Leah Libresco Sargeant Takes on "Pope Francis’s Muddled Mercy."

In her recent article, "Pope Francis’s Muddled Mercy," Leah Libresco Sargeant offers a scathing reflection on the ministry of Pope Francis through the lens of the central theme of the late Pope's ministry: mercy.

While acknowledging his personal acts of compassion, Sargeant argues that the Pope's public witness to mercy was often confused, selective, and at times dangerously misapplied—especially in cases involving serious moral wrongdoing. She distinguishes between the modern sentimental notion of mercy as mere kindness and the Christian understanding of mercy as a love that calls the sinner to repentance, a mercy that coexists with justice, not in opposition to it.

At the heart of her critique lies a tension between the public perception of Francis’s “merciful” image—embodied in soundbites like “Who am I to judge?”—and the deeper Christian imperative to name sin truthfully in order to heal it. Sargeant highlights the troubling leniency shown to abusive clergy such as Zanchetta and Rupnik, where the Pope’s so-called mercy functioned more as institutional shielding than pastoral care. She insists that true mercy demands accountability and conversion, not concealment.

Key to Sargeant's reflection is this: that mercy is divine power that heals what is broken—precisely because it does not ignore the fracture. In Orthodoxy, mercy (eleos) is inseparable from truth. The liturgical cry, "Lord, have mercy," is not a request to avoid consequences, but a plea for transformation. Christ’s mercy is cruciform: it reveals sin, bears it, and conquers it. It does not affirm us in our brokenness; it raises us from it.

Sargeant’s article is a sober reminder that pastoral charity without moral clarity is a counterfeit mercy. The world does not need a Church that merely soothes guilt but one that calls all, guilty and wounded alike, to the transforming light of Christ’s mercy, where judgment is not avoided but transfigured through repentance.

Read Sargeant's full critique here.

Will Constantinople Fall—Again?

The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s once-justified primacy has become a self-serving phantom, selectively wielding ancient canons to justify schism and ecumenism while its shrunken church survives only on Western political life-support.

The Kremlin's Archons

After accusing a pan-Orthodox delegation of being “lobbyists for Putin,” it turns out two of the Archons’ own have actually lobbied on behalf of Russian interests.

A Miscarriage of Justice: How the Phanar Betrayed Met. Tychikos

The following article by Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos was first published by the UOJ's Greek bureau. It has been edited for an American audience.

The New McCarthyism

Today, a delegation of Orthodox clergy will meet with the White House to plead on behalf of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Yet mainstream media outlets like The Hill and politicians like Rep. Joe Wilson are dismissing the effort as a Kremlin psyop. This is offensive to the UOC, and to Orthodox Christians here in the United States.

Zelensky-Style Sanctions: The 'Mindich Case' vs. the 'UOJ Case'

Ten years of sanctions for journalists who criticize the authorities, and three years for corrupt officials who steal millions. A story about whom and how people are punished in modern Ukraine.

Will the Phanar Abandon the OCU?

The Orthodox Times ' plea for a “temporary Exarchate” in Ukraine under Constantinople admits the 2019 Tomos birthed division, not unity. Amid OCU defections, state seizures, and Phanar whispers of a puppet church, the proposal is a white flag for a failed intervention. Of course, it also vindicates Met. Onuphry’s steadfast flock.