In a recent article by Archbishop Charles Chaput in First Things, he reflects on the legacy of Pope Francis in this moment between pontificates. He was both charitable and candid—two things we desperately need right now.

I have personal memories of Pope Francis that I greatly value: a friendly and generous working relationship at the 1997 Synod on America when we were both newly appointed archbishops; his personal welcome and warmth at Rome’s 2014 Humanum conference; and the extraordinary success of his 2015 visit to Philadelphia for the Eighth World Meeting of Families. He devoted himself to serving the Church and her people in ways that he felt the times demanded. As a brother in the faith, and a successor of Peter, he deserves our ongoing prayers for his eternal life in the presence of the God he loved.

There’s a real tenderness and respect here. And it’s a good example of how disagreement with a pontificate shouldn’t involve hostility toward the pope. Sadly—though not surprisingly—I’ve seen more than a little of that in comment sections online.

He continues:

Having said that, an interregnum between papacies is a time for candor. The lack of it, given today’s challenges, is too expensive. In many ways, whatever its strengths, the Francis pontificate was inadequate to the real issues facing the Church. He had no direct involvement in the Second Vatican Council and seemed to resent the legacy of his immediate predecessors who did; men who worked and suffered to incarnate the council’s teachings faithfully into Catholic life. His personality tended toward the temperamental and autocratic. He resisted even loyal criticism. He had a pattern of ambiguity and loose words that sowed confusion and conflict.

In the face of deep cultural fractures on matters of sexual behavior and identity, he condemned gender ideology but seemed to downplay a compelling Christian “theology of the body.” He was impatient with canon law and proper procedure. His signature project, synodality, was heavy on process and deficient in clarity. Despite an inspiring outreach to society’s margins, his papacy lacked a confident, dynamic evangelical zeal. The intellectual excellence to sustain a salvific (and not merely ethical) Christian witness in a skeptical modern world was likewise absent.

What the Church needs going forward is a leader who can marry personal simplicity with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ, a leader who has a heart of courage and a keen intellect to match it. Anything less won’t work.

I love that. “A leader with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ.” Amen!

May the Holy Spirit lead the cardinals in choosing our next pope. And may Pope Francis rest in the peace

I got a text from my sister this morning: “The pope died.” I stood there for a moment just staring at the words. I then went to the internet, thinking maybe it was a rumor or a mistake.

But it wasn’t.

Pope Francis died this morning at the age of 88. He passed away in the Casa Santa Marta, the residence inside the Vatican where he had lived since his election in 2013. He had been suffering from a number of health issues in recent years, including a recent case of pneumonia.

His death marks the end of a 12-year papacy, and now the Church enters the period known as sede vacante—the seat of Peter is vacant. Cardinals from around the world will soon gather in Rome for a conclave to elect the next pope. No one knows who it will be, but we should be praying: that the Holy Spirit guide their decision, and that the next pope be a faithful shepherd for the Church in these difficult times.

Pray this prayer with me for the soul of Pope Francis:

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his souls and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

I’ve heard plenty of arguments for atheism over the years—some thoughtful, some clever, and some… well, let’s just say I used to rattle off the worst of them back when I was an angsty 17-year-old agnostic.

Today I want to look at 7 terrible arguments for atheism—the kind that sound good at first but fall apart when you give them more than five seconds of thought.

1. "Who created God?"

This question misunderstands what Christians (and classical theists) mean by “God.” God, by definition, is uncaused—the necessary, self-existent being who causes everything else. Asking “Who created God?” is like asking “What’s north of the North Pole?” or “If your brother is a bachelor, what’s his wife’s name?” It’s a category mistake. The question only makes sense if God were a contingent being—just one more thing in the universe that needed a cause. But He isn’t. He’s the reason anything exists at all.

2. "I just believe in one less god than you."

This is clever-sounding but logically shallow. The difference between atheism and theism isn’t about the number of gods one believes in—it’s about the kind of being we’re talking about. Christians reject all finite, tribal, man-made gods too. The Christian claim is not that God is just one more being among many, but that God is Being Itself—the necessary, uncaused source of all reality. Saying, “I just believe in one less god than you,” is like saying, “I contend we’re both bachelors—I just have one less wife.” The difference between one and none isn’t minor—it’s everything. Atheism isn’t a slight variation on theism; it’s a rejection of the entire foundation of existence.

3. "Science has disproven God."