The New York Times.  Robert Neubecker

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times had a featured article yesterday on college tuition entitled, “Some Colleges Will Soon Charge $100,000 a Year. How Did This Happen?”  Here is an excerpt.

“It was only a matter of time before a college would have the nerve to quote its cost of attendance at nearly $100,000 a year. This spring, we’re catching our first glimpse of it.

One letter to a newly admitted Vanderbilt University engineering student showed an all-in price — room, board, personal expenses, a high-octane laptop — of $98,426. A student making three trips home to Los Angeles or London from the Nashville campus during the year will hit six figures.

This eye-popping sum is an anomaly. Only a tiny fraction of college-going students will pay anything close to this anytime soon, and about 35 percent of Vanderbilt students — those who get neither need-based nor merit aid — pay the full list price.

But a few dozen other colleges and universities that reject the vast majority of applicants will probably arrive at this threshold within a few years.  Their willingness to cross it raises two questions for anyone shopping for college: How did this happen, and can it possibly be worth it?”

Boston University, Tufts, Wellesley, and Yale — among the top private colleges in the country — will begin charging the nearly six-figure sum a year for tuition, housing and other expenses, according to the schools’ admissions websites, The Boston Globe reported.

The entire article is worth a read especially if you have children or grandchildren who will be attending college soon.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Dear Commons Community,

Barry Diller, Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC and Expedia Group and founder of the Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting, wasn’t optimistic about Trump Media stock’s future when asked about it during a recent interview — and doesn’t get why people were so excited about it in the first place.

“Why are you even talking about this? It’s a scam,” Diller said in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Thursday.

TMTG’s total revenue in 2023 was just $4.1 million, according to an SEC filing on Monday — while losing $58 million. Those numbers, Diller suggested, should not indicate “buy” to any reasonable investor.

“It’s ridiculous,” he said. “The company has no revenue.”

Questioning how anyone could see Trump Media as a valuable company, Diller concluded that its shareholders must not have financial soundness in mind when purchasing the stock. “They’re buying it for other reasons,” he said, calling them “dopes.”

Diller said the platform offers little opportunity for future growth.

“Why would it be bigger?” he asked, adding that Donald Trump — a major part of the platform’s appeal — is “only interesting now” because he’s “out there entertaining the folks” on the campaign trail.

Trump Media shared surged to as high as $79.38 on March 26, the day trading began on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “DJT.”

Since then, the Truth Social owner’s share price has plunged by 49% to the closing price of $40.49 yesterday.

TMTG did not return a request for comment before publication.

Meanwhile, short-sellers are already betting millions against the company, The New York Times reported, citing data from S3 Partners.

Trump could also find it difficult to materially benefit from Trump Media in the short-term, since he is prevented from selling his shares for another six months as part of a “lock up” period — unless the company’s board allows otherwise.

Diller knows what he is talking about!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The U.S. economy added 303,000 jobs in March, blowing past expectations and indicating that economic growth remains on a firm footing.

The reading matches the largest one-month boost in payrolls since May 2023 and is a significant increase from the 270,000 added in February and the 256,000 in January.

Economists had forecast that about 200,000 jobs would be added for March.

The unemployment rate declined slightly to 3.8%, and wage growth came in at 4.1% over the last 12 months, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.

Sectors seeing the largest job gains included hospitals, restaurants, local governments, large warehouse retailers, and specialty trade contractors. Manufacturing added zero jobs on net.  As reported by NBC News.

“The economy continues to display remarkable resilience, defying high interest rates and fears of a substantial slowdown,” Mark Hamrick, Bankrate’s senior economic analyst, said in an emailed note.

He added that more people were both working and looking for work, something that brought the labor force participation rate up to 62.7% — another sign of a strong economy.

The strong data point may prompt the Federal Reserve to continue to push back the interest rate cuts it had been signaling for this year. That means the cost of borrowing money for everything from credit cards to autos to homes is likely to remain elevated for some time. By keeping interest rates high, the central bank seeks to cool consumption for goods and services — too much of which keeps price growth elevated.

Following the release of Friday’s report, traders shifted the odds of the first rate cut of 2024 from June to September.

Yet with the pace of hourly pay slowing in March to the slowest annual rate of the post-pandemic period, some economists are optimistic that the ongoing jobs boom may not turn into higher inflation.

A series of new reports suggest the surge in immigrant workers in recent years, while a politically volatile topic, has helped keep a lid on the pace of pay increases that may be helping fuel inflation.

“Labor supply increased significantly [in 2023], thanks to rising participation among 25-to-54-year-olds, as well as a strong pace of immigration,” Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell said in a speech earlier this week.

Nevertheless, Powell said the central bank was in no rush to start bringing interest rates down.

“We do not expect that it will be appropriate to lower our policy rate until we have greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably down toward 2 percent,” Powell said. “Given the strength of the economy and progress on inflation so far, we have time to let the incoming data guide our decisions on policy.”

In a note to clients following the release of Friday’s jobs report, Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, said that while the strong payrolls number could mean a delayed interest-rate cut, next week’s inflation report will be more critical in determining what the Fed does next.

“Today’s report should reassure markets that, if the Fed does not cut in June, it’s because the economy is still strong and earnings should remain in an upswing,” she wrote.

Is everybody happy?  Everybody except Trump and Fox News.

Tony

Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

Dear Commons Community,

Yesterday, Joe Cunningham, the national director for the political organization No Labels, said that the group won’t put forth a third-party presidential ticket because the hero the group was looking for “never emerged.”  Here is a quick analysis courtesy of The Hill.

“Cunningham joined Fox News channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” shortly after No Labels made its announcement, where he was questioned about what went wrong.

“Let me say, it’s not for lack of trying, that’s for sure,” Cunningham said. “And the shorter answer is that to field this ticket, No Labels was looking for a hero, and a hero never emerged.”

The group announced it would end its effort to put together a “Unity ticket in the 2024 presidential election,” even after it gained ballot access in more than 20 states.

Cunningham said the group has been “very straightforward and upfront and honest” with voters that they would only move forward if two conditions were met: If Americans wanted another option outside the two dominant parties, and if the group could find someone to lead it.

He said Americans “definitely” wanted another option instead of the two leading candidates, President Biden and former President Trump. Cunningham argued that No Labels ran into trouble finding a candidate who would back it.

“At the end of the day, we weren’t able to find candidates that we felt had a straightforward path to victory in this,” he said.

No Labels leaders hinted at a list of potential candidates, including Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), and former GOP primary contestants former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, but ultimately none took the group up on their possible offers.

“At the end of the day, pushing a bat back against your respective political party is difficult in this duopoly and the establishment does not reward dissent and so we found it difficult to find the leaders to step up with the courage to be able to say ‘OK, we’re putting our country first and you know, damn the consequences within our respective parties.’”

I also believe that No Labels along with the other third party movements this year are nothing but spoilers.  And there is too much at stake in the 2024 presidential election for spoiler candidates.  We still remember Jill Stein and the Green Party in 2016.

Tony

Credit…Sam Whitney/The New York Times

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times columnist, David Brooks, has an amusing piece today entitled “Why is Technology so Mean to Me.”  He reviews all the little everyday kinks that occur in our technology-driven world from unstable Wi-Fi, to earbuds not synching up to our iphones,  to printer problems, etc.  It is a fun read and so true of our relationships with our PDAs and laptops.

Below is the entire column.

Tony

——————————————————————————————–

The New York Times

Why Is Technology Mean to Me?

April 4, 2024

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

It is never easy to re-examine one’s fundamental convictions, but now I am forced to question my previous disbelief in the existence of Satan. I am compelled to confront this ugly possibility by the fact that from time to time my electronic devices seem to fall under demonic possession.

Now, I should start by saying that I am not someone with a natural animosity toward personal technology. I have been known to be completely reasonable when the supermarket self-checkout machines refuse to let me proceed until I place my last purchased item into the bagging area. I patiently explain, sometimes with dramatic physical re-enactments, that, in fact, I have placed the product directly in the center of the bagging area, and even into a bag itself.

Despite these kinds of sympathetic efforts, technology finds me wanting; I am disfavored within the silicon-based community, and the situation has become so bad that it’s brought to mind this possibility of a malevolent presence — Beelzebub, Lucifer, the Dark Lord, whatever you want to call him.

Let me describe the events of last Friday, when technology was especially mean to me. I woke up in Chicago to find that my phone, which normally charges through the port on the bottom, was no longer accepting charges from that entry point. I didn’t think much of it, assuming I could clean out some dust or something.

Then I tried to pair it with my earbuds, which it usually automatically pairs with. Nothing doing. This sometimes happens, so I tried connecting it with my backup earbuds, the ones that sound like they’re beaming music from the bottom of the Pacific. These devices also refused to be on speaking terms. I went to the Bluetooth page on the phone, and it was just a bunch of “not connected” readings.

I did what any master technologist would do. I rubbed the earbuds against my phone in a seductive circular manner that I thought might foster a rapprochement. I put them in my ears and grazed the phone against my cheeks with a pressure that was amorous and gentle, but also firm. Still, the phone and earbuds refused to sync. People talk a lot about artificial intelligence but not enough about artificial obstinacy.

As I rushed to the airport my Find My app rubbed salt in the wounds by telling me I had left behind the earbuds that my phone refused to recognize in the first place. At the airport it occurred to me that I might clean the charging port by using a suction technique. So if you were at Midway International Airport last Friday and a small child asked you, “Why is that man sucking on his phone?” that man was me.

I got on the plane, secure in the knowledge that Southwest has very reliable Wi-Fi service. But the flight attendant informed us that this time it wasn’t working, because, you know, Satan. I got home and found my home Wi-Fi wasn’t working, either. I fixed it by turning it off and on, a maneuver that shows, as the Silicon Valley types would say, that I am “tech savvy.”

While at home I had to print six documents. I used to have a printer that served me well until one day it decided my ink cartridges were “corrupt” and refused to do any further printing. I bought more cartridges from the printer’s manufacturer, but my printer still saw shadiness in all new cartridges — like QAnon members looking at national politics.

We bought a new printer, but it’s snooty. Asking it to print something is like applying to Harvard. It was willing to print out an essay from the journal Daedalus and an academic paper on aging, but it was unwilling to print four other documents from mere newspapers and websites. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, it would prefer not to.

You might be reading this account thinking that I’m the problem here. I’m just a technology idiot who doesn’t know how to fix things. I am open to this possibility. When I last went shopping for a car and the salesman started explaining the amazing electronic features on the new models, I was unable to follow him after 0.7 seconds. But I remind you of the central reality. Gizmos that were working for me one minute stopped working the next. I want my technology to have many capacities, but free will is not among them.

As I’m writing this sad tale my computer is alerting me that I have to shut it down for a vital security update, as it does frequently when I’m on deadline. For a decade, if I deleted an email on my phone it was also deleted on my laptop, but one day that stopped working, too. Every time I log onto my bank’s website, using the same computer each time, I get an email telling me a new device has been detected. And don’t even get me started on subjective security questions. How am I supposed to remember what my favorite pizza topping was 15 years ago when I opened that account? People grow and change.

I am thinking of finding a priest who can do a full-scale technological exorcism — like in that old Linda Blair movie. Before I do, let me just send this off to my editor before my computer crashe$^%#&*((@”+!%#.

Botswana Elephants.  Inset – Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi

Dear Commons Community,

Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi has threatened to send 20,000 African elephants to “roam free” in Germany in a public dispute between the nations over hunting and conservation, according to the German newspaper Bild.

Masisi’s comments came in response to Germany’s government saying earlier this year that it wants to restrict hunters from importing hunting trophies from Africa into Germany.

Botswana is home to roughly one-third of the world’s elephant population. Germany is among the largest importers of hunting trophies in Europe, with German hunters representing a significant amount of the income used to fund sustainable conservation in many African nations.

Masisi said elephant numbers in his country had exploded as a result of conservation efforts to protect the animals, and that trophy hunting was one of the tools his country used to bring in much needed revenue while keeping elephant populations in check.

Germans should “live together with the animals, in the way you are trying to tell us to,” Masisi told Bild, adding: “This is not a joke.”

African countries have long accused Western governments and organizations of campaigning and forcing policies that, in the name of conservation, curb the ability of nations with large elephant populations from using effective means such as culling to control animal numbers.

Botswana previously banned trophy hunting in 2014, but after appeals from local communities who said they needed the revenue from the sport, the ban was lifted in 2019.

Most countries with significant wild animal populations see the native species as resources that can bring in much needed money. Tourism, including trophy hunting, makes up a significant proportion of the national income for a number of African nations. In turn, these countries follow a policy called “sustainable use,” allowing annual hunting quotas to bring money in to help fund conservation efforts for vulnerable species.

With talk of global bans on trophy hunting, some fear those revenues could all but dry up.

Botswana is home to roughly 130,000 elephants, and some 6,000 new calves are born every year. Elephants live across an estimated 40% of the country’s land. Botswana has even given about 8,000 elephants to Angola and Mozambique – an effort to boost international tourism in those nations while also helping to control numbers in Botswana.

Animal rights groups argue that hunting is cruel to the animals and should be banned, regardless of their numbers.

Conservation leaders from southern African nations warned last month that they would send 10,000 elephants to take up residence in central London’s Hyde Park if the U.K. imposed a ban on the import of safari hunting trophies.

Overpopulation of elephants increases conflict with local human populations, as the animals can destroy crops and even been trample and kill people, Masisi said this week.

Local communities across southern Africa have often found themselves in conflict with elephants, which are seen as pests.

Masisi was quoted by Bild as saying that Germany’s government ministers didn’t have “elephants in their backyard,” but noting that he was “willing to change that.

This is the kind of story that you do not see everyday!

Tony

Robert C. Robbins

Dear Commons Community,

Robert C. Robbins, the president of the University of Arizona, announced Tuesday that he will will resign as soon as his successor is named, but no later than June 2026.  The chair of the Arizona Board of Regents, Cecilia Mata, also said in a news release that a presidential search “will move forward with expediency.”  As reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education and USA Today.

“The past 18 months certainly have been difficult for our university,” Robbins said in an email to the campus, “but I am confident that our passion and commitment for doing what is right, as well as our thorough and thoughtful analysis to address our ongoing challenges, will bring our institution greater stability in short order.”

Robbins’s decision to resign marks a key inflection point in a four-month leadership saga that has roiled the institution and drawn an unusual level of attention from the state’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs.

Robbins has faced harsh criticism from Hobbs, not to mention faculty and staff, after revealing in November that the university was facing a massive and unexpected budget shortfall because of overspending and poor financial modeling.

The financial emergency has forced the university to propose a wide range of cost-cutting measures — including a hiring and salary freeze, saving $27 million from unfilled positions or jobs where a retirement is imminent, cutting a tuition-guarantee program for students beginning in the fall of 2025, as well as restructuring the administration. Robbins also cut his $816,000 salary by 10 percent and eliminated $270,000 in bonuses.

More recently, the university has come under fresh scrutiny for its 2020 purchase of the for-profit Ashford University, now the University of Arizona Global Campus. The new entity was meant to help the university compete with other national online institutions, such as Purdue Global — created when Purdue University purchased the for-profit Kaplan University — as well as more established institutions such as Southern New Hampshire University.

But the purchase of Ashford was controversial because of questions about whether it would be a financial drag on the university and because the for-profit college had been the subject of numerous investigations by state and federal regulators.

Even as questions about Robbins’s leadership grew louder in recent months, he continued to hang on to his job. Then a major blow came last week, when The Arizona Republic reported that Robbins had hired a lobbyist to urge California’s attorney general to erase millions of dollars in fines against Ashford. Robbins had previously denied being involved.

I believe that Robbins’s ouster was inevitable mainly because of the purchase of Ashford University.  It was well-known in higher education circles that Ashford had at best a dubious reputation that would tarnish the University of Arizona.

Tony

Robert Kennedy Jr.

Dear Commons Community,

Over the weekend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made headlines for his bashing of Joe Biden  claiming Biden was a greater threat to democracy than Trump.  It is becoming obvious that his presidential campaign is essentially a spoiler effort to prevent Biden’s reelection.  I did a quick search on who is backers were and I came across a Rolling Stone article published last month that dealt with this topic. Below is the entire article as published on February 26, 2024, by Rolling Stone and written by Adam Rawnsley

Tony

————————————————————-

Robert Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential campaign is being boosted by deep-pocketed supporters of Donald Trump, venture capitalists, conservative Hollywood types, and other celebrities.

Democrats worry the Kennedy campaign could help tank President Joe Biden’s reelection bid and make Trump president again. He is also a danger to public health: Kennedy has spread false conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines and claimed vaccines cause autism.

American Values 2024, a super PAC backing Kennedy, is the most important funding vehicle for his longshot bid for president. The group spent $7 million on a 30-second Super Bowl ad hyping Kennedy’s bid, which used recycled jingles and footage from the late President John F. Kennedy’s campaign, prompting outrage from the Kennedy clan and an apology from RFK.

More importantly, the super PAC is funding efforts to secure Kennedy’s line on ballots, pledging to spend $15 million to gather signatures. The centrist Democratic group Third Way has pressed state officials to reject signatures collected by American Values 2024, on the grounds that super PACs must operate independently from candidates under federal election rules.

American Values 2024 has so far raised $38 million, and its most important donor is longtime Republican financier Timothy Mellon. Mellon, the scion of the famous banking magnate Andrew Mellon, has contributed millions of dollars to conservative candidates over the years, including $15 million in donations to MAGA Inc, the premiere pro-Trump super PAC, this election cycle.

For American Values 2024, Mellon is a financial linchpin. He’s given $20 million to the group, or more than half of what it’s raised, helping the super PAC outstrip the Kennedy campaign’s own fundraising of nearly $25 million so far. Mellon previously drew criticism for using racist stereotypes in his autobiography.

Mellon is not the only big-dollar MAGA donor propping up what many Democrats see as a spoiler candidate. Financier Omeed Malik, who has donated to both Republicans and Democrats over the years, leads an “anti-woke” investment firm financing former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s new media venture.

Malik gave the $6,600 maximum to Kennedy’s campaign committee, Team Kennedy, last year. After a brief flirtation with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ doomed Republican presidential campaign, this month Malik committed to raising $3 million for Trump’s 2024 bid.

Former Papa John’s Pizza CEO John Schnatter has given $6,600 to Team Kennedy. Schattner, who resigned as chairman of the pizza conglomerate in 2018 after apologizing for using a racist slur during a conference call, has long supported Republican candidates and causes. During the Obama era, Schattner opposed the Affordable Care Act and hosted Mitt Romney for a fundraiser during his 2012 presidential run.

More recently, Schattner has become a vocal Trump supporter, criticizing Biden’s economic policies and praising Trump during a 2022 appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Gavin de Becker, a security consultant to tech titans like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, followed Mellon, offering American Values its second largest source of revenue in the form of $10 million worth of donations. Oddly, the super PAC has returned most of de Becker’s cash — with the explanation given that he has been providing “bridge funding” to the group. He has pledged to give more.

Venture capitalists like Yext CEO Michael Walrath and former PayPal president David Marcus both contributed the maximum to Team Kennedy.

Kennedy, who is married to actress Cheryl Hines, has tried to recruit celebrities to his campaign, including at a Los Angeles fundraiser last week. The event featured right-wing shock jock Adam Carolla, actors Jeremy Piven and Mike Binder, comedian Rob Schneider, who appeared on stage to tepid reviews. It’s unclear yet how much the event raised — tickets ranged from $150 to $1,500 — but a handful of Camelot-vintage and conspiracy enthusiast celebs have ponied up to Kennedy’s personal committee so far.

Oliver Stone, the director of the 1991 conspiracy flick “JFK” about the assassination of Kennedy’s uncle, also maxed out his contribution to Team Kennedy. Stone says he voted for Biden in 2020 but has soured on the incumbent following the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine amid the Russian invasion. Stone admires and has hailed Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “a great leader.”

Similarly, in the summer of 2023, rock guitarist Eric Clapton, donated $5,000 to Kennedy, his first campaign contribution in federal election records. As Rolling Stone reported, Clapton has embraced conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and vaccines, and has donated to a number of anti-vaccine groups since the start of the global pandemic

Popes Francis and Benedict XVI.  The Associated Press.

Dear Commons Community,

The Vatican is normally very secretive about goings-on in its papal chambers so it is a surprise that  Pope Francis has exposed the political maneuvers used to sway votes during the two most recent elections of popes, in a book-length interview published yesterday.  As reported by The Associated Press.

The confidential revelations are contained in “The Successor: My Memories of Benedict XVI,” in which the Argentine pope reflects on his relationship with the late German pope and settles some scores with Benedict’s longtime aide.

The book, written as a conversation with the correspondent for Spain’s ABC daily, Javier Martínez-Brocal, comes at a delicate time for the 87-year-old Francis. His frail health has raised questions about how much longer he will remain pope, whether he might follow in Benedict’s footsteps and resign, and who might eventually replace him.

In the book, Francis revealed previously confidential details about the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict pope and the 2013 ballot in which he himself was elected, saying he was allowed to deviate from the cardinals’ oath of secrecy because he is pope.

In 2005, Francis said, he was “used” by cardinals who wanted to block the election of Benedict — then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — and that they managed to sway 40 out of 115 votes his way. The idea wasn’t to elect the Argentine but rather to force a compromise candidate after knocking Ratzinger out of the running, he said.

“They told me afterward that they didn’t want a ‘foreign’ pope,” — in other words, a non-Italian one — Francis said, making clear that the process wasn’t so much about the Holy Spirit inspiring cardinals as it was a cold, hard political calculus.

Francis said he put an end to the maneuvering by announcing that he wouldn’t accept being pope, after which Ratzinger was elected.

“He was the only one who could be pope in that moment,” Francis said, adding that he, too, voted for Ratzinger.

In 2013, after Benedict’s resignation, there was also political maneuvering involved. Francis — who at the time was Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio — said he only realized after the fact that cardinals were coalescing behind him, pestering him with questions about the church in Latin America and dropping hints that he was gaining support.

He said it finally dawned on him that he might be pope when Spanish Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló came running after him after lunch on March 13, just before what would become the final ballot.

The Spanish cardinal had what was clearly a health-related question about Bergoglio’s ability to take on the physical rigors of the papacy, after opponents apparently had raised his health as a possible impediment to his election.

“Eminence, is it true you’re missing a lung?” Francis recounted Abril as saying, to which he replied that he had part of one lung removed after a respiratory infection. After he assured the cardinal that the operation had taken place more than 50 years earlier, he remembered Abril muttering: “Oh these last-minute maneuvers…”

Francis in the interview denied rumors he is planning any reform of the conclave rules for a future papal election.

Conservative media have speculated, without any attribution, that Francis was tinkering with the protocols to limit pre-conclave discussions about the needs of the church to cardinals aged under 80. Only those cardinals — most of whom were appointed by Francis — are able to vote for the next pope, but older colleagues are currently allowed to take part in the earlier discussions.

While Francis denied any such reform, he revealed he was revising the protocol for papal funerals. Francis said Benedict’s would be “the last wake in which the body of a pope is exposed in an open coffin, on a bier.”

He said he wanted to ensure popes “are buried like any son of the church,” in a dignified, but not excessive manner.

In the book, Francis also settles some scores with Benedict’s longtime secretary, Archbishop Georg Gaenswein, whom he initially fired and then exiled from the Vatican after what he described as a series of imprudent decisions that “made life difficult for me.”

Gaenswein is widely believed to have helped fuel the anti-Francis opposition during Benedict’s decade-long retirement, allowing Benedict to be used by conservatives nostalgic for his doctrinaire papacy. He was behind some of the biggest hiccups in the unusual cohabitation of two popes.

Francis reveals details about one well-known incident in 2020, in which Cardinal Robert Sarah, the conservative former Vatican liturgy chief, co-authored a book with Benedict reasserting the need for a celibate priesthood.

The book was published at the precise moment Francis was considering calls to relax celibacy requirements and allow married priests in order to address a shortage of clergy in the Amazon. It caused a stir because Benedict’s participation in the book raised the prospect of the former pope trying to influence the decision-making of a current one.

Francis squarely blames Gaenswein for the affair, insisting that Sarah was a “good man” who perhaps was “manipulated by separatist groups.” Francis said he felt compelled to sideline Gaenswein after the ruckus.

“I was obliged to ask Benedict’s secretary to take a voluntary leave, but keeping the title of prefect of the papal household and the salary,” Francis said.

Gaenswein later sealed his fate with Francis when he published a tell-all memoir, “Nothing But the Truth,” in the days after Benedict’s Dec. 31, 2022, death that was highly critical of Francis.

“It pained me that they used Benedict. The book was published on the day of his burial, and I felt it was a lack of nobility and humanity,” Francis said.

Rarely do you see such comments coming from a pope!

Tony