important to Rome, she said in a press briefing on Thursday.  The first is to “change the name,” shifting the focus from weapons to defense and security.  The second is to clearly state in advance that Italy will not use the clause allowing Cohesion Funds to be converted into spending on weapons.  “Italy will not deprive itself of these precious resources,” said Meloni, announcing that this will be the “deal” she will propose to Parliament ahead of the next European Council.

Moreover, at a press briefing in Brussels, she suggested that NATO’s Article 5 protection could be extended to cover Ukraine even if it is not a full member-state.  This would be better than options such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces to monitor a ceasefire, she explained: “Extending the same coverage that NATO countries have to Ukraine would certainly be much more effective, while being something different from NATO’s membership.”

All in all, despite her best intentions and her ideological stance — along with her strong ties to U.S. Republicans — Meloni has had a tough time mediating between Washington, D.C. and Brussels.  Yet no leader of a major European country is better suited for that role than she is.  Not for nothing was she the only E.U. head of government invited to Trump’s inauguration in January.  Earlier the same month, she visited him at Mar-a-Lago, where Trump defined her as a “fantastic woman” who has “really taken Europe by storm.”

If all mediation attempts fail, then an extremely complicated, if not dramatic, phase will open in the history of relations between the two sides of the Atlantic.  For this reason, we must hope that the efforts of the Italian prime minister are crowned with success.

The Zelenskyy Case and Us Europeans

Once again, the greatest luck for us Europeans is that America exists.  Donald J. Trump and JD Vance may not be world champions of good manners, but they make up for it with vision, courage, and determination.

These days, more than ever, Europe—the whole of it, including the United Kingdom—is demonstrating the extent to which manipulation by corporate media that are now largely unreliable has had devastating effects on public opinion. Not only governments and parliaments but also the people seem to have become incapable of recognizing the stupidity and inadequacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as his madness and the fact that he has brought us to the brink of a Third World War by pursuing the impossible mission of winning an utterly unequal conflict.

Of course, it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Of course, Vladimir Putin’s style of governance is far from what’s described in the best textbooks on liberal democratic theory and practice, but the same can easily be said of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Moreover, as anyone who isn’t entirely a victim of the rampant propaganda in the West can see, the Ukrainian leader bears responsibility for countless and ongoing provocations, persecutions, and violence against Russian-speaking minorities within his country’s borders. And then there’s the (for Russia) unacceptable prospect of Ukraine potentially joining NATO, a possibility strongly supported by Zelenskyy and advocated by many European countries and NATO itself. And then there’s NATO’s Eastward expansion since 1997...

Anyone with normal intelligence and intellectual honesty should know that while Russia has its faults, Ukraine, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Biden administration, and NATO also have theirs. But beyond all this, one fundamental fact remains: Zelenskyy seems to underestimate the potential cost of his extremism, encouraged by the aforementioned—a global conflict. What’s more, he gives the impression that that is exactly what he wants. And the same could be said of some countries in the old continent, with Northern Europe countries, France, and the United Kingdom leading the way. Only Italy and Hungary are exceptions, albeit with different nuances. And not just the governments and parliaments of these two countries, but also the people.

Italy, from this perspective, is a very particular case: with almost all media aligned with Zelenskyy, the people are largely very distrustful of the Ukrainian leader and see him as a warmonger, a madman, or at the very least a narcissist and a puppet serving colossal economic and financial interests. These days, it’s true, there are quite a few who did not appreciate the treatment he received from Trump and Vance, not to mention the media, which is 99 percent aligned with the supposed victim of the two “American bullies.” But this doesn’t lead most people to change their overall opinion about the Ukrainian leader.

Yet, what’s absolutely striking is that the rest of Europe is with Zelenskyy—mind you, not just with Ukraine, which is entirely understandable, but precisely with its leader. What to say? For one thing, someone should explain to them that looking at the history, even the recent history of Ukraine, it is clear that many Ukrainians hate Russia for flaws and faults that they themselves are deeply affected by. Why, then, should we ever get involved in their squabbles? And why should we even take on such a risky move for the entire West and the world, like picking a fight with the world’s second strongest military power, especially one with a massive nuclear arsenal? When you really think about it, nothing in this mess suggests that Good and Evil are so black and white that we have to pick a drastic side. You can’t side with Russia, the invader, but you also can’t fully side with Ukraine, the invaded, given the history and the bigger geopolitical picture.

When you think about it, the only ones who seem to have perfectly grasped the core of the entire issue are President Trump and Vice President Vance, who are working hard to bring an end to the Russo-Ukrainian slaughter without being influenced by the Zeitgeist. And so,  once again, the greatest luck for Europeans is the fact that America exists. In this case, of course, not the America of Obama and Biden, but the America of Donald J. Trump and JD Vance. They may not be world champions of good manners, but they make up for it with vision, courage, and determination. 

Once again, in short, it will be up to the Americans to get old Europe out of trouble. There’s a bittersweet quote attributed to Winston Churchill that fits this situation well: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” The other possibilities, of course, had already been tried by Biden’s America. 

Trump's Counterrevolution

Photo composite: Guardian Design/Getty Images/Rex/Shutterstock/AP/PA

Trump and Vance have done nothing less than expose the naked truth—the king has no clothes, dramatically and pathetically so.

Looking at what’s happening in the world these past months and weeks, it’s enough to leave anyone speechless for many reasons. First and foremost, there are the “Trump revolutions” – in both domestic and foreign policy – that are radically reshaping scenarios and narratives that once seemed solid and almost unchangeable.

Another reason for astonishment comes from Europe, meaning the European Union and the United Kingdom, due to the spectacle of impotence and indecision they’ve been displaying to the entire world regarding peace between Russia and Ukraine. Peace seemed distant and complicated by the intransigence of all parties involved: Putin’s Russia, Zelensky’s Ukraine, Joe Biden’s United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and NATO. Then Trump arrived, and almost miraculously, peace now seems just around the corner, or at the very least, much, much closer than it was just a few weeks ago.

Adding to this is the embarrassing inconsistency – dramatically and relentlessly highlighted by JD Vance in his “historic” speech in Munich – of the European Union in relation to its own founding values of democracy and freedom. It’s practically a dystopian scenario where the will of the people is crushed and mocked by an all-powerful bureaucracy completely aligned with international economic and financial elites.

Victor Davis Hanson

The same scenario, to be sure, that Biden’s America and his puppet masters have been presenting – an America that has forgotten its history, its “exceptionalism,” and the immortal principles on which it was founded. In this case as well, Trump’s arrival has shaken things up. A revolution, or rather, as the ever-sharp Victor Davis Hanson observes, a “Trump restoration” emphasizing it as a counterrevolution against the changes brought by the Obama and Biden administrations. “ We don’t really appreciate what we’ve been through with eight years of the Obama revolution and the four-year, more radical third term of Obama using or employing the wax effigy of Joe Biden,” says Hanson. It was a revolution that was a cultural, economic, political, social revolution, he continues. It was very similar to the French Revolution under the Robespierre brothers: “You should remember what they tried to do. They changed the days of the week. They renamed things. They tore down statues. They went after the churches.” Does this sound familiar? It was a revolutionary movement: “Movies were different, sports were different. Take a knee.” Then Donald Trump came in and… “It’s a return to normalcy. It’s a return to common sense. It only looks revolutionary to revolutionaries. But to the rest of the people, it is a counterrevolution to restore normalcy and bring the country from the far-left fringes back home again.”

Simon Jenkins

In foreign policy, the “restoration” is certainly no less remarkable. Let’s set aside the polemical tone of Trump’s statements, including some of his lexical choices—which could be debated at length. If we focus on substance, we can’t help but acknowledge the high level of realism, pragmatism, intellectual honesty, and common sense in what the President and his Vice President have proposed so far. So much so that even the left-leaning British Guardian, through one of its most prominent columnists—former Times of London editor Simon Jenkins—has had to recognize it. Read it and see for yourself: 

As for Ukraine, enough is enough. Putin is not going to invade the US, nor has he any intention of invading western Europe. If Europe wants to pretend otherwise, champion Vladimir Putin’s foes, sanction and enrage him, it can do so alone. […]
What Trump/Vance are now saying to western Europe is get serious. The cold war is over. You know Russia has no desire to occupy western Europe. This proclaimed threat is a fantasy got up by what a wise president, Dwight Eisenhower, called the US’s military-industrial complex, long practised at extracting profit from fear. If Keir Starmer really wants “to give priority to defence”, he can slash his own health and welfare budgets to pay for it. But is he really that threatened, or does it merely sound good?
Joe Biden was meticulous in the degree of help he extended to Kyiv. Now is the inevitable moment of extrication, but it will require a very difficult ceasefire to precede it. Without a substantial guarantee from Washington, it is hard to see anything other than eventual defeat for Kyiv. Ukraine could yet prove a rerun of the US in South Vietnam.
With a minimum of delicacy, Trump/Vance have decided to expose the mix of platitude, bluff and profiteering that underpinned much of the cold war. Nato’s victory in 1989 suggested the need for a shift to a more nuanced multipolar world, one that was never properly defined.
Trump/Vance are right that a realignment is badly needed. They have chosen the worst possible moment and the worst possible way to say it. We can be as rude to them as we like, but they will have US democracy on their side.

In short, according to one of Britain’s keener observers, Trump and Vance have done nothing less than expose the naked truth—the king has no clothes, dramatically and pathetically so. Of course, in other parts of the editorial, the tone is scornful (as expected!). And yet, the message is crystal clear—a lesson not just for “progressive” commentators on both sides of the Atlantic, but also for certain conservative pundits who have greeted the Trump administration’s moves with a degree of condescension, if not outright skepticism. If a President and his Vice manage to restore a measure of truth and common sense through their actions, sweeping away lies and hypocrisy, shouldn’t we at least acknowledge that we’ve all taken a huge step forward?

* An Italian version of this article is being published in Atlantico magazine.

Trump’s hat tip to citizen journalism

My latest on American Thinker.

It’s taken a Republican administration to change the crumbling media status quo in Washington.

The news that the White House is rolling out a new policy allowing opportunities for so-called “new media” outlets — independent journalists, bloggers, podcasters, content creators, etc. — to ask questions during press briefings marks a significant turning point in the history of journalism. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the move during her first briefing on Tuesday. “We welcome independent journalists, podcasters, and social media influencers,” she said. “Millions of Americans, particularly young people, have shifted away from traditional television and newspapers to consume news through podcasts, blogs, social media, and other independent platforms. It is crucial for our team to share President Trump’s message widely and adapt the White House to the evolving media landscape of 2025.”

First and foremost, the decision is nothing more than the official recognition of something that had already been in place for some time. It’s called “citizen journalism,” a term that refers to the collection, reporting, and dissemination of news and information by ordinary people rather than professional journalists. It empowers individuals to play an active role in the news-gathering process, often using digital tools and platforms like social media, blogs, and video-sharing websites.

Although “citizen journalism” is a relatively modern term, the concept has existed for centuries. Ordinary people have always shared news through word of mouth, letters, or pamphlets. For example, during the American Revolution, pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense were a form of citizen-driven communication. As we all know, especially those who are not so young, the advent of the internet in the 1990s and the proliferation of digital tools in the 2000s revolutionized citizen journalism. Platforms like blogs and forums and social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube allowed individuals to share news and opinions widely. They become hubs for citizen journalism, especially during crises or protests. In summary, citizen journalism has transformed how news is created and consumed, making it more participatory and decentralized. Although it has its challenges, it has become an essential part of the modern media landscape. [...]

 

Read more: Trump’s hat tip to citizen journalism