(ANSA) - Rome, April 16 - There were emotional scenes when Pope Francis visited one of Rome's most socially deprived districts on Sunday as the pontiff tried to comfort a boy who was mourning the loss of his atheist father.

The boy, Emanuele, started to cry during the papal visit to the parish of San Paolo della Croce in the Corviale district, and the pope encouraged him to come up and whisper what was troubling him. "He is crying for his father," the pope said, adding that he has asked Emanuele permission to reveal what they had spoken about.

"His father passed away recently, he was atheist, but he had all four of his children christened, he was a good man and he asked if he was in heaven.

"How lovely that a child says that his dad was good.

"It is a beautiful testimony to that man and it is a beautiful testimony that he had the courage to cry here in front of us all. "He did not have the gift of the faith, but he had his children baptized, he had a good heart and so how would God's heart be before a father like this? "God has the heart of a father and before a non-believer dad who baptized his children, do you think He would be able to leave him from away from Him? "No. There you are Emanuele. That is my answer".

</s>ROME — After circling a massive, crumbling public housing complex on the outskirts of Rome, Pope Francis had an emotional encounter with the neighborhood’s children.

Question-and-answer sessions with youngsters are a standard part of Pope Francis’ parish visits. And, at St. Paul of the Cross parish April 15, there were the usual questions like, “How did you feel when you were elected pope?”

But then it was Emanuele’s turn. The young boy smiled at the pope as he approached the microphone. But then froze. “I can’t do it,” Emanuele said.

Msgr. Leonardo Sapienza, a papal aide, encouraged the boy, but he kept saying, “I can’t.”

“Come, come to me, Emanuele,” the pope said. “Come and whisper it in my ear.”

Msgr. Sapienza helped the boy up to the platform where the pope was seated. Emanuele was sobbing by that point, and Pope Francis enveloped him in a big embrace, patting his head and speaking softly to him.With their heads touching, the pope and the boy spoke privately to each other before Emanuele returned to his seat.

“If only we could all cry like Emanuele when we have an ache in our hearts like he has,” the pope told the children. “He was crying for his father and had the courage to do it in front of us because in his heart there is love for his father.”

Pope Francis said he had asked Emanuele if he could share the boy’s question and the boy agreed. “‘A little while ago my father passed away. He was a nonbeliever, but he had all four of his children baptized. He was a good man. Is dad in heaven?'”

“How beautiful to hear a son say of his father, ‘He was good,'” the pope told the children. “And what a beautiful witness of a son who inherited the strength of his father, who had the courage to cry in front of all of us. If that man was able to make his children like that, then it’s true, he was a good man. He was a good man.

“That man did not have the gift of faith, he wasn’t a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart,” Pope Francis said.

“God is the one who says who goes to heaven,” the pope explained.

The next step in answering Emanuele’s question, he said, would be to think about what God is like and, especially, what kind of heart God has. “What do you think? A father’s heart. God has a dad’s heart. And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself?”

“Does God abandon his children?” the pope asked. “Does God abandon his children when they are good?”

“There, Emanuele, that is the answer,” the pope told the boy. “God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.”

Pope Francis encouraged Emanuele to “talk to your dad; pray to your dad.”

Earlier, a young girl named Carlotta also asked the pope a delicate question: “When we are baptized, we become children of God. People who aren’t baptized, are they not children of God?”

“What does your heart tell you?” the pope asked Carlotta. She said, they are, too.

“Right, and I’ll explain,” the pope told her. “We are all children of God. Everyone. Everyone.”

The nonbaptized, members of other religions, those who worship idols, “even the mafiosi,” who terrorize the neighborhood around the parish, are children of God, though “they prefer to behave like children of the devil,” he said.

“God created everyone, loves everyone and put in everyone’s heart a conscience so they would recognize what is good and distinguish it from what is bad,” the pope said.

The difference, he said, is that “when you were baptized, the Holy Spirit entered into that conscience and reinforced your belonging to God and, in that sense, you became more of a daughter of God because you’re a child of God like everyone, but with the strength of the Holy Spirit.”</s>In the Spring of 2014 , the Catholic publisher Ignatius Press featured nine books by or about Pope Francis in their catalog, from

The Way of Humility: Corruption and Sin & On Self-Accusation

Francis: Pope of a New World by

Ignatius also advertised a "Pope Francis Portrait," the "Pope Francis Rosary" and the DVD, Who is Pope Francis: The Life and Message of Pope Francis.

Here is the full list:

Personal Recollections about the Man Who Became Pope

In Him Alone Is Our Hope: The Church According to the Heart of Pope Francis by Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis)

As Francis was, of course, then, the Pope, this was par for the course for one of the major Catholic publishers. The first catalog to be created after Francis' election, Fall 2013, featured many items relating to the new pope. And s

imilar large selections of works by or about Francis continued to be featured in successive catalogs up until recently.

Most of the 2014 items are still available on the Ignatius website, and, as might be expected, there are numerous additional books by or about Francis, also available on the site.

However, something else changed.

Suddenly absent are all the titles listed above as are all other more recent items still available such as the Pope's four (at the time) exhortations, the book, Pope Francis on the Family, the DVD, Francis the Pope of Renewal, the CD Habemus Papam and so on.

I wrote almost entirely, above, because the Spring 2018 catalog does still contain one book by Francis, Your First Communion, tucked away in the "Books for Children" section. Francis also apparently wrote the Preface t o Teaching and Learning the Love of God by Pope Benedict XVI, as well as allegedly penning the Forwards to DoCat - a sort of sequel to the "youth catechism" YouCat - and the YouCat Bible. Francis is also mentioned in passing in the blurb for a book of essays by George Weigel, and in the blurb on Humanae Vitae, it is mentioned that Francis will later be canonizing Pope Paul VI. 

 These are the sum total of Catalog appearances by the Pope, even including mentions.

By contrast, the Catalog lists least fifteen books by Pope Benedict, over many pages.

There are also two books by Cardinal Sarah.

And there are numerous additional forwards, endorsements, mentions and the like by or about Benedict, Sarah, Cardinals Burke and Müller and various other prelates.

Ignatius has long been a booster of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, at least four of whose books are featured in the current Catalog.

And, of course, as always, the Catalog features hundreds of works by other Catholic laypersons and religious, ranging from G.K. Chesterton to Mother Angelica.

Thus, the Ignatius Catalog looks about like it always has. With one glaring exception:

The current Pope has gone missing.

Except from the Children's section.</s>Michael W. Higgins is a distinguished professor of Catholic Thought at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.



It was an unprecedented act. Never before in the history of the nation had the prime minister publicly — in the legislature and filmed for wide media distribution — delivered such a broadside against the Vatican.

The prime minister deplored the “dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day.” He called on the Catholic Church to listen to “evidence of humiliation and betrayal” and abjure the parsing and analysis of lawyers.

That prime minister, or Taoiseach, was Enda Kenny and he was speaking to the Irish parliament, in July of 2011 following the publication of the Cloyne Report, which had highlighted sexual-abuse crimes in the Irish diocese of the same name.

The dust-up following Mr. Kenny’s excoriation resulted in the withdrawal of the papal nuncio by the Vatican secretary of state, and the retaliatory closing of the Irish embassy to the Holy See.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Kenny’s performance was more than moral outrage — and the political repercussions for him and his party were a boon. There is, however, a special sadness in the fact that Mr. Kenny’s Dáil jeremiad came just a year after Pope Benedict XVI’s Pastoral Letter to the People of Ireland, in which he declared that “those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we feel.” It was as if nothing had been learned.

Rapprochement subsequently occurred: The embassy in Rome was reopened, a papal ambassador took up residence in Dublin, efforts at repair are ongoing, but the memory of the Taoiseach’s address linger and sting still.

Fast forward to Ottawa and the decision to debate an NDP-originated motion calling on the Pope to formally apologize to the victims of residential schools, garnering the full weight of the Commons and Senate, and driven by the disappointment created in light of the Pope’s declining the invitation by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to do precisely that: apologize in person. This motion is as much moral censure a la Mr. Kenny’s speech as it is a political response to the Reconciliation Commission’s recommendation that the pontiff be invited to do so on Canadian soil.

The decision by Pope Francis to decline doing so has been received with pain, incredulity and mystification by most Canadians, including most Canadian Catholics. Why would a pope, this pope in particular, be reluctant to follow through with Mr. Trudeau’s invitation? After all, humility is a byword for the Bergoglio papacy, and he has throughout his life as a priest vigorously defended those on the periphery, the marginalized and the persecuted. He has kissed the feet of Muslim prisoners, welcomed migrants into the papal household, travelled to dangerous regions of the world to stand in solidarity with outcasts, and most recently, acknowledged an error in judgment on his own part regarding the behaviour of a Chilean bishop he had previously defended.

This is not a pope who avoids his pastoral charge, minimizes his own leadership failings, nor rationalizes his way out of responsibility by blaming his predecessors.

So what gives? It is fear that paralyzes, dilutes moral probity, blunts prophetic witness. The fear of protracted accountability, fiscal peril, reputational loss of face and political manipulation by hostile forces mutes our voice when it should be given unfettered freedom.

Popes don’t invite themselves to a country; they are invited. And if it is a state visit, the invitation is mediated by both the government authorities and the national bishops conference. The Pope is both a universal pastor and the head of a sovereign power; his visits will always have both a political and pastoral dimension. The astonishingly successful visit of Francis to the United States, where he addressed the combined Houses of Congress, is a case in point.

It is easy to surmise why the Canadian bishops might be inclined to view Francis’s compliance with Mr. Trudeau’s wish as ill advised: Their lawyers might be skittish about vicarious liability vis-à-vis the Pope and the residential schools; claims on remaining compensation will be difficult to counter with a pope known for his mercy on site; given the quite justifiable pique of the bishops toward a self-identified Catholic prime minister keen on circumscribing the role of conscience with his Canada Summer jobs restrictive funding, they are not disposed to give him any legitimacy on the political front; the prohibitive nature of their cost-sharing for the papal visit following the disastrous financial headaches they inherited because of the World Youth Day folly they got saddled with in 2002; and the pending bankruptcies of some smaller Quebec dioceses on the horizon.

Compelling reasons all and not to be trivialized or judged through a cynical lens. But in the end, doing the right thing has always been costly. It is the nature of discipleship.</s>Ross Douthat’s Take on Where Pope Francis Is Taking the Church

Commentator looks at this papacy in his new book, To Change the Church.

Ross Douthat is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, the film critic for National Review and former senior editor of The Atlantic. Douthat converted to the Catholic faith when he was a teenager. “I will die a Catholic,” he says. “There is no getting rid of me now.”

Douthat is the author of four books, including Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (Free Press, 2013). Douthat’s new book, To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism (Simon and Schuster, 2018) offers a provocative look at Pope Francis’ efforts to liberalize the Church’s approach to morality: efforts that, according to Douthat, have thrust the Church into a state of theological crisis.

He shared his thoughts on this theme via an email interview with Register correspondent Celeste Behe April 12.

Regarding the Church’s teaching on marriage, you say that “its striking continuity from the first century to the twentieth … is a study in what makes Catholicism’s claim to a unique authority seem plausible to many people, even in a disenchanted age.” To what degree do you, as a convert to the Catholic faith, think that potential converts will be deterred by the current confusion within the Church over marriage-related issues?

Conversion is a complicated alchemy, and no conversion is alike, so I’m hesitant to make sweeping generalizations. I think it’s reasonable to guess that the Francis era is likely to discourage a certain kind of conversion that was common in the John Paul II era, in which intellectually-minded Protestants found themselves appreciating the papacy for its firm stance against the spirit of the age, its continuity with the Christian past, and eventually came to appreciate the Catholic synthesis in full.

Indeed, the Pope’s strategy seems to assume that such conversions are less important than the goal of encouraging reversion — of bringing Catholics who have drifted from the Church back home. But for both possibilities, conversion and reversion, we should also be a little skeptical that the character and controversies of a particular pontificate have the determinative effect on a process that can be so personal, mystical and strange.

You recently spoke at Villanova University’s Charles Widger School of Law. If a law student were to ask you to name three key arguments in defense of Pope Francis, what would those arguments be?

The strongest arguments for the defense: First, the Church has changed before, on issues as diverse as usury and religious liberty, and its view of marriage has evolved; why should this particular pastoral evolution be an impossible leap? Second, the Pope is the pope, and conservative Catholics in particular are supposed to submit to his interpretations; aren’t conservatives in this case just substituting private judgment for the teaching of Peter’s successor? Third, our sexual culture in the West is sufficiently debased and post-Christian, and Catholic catechesis is so abysmal that we should give the benefit of the doubt to anyone whose marriage failed and simply assume — without burdening them unreasonably with the annulment process — that they were probably incapable of the true consent that Catholic marriage requires.

What would be the key arguments on the other side of the case?

To the first point, the Church’s teaching on marriage’s indissolubility is simply more fundamental than other teachings, like usury, where “development” looks a bit like real reversal; it goes back to the clear words of Jesus himself, whose response to his disciples’ shock at his extremism was to extol the alternative of celibacy, and as such is much more irreformable even than other sexual teachings (no to contraception, fornication, masturbation) that depend upon the vision it implies.

To the second, the Pope’s undoubted authority cannot be invoked to justify leading the Church into self-contradiction, and if a pontiff so brazenly departs from ancient and recently-reaffirmed practice, faithful Catholics have every right to question him.

To the third, the problems with our sexual culture may be a reason to err on the side of mercy in the annulment process, but ours is hardly the first era in which marital readiness was uncertain (think of the long ages of arranged marriage); marriage is not a counsel of perfection that only a perfectly-formed Catholic is supposed to be able to undertake; and to allow auto-annulments is not to err on the side of mercy, but to turn the idea of indissolubility into a pleasant fancy, a doctrine with no practical import in real life.

As a parent of college students, I often find myself having to explain “what Pope Francis really meant” by one of his ambiguous remarks. What advice do you have for Catholic parents in a similar position?

It depends on the age of your kids: My own children, at 2, 5 and 7, are not being indoctrinated into their father’s criticisms of the Pope! But the older they are, the more reasonable it is to simply tell them directly what you think is going on.

If the media is misinterpreting the Pope, tell them that; there’s no reason for them not to learn early that journalists can get things wrong. And if you think there are good reasons to think that Francis said something with which a faithful Catholic can disagree, you should be honest about that.

Respect for the pope is a virtue, but a simplistic papolatry is a vice, and any 13-year-old Catholic should be capable of grasping the idea that papal infallibility is a limited charism; indeed, bringing them to an adult faith requires teaching them about the Church’s weaknesses and the mistakes its leaders often make, before the world and experience educate them in those realities instead.

Throughout his pontificate, Pope Francis has focused on the theme of mercy. Yet, you write that, “as theological conservatives have turned on him,” the Pope has “turned on conservatism generally, so that instead of correcting its errors he is ignoring its insights.” Might this strike faithful Catholics as something of a double standard?

I suppose I might put it this way: Even if the Holy Father is completely right in every particular, he sometimes evinces a lack of charity — perhaps even mercy — for those Catholics who are resisting his innovations, not on the basis of some dusty medieval codex or in a spirit of pharisaical inflexibility, but out of what they see, very plausibly, as fidelity to things that were taught for hundreds of years and reaffirmed only yesterday.

If conservatives are wrong, we are wrong in, I think, an extremely understandable and reasonable way, and Pope Francis might take the edge off present controversies a bit if he extended a touch more understanding, even a touch more mercy, toward those of us who are doubtful that a Church that taught “A” yesterday can reasonably and consistently teach what looks more like “B” tomorrow.

Do you think it more likely that Pope Francis will be remembered as a “heroic revolutionary” or as an “ambitious pope who overreached”?

The latter, I’m afraid. But what I’m sure of is that he’s put himself in a position where those are increasingly the only two plausible legacies. The Church will either have to tacitly repudiate his innovations in order to restore consistency and continuity, or else follow them further to where they seem to lead, in which case his impact will be genuinely revolutionary. At this point, it’s hard to see a middle ground (unless he changes course dramatically); I may be wrong about the wisdom of his vision, but I’m sure I’m right that the Catholics of the future will remember this pontificate as an exceptionally significant one, for good or ill.</s>Does George Soros's money, to some extent, move the agenda of Pope Francis's Rome as well as the Democrats in Washington and is he now attempting to control Texas?

Ganesh Sahathevan is a Fellow at the (American Center for Democracy) ACD’s Economic Warfare Institute

said Pope Francis's closest collaborator has "an illegal slush fund financed by George Soro":



 Vice Pope" Cardinal Oscar's Soros funding-Has the Vatican Bank acted as conduit , is it in breach of international AML,CTF and KYC regulations?,"February 14, 2017), [ "..It does seem as if there is some concern within the Vatican that slush funds such as that which appear to be controlled by Cardinal Oscar, that ought to have been reported and accounted for as required by Canon Law, remain secret. Wikileaks and in time other publications are going to make that task near impossible, and hence it is best that all concerned come clean."

The website The Eye Witness reported on suspicious spying done on Pope Benedict and Pope Francis before and after the last conclave by the Soros funded Democrat Obama Administration's NSA:

"It is now revealed that the NSA was tapping the phones and communications of the entire Vatican establishment, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis before, during and after the Conclave. Is such a thing possible? Here is one of many reports:"



..."



 "In another report, from 

 "Bergoglio ' had been a person of interest to the American secret services since 2005, according to Wikileaks' it said."



"The bugged conversations were divided into four categories: 'leadership intentions', 'threats to financial systems', 'foreign policy objectives' and 'human rights', it claimed."



"Why the American Secret Service considered Cardinal Bergoglio a person of interest for the past eight years is an interesting question although the Secret Service like all other US agencies is widely believed to have been corrupted, so it remains unclear as to how one should assess this piece of information or what it was about the activities of the Cardinal that prompted their extreme interest. Still it is curious to say the very least..."



"...But if the Conclave was compromised in some way (and even if it wasn't we do know that the NSA has been listening to electronic communications of high Churchmen in Rome and probably everywhere else) then this opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry." [ ]



 One reason why the NSA could reasonably have been spying on Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bergoglio who would become Pope Francis at that conclave could be that the spy agency was corrupted by the Obama administration.



 It is not unreasonable to assume that the administration wanted Bergoglio to replace Benedict.



 Benedict's agenda put anti-abortion and moral pro-family issues as top priorities while Francis gives lip services to those issues, but sees them as secondary to his agenda which is almost identical to the Obama administration and Soros agendas such unrestricted mass immigration (See: http ).



 Zero Hedge shows that NSA became a servant of the Democrats and the Obama administration agenda and it's FISA abuses:



 "Donald Trump must veto reauthorized NSA spying powers which passed both the House and the Senate yesterday said to detail sweeping FISA Abuses by the FBI, DOJ and the Obama Administration during and after the 2016 presidential election, says former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden." [ , in light of ansaid to detail sweeping FISA Abuses by the FBI, DOJ and the Obama Administration during and after the 2016 presidential election, says former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden." [ ]



 Another reason is related to the first reason for the spying is that the Democrats and some liberal Republicans are funded by Soros who is pushing unrestricted mass immigration:



 "There does indeed seem to be a “hidden Soros Slush Fund” in the Democratic Party’s official platform, as commentator Michelle Malkin recently ... Malkin suggests that Obama’s rival for the White House, John McCain, hasn’t criticized the slush fund proposal because his 



Francis in Gaudete et Exsultate joins the Democrats funded by Soros who are pushing unrestricted mass immigration by making it equivalent to abortion. Francis appears to want to bring the Democrat regime into power.



 Unrestricted mass immigration will bring the 100 percent pro-abortion Democrats into power by changing the demographics of the voters of the USA. If the Latin American immigrants whom President Reagan granted amnesty and the illegal immigrants who followed them into California and other states like Texas had voted for pro-life candidates, I would be the first in line to say grant amnesty again. But the vast majority of them have voted like the mayor of Mexico City for abortion. 

 Francis with Gaudete et Exsultate, it appears, is joining Soros in attempting to bring the party of abortion Democrats into power.

to Chuck Norris, Soros is willing to spend huge sums of money to insure the victory for the party of abortion: 



"Left-wing BILLIONAIRE George Soros and liberal Washington, D.C. special interests believe that taking Texas is the key to seizing control of the entire country. If Soros and his liberal pals can take Texas and its 38 electoral votes, they’ll have a lock on the White House for at least a generation!" 

 

 "Just this year, George Soros dumped $900,000 into a local Texas district attorney’s race—and won. If he’ll spend that much on a local race, Soros will likely pour in millions (if not tens of millions) to install a Democrat Governor in Texas."

 

 "That way he’ll be able to control Texas redistricting after the next census, draw Texas Republicans out of office, and ensure Democrat control of the U.S. House for years!"

If Pope Francis, Soros and Gaudete et Exsultate bring about then the Democrats will be in power and will be killing the unborn babies "for at least a generation." 

 Pray an Our Father now for the end of the killing of unborn babies.</s>VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis admitted Wednesday that he made "grave errors" in judgment in Chile's sex abuse scandal and invited the victims he had discredited to Rome to beg their forgiveness.

In an extraordinary public letter, Francis also summoned all of Chile's bishops to the Vatican for an emergency meeting in the coming weeks to discuss the scandal, which has badly tarnished his reputation and that of the Chilean church.

The Vatican orders up such emergency visits only on rare occasions, when Vatican intervention is urgently required, such as when American bishops were summoned in 2002 after the clerical sex abuse scandal exploded in the U.S. and in 2010, when Irish bishops received a comprehensive Vatican dressing down for their botched handling of abuse cases.

Francis blamed a lack of "truthful and balanced information" for his missteps in judging the case of Bishop Juan Barros, a protegé of Chile's most notorious predator priest, the Rev. Fernando Karadima. Francis strongly defended the bishop during his January visit to Chile despite accusations by victims that Barros had witnessed and ignored their abuse.

In Chile and during an airborne press conference returning to Rome, Francis accused the victims of "calumny" for pressing their case against Barros, demanded that they present "proof" of their claims and revealed that he had twice rejected Barros' resignation.

"I am convinced he is innocent," the pope insisted.

After causing an outcry, Francis sent the Vatican's most respected sex abuse investigator, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, to look into the scandal.

While his letter didn't reveal his ultimate conclusions about Barros, Francis made clear that he and the bishops have a lot of work to do to turn the church around.

In words that laid bare his simmering anger, Francis said they must "re-establish confidence in the church, confidence that was broken by our errors and sins, and heal the wounds that continue to bleed in Chilean society."

Karadima was a charismatic preacher who was removed from the ministry by the Vatican for sexually abusing minors and sentenced in 2011 to a lifetime of penance and prayer. Karadima had long been a darling of the Chilean hierarchy, and his victims have accused church leaders of covering up his crimes to protect the church's reputation.

Scicluna and his colleague, the Rev. Jordi Bertomeu, spent nearly two weeks in Chile and New York earlier this year interviewing Karadima's victims, who for years have denounced Barros' silence and were stunned by Francis' strong defense of him.

In his letter, Francis thanked the 64 people who testified and had the courage to bare the "wounds of their souls" for the sake of truth. After reading the 2,300-page dossier his envoys prepared, Francis affirmed that the victims "spoke in a stark way, without additives or sweeteners, of many crucified lives."

"I confess this caused me pain and shame," he wrote.</s>After private audience w @pontifex for @VillanovaU Bd of Trustees w our leader Fr Peter Donohue. An emotional blessed experience. pic.twitter.com/xCUoHAuGB7 — Mark Alexander (@MarkCAlexander) April 14, 2018

The President and Trustees of Villanova University got a chance to meet Pope Francis during a special audience Saturday at the Vatican.Villanova dean and professor Mark Alexander tweeted photos during the trip to Rome.Pope Francis said he hopes the Catholic institution will continue its tradition of instructing students both academically and spiritually.Men's basketball coach Jay Wright also presented the pope with a national championship basketball signed by the team.------</s>Until recently, the common practice of blessing in the Catholic church was somewhat restricted to living, breathing members. That changed this weekend in Rome, where Formula E arrived for the first ever race in the city of the Holy See.Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic church and a person many have considered too unorthodox (pun intended) in his leadership since accepting papacy back in 2013, has once again made the headlines, after agreeing to meet with Formula E representatives and drivers.Being a man of his time, the Pope has often embraced new ideas and technologies which might better mankind. So the arrival of a bunch of battery-powered cars on his city’s streets didn’t pass unnoticed.The Pope welcomed a Formula E selection of drivers competing in the series, led by Formula E CEO Alejandro Agag, at his residence in Santa Marta. Following the usual handshaking and other rituals imposed by the occasion, the Pope went on and performed a private Apostolic Blessing on the official championship car.We’re not sure what Formula E execs were trying to pull with this stunt. It’s interesting to see how they would sell the blessing to the Chinese or Moroccans when the season returns to their streets next year. It's unlikely we'll see a banner stating "Officially blessed by the Catholic Church" adorning the tracks.Formula E this seasons had and will have races planned in 9 countries. Only five (Germany, Italy, Uruguay, Chile, and Mexico) are officially Catholic states.China is officially atheist (although people are divided in an abundance of religions like Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism ), Switzerland has no official religion (most tend to say they’re Catholics), Morocco goes the Sunni Islam way, and the Americans, well, there are a few dozen types of Christians.
Pope Francis comforts a crying boy in San Paolo della Croce, Rome, by telling him his recently-deceased father, an atheist, will have ascended to heaven on the basis his father had "a good heart".