A few centuries ago, the Pope's function was two dimensions, one policy and one religious, the latter of course being the main one. It was the religious function—coming from the fact that the Pope is the supreme representative and leader of the Catholic faith—who legitimized his political power. So we can say that such a religious function was instrumental, but not merely accessory.
Until a few centuries ago, popes were more powerful than kings. It was the Pope who crowned the monarchs of the different Catholic kingdoms. We see in Pope Alexander VI of the Borgia Family, and in Pope Leo X of the Medici Family, for example, some of the many cases that show the vastness of papal political power during most of the Catholic Church's existence. The first, in the 15th century, and the second, in the 16th century, used the Cathedra Petri to further broaden the sphere of influence of their respective families.
For some time now, the Pope's function no longer has this political dimension. He remains the head of the Vatican, but has the same political relevance as the King of England: none. The religious dimension remains. The figure of the Bishop of Rome has changed, but it still makes sense, having his main function preserved, after all, the Pope remains the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
There is another figure (not so old) whose role has also undergone major changes: the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Allow me now to present some tweets from the current holder of this position, António Guterres, so that the subsequent comparison becomes evident.
Tweet 1 (August 2024):
I condemn the continuing loss of life in Gaza.
I reiterate my urgent call for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate release of all hostages.
Tweet 2 (September 2024):
I reiterate my call for the immediate ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages still held in Gaza.
Tweet 3 (October 2024):
I am returning from Kazan, where I once again participated in the Outreach Session of the BRICS Summit, which represents almost half of the world's population.
At the session, I asked for a fair peace in Ukraine, in line with the UN Charter, International Law and the resolutions of the General Assembly.
(…)
At my meeting with President Putin, I emphasized that the Russian invasion of Ukraine violated the UN Charter and International Law and reiterated the points I raised at the Summit session.
Before presenting some tweets from Pope Bergolio and proceeding to the comparison that motivates this text, I need to make some considerations about the tweets of Engineer Guterres. I need to do it so that I don't miss the opportunity and don't get too heavy on my conscience (the one I have left).
With the advent of community notes, on X (old Twitter), we see some comic situations, as the maximum head of the United Nations being contradicted, having their statements refuted by facts referred to by ordinary everyday citizens, anonymously.
In the last tweet presented, about the meeting between Vladimir and Engineer Guterres, the community notes state that the UN "is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members"—citing Article 2 of the UN Charter—"and not based on population sizes." This statement seeks to deconstruct the "sorry" presented by António in the first paragraph of his tweet, in which he states that BRICS represent "almost half of the world's population".
It is also important to mention that the event was not about achieving peace in Ukraine. The Ukrainian leader was not even present. The session was the initiative of the BRICS, a block of countries that have been seeking to end the hegemony of the UN on the global geopolitical scene, and to confront powers like the US. This momentum becomes clear if we confront the list of new BRICS members[1], which counts on Iran and the United Arab Emirates, for example.
In short, the meeting did not have peace as its main theme (or secondary or tertiary). I repeat, there was no representation of the Ukrainian state. The only thing stupider than Guterres' justification is the people who believe her.
Now, please read carefully the following tweets of Pope Francis.
Tweet 1 (September 2024):
I am still close to the martyred Ukrainian people, who were severely affected by attacks on energy infrastructure. Let us remember that the voice of the innocent is always heard by God, who is never indifferent to his suffering!
Tweet 2 (August 2024):
Let's pray together that the ways to peace will open up in the Middle East, as well as in martyred Ukraine, Myanmar and all war-torn regions. Let this happen through a commitment to dialogue and negotiation, and by abstaining from violent actions.
Tweet 3 (October 2024):
Let us continue to pray for the people suffering from the war: martyred Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, martyred Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar and all others. May we invoke for all the gift of peace
If I had to, after Guterres tweets, add an important note, now it won't be any different. Palestine and Ukraine are adjected as martyred, but Sudan and Myanmar are not.
It seems strange that the term martyred is neither applied to the people of Sudan nor to the people of Myanmar. In one of these countries, in 14 months, more than 61,000 people died as a result of the war.[2] In another, we see more than 2.3 million displaced people as a result of the war.[3]
In Ukraine, 43,000 died[4] and in Palestine, not exactly intelligent or reasonable to rely on the figures disseminated by a terrorist group, less than 41,000[5]. The tragic deaths in Myanmar and Sudan are clearly higher than those in Palestine and Ukraine. Of course, an analysis of these should take into account the proportion between displaced and dead and the total number of inhabitants of the affected regions. Even with the relevance of this consideration in mind, absolute numbers matter. They matter to say that Francis' adjectivation leads to misleading conclusions.
The suffering of 1000 victims of war is the sum of the suffering of 1000 people. Thus, the suffering of 1 million victims, being the sum of the suffering (subjective, obvious) of 1 million people, is greater. In this type of study, it is important to cross relativisms and look at numbers that seek to calculate the incalculable.
The Pope's characterization is strange and does not seem accidental. Even if accidental, we are responsible for what we say "for wanting", for what we stop saying, and also for what we say "without wanting".
This small detail that is the lack of coverage of the adjective "martyrized" in the sentence in question portrays and simultaneously feeds a selective indignation that, when denounced, is erroneously categorized as whataboutism. Let us be intellectually honest and be indignant at all that must cause, in a sensible person, indignation—Israel's unjustifiable excesses to the illegitimities of Russian demands, never forgetting the other brutalities that end up being erased from newspapers and everyday discussions
Although this is not the central theme of this article, it is always important to take advantage of the opportunities to highlight inconsistencies in such popular discourses and highlight how they reflect more general and serious social pathologies than inaccuracies present in some tweets.
Let's get back to my central thesis. The confrontation between the tweets presented is an excellent starting point for an inevitable comparison. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Secular Pope. This thesis has been constructed (allow me to praise myself) with linguistic rigor. Notice what I said.—or, "wrote", to have, here, a meta-linguistic rigor—Not "The Secretary-General," "António Guterres." The reason for this is no appreciation on my part for the Guterres Engineer, since—if it is not evident—I have no appreciation for Guterres Engineer. I do not come here today to say that Guterres is incompetent, although this is a completely possible and reasonable argumentative line. My review has a bigger target than Antonio. I am critical here of the UN Secretary-General.
Identified as the real target of my thesis, let's move on to the characterization of "Secular Papa".
"Secular Papa" is a manifestation of the idea of obsolescence. As we have seen, the only dimension, that is, the only function of the Pope today is religious in nature. Thus, a Secular Pope is simply useless. A Secular Pope has the same use as a wheelless bicycle or a set of forks and knives in a soup restaurant.
Then we come to the title of this essay. The UN Secretary-General has the use of a bicycle without wheels: a bicycle that has already been fully equipped, functional and exciting for its originalism in the world of bicycles, but which today is useless.
The Pope, at least, as already said, exercises his function, whether we believe in God or not and what Catholicism preaches. For more than 1.2 billion people[6]The Pope has an important role. The Church—and the Pope, as his leader—It's important even because it's important to over a billion people.
While the Religious Pope exercises his function, the Secular Pope is a satire of himself, representing how quickly his throne in New York became anachronistic and obsolete, a museum piece for which visitors look strangely and ask, "What about this? I wonder what it was for."
Porto, 2024.
[1] ‘Brics: What is the group and which countries have joined?’, in BBC. Published on 01/02/24.
Available in https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66525474
[2] ‘’Invisible and severe’ death toll of Sudan conflict revealed’, in London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Published on 11/13/24.
Available in https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2024/invisible-and-severe-death-toll-sudan-conflict-revealed
[3] ‘Myanmar: three years of a devastating, under-reported war’, in Action on Armed Violence (AOAV). Published 02/02/24.
Available in https://aoav.org.uk/2024/myanmar-three-years-of-a-devastating-under-reported-war/
[4] ‘Kyiv total reveals Ukraine casualties in Putin’s war for first time’, in Political. Published on 12/08/24.
Available in https://www.political.eu/article/ukrine-volodymyr-zelenskyy-announces-its-total-military-casualties-first-time/
[5] I suggest reading the report on the study carried out by Henry Jackson Society, which denounces the total lack of credibility and honesty in calculating the number of deaths in Gaza. The number "official" is 41,000, but believing information spread by a terrorist group is not the smartest alternative.
Available in https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/HJS-Questionable-Counting-%E2%80%93-Hamas-Report-web.pdf
[6] ‘State of Global Christianity, 2024, in the Context of 1900-2050’, in Center for the Study of Global Christianity.
Available in https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2024.pdf
This text was originally published by the Catholic Policy Society (CPS), defunct since 2025.