In John, Jesus gives a new commandment to love each other as he loved his disciples. It's a really nice commandment, but the problem is, why exactly is this different from love God and love your neighbor? What's the newness in the former versus the latter?

Here's the text in John 13:34-35
"34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."



(Image: The Good Samaritan Domenico Fetti 1618-1622)

​Compare with Luke 10:27
"He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”"

Jesus in the Luke verses summarizes the Mosaic law as essentially love of God and love of neighbor. He then gives the Good Samaritan story (Lk 10:25-37). In that story, a man is robbed on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. He is beaten and left to die. At separate times, a priest and a Levite walk by but do not help the man. Then a Samaritan, who is a cultural enemy of the Jews, sees the man, has compassion, risks his life, and saves the man. He even promises an innkeeper that he will return and settle up any further debts incurred by the recovering victim. Jesus then says to go and do likewise.

This kind of love seems pretty comprehensive. Why is this not enough? Why do we need a new commandment of love? Maybe one might say that self-sacrifice is the distinctively Christian element and thus new. I agree with this, although it's not clear how this is not present as such in the Good Samaritan story. The Samaritan risks his own life by stopping to help the victim. That act seems self-sacrificial.

Back to the question of what is new about Jesus' commandment. The command to love each other goes beyond love of neighbor, so admirably displayed by the Good Samaritan. Jesus is not speaking about love of neighbor, but love of Christian family--"Love one another." So if we project "love one another" into the Good Samaritan story, what else would the Samaritan have done to meet the threshold of this new commandment? 

Let's say we asked the Samaritan before his trip, "If you come across a man beaten and half-dead on the dangerous road to Jericho, would you stop to help him, even at great risk to yourself?" The Samaritan's answer would be yes. He passes the love your neighbor test. Now the love-one-another test, "Mr. Samaritan, a man is going to be beaten to within an inch of his life. Would you take his place and be the victim?" Yes, the Samaritan might do this, but by the Law, he is not required to. The Christian, though, is commanded to sacrifice to this extent for a Christian brother or sister.

It's yet to be seen what effect Pope Leo XIV will have on the Church in terms of numbers. But in terms of trends, there have been interesting things to note.
​
There's been an increase in the Catholic population in Ontario, Canada, but it's been fueled by migration. More immigrants are coming in from Catholic populations.

In the UK the Catholic Gen Z population is on the rise.
"A new study from the United Kingdom has found that among members of Gen Z in the U.K., Catholics now outnumber Anglicans 2 to 1 — part of a pattern observed across all age groups whereby participation in Catholicism has risen in recent years while Anglicanism has declined."

Then France:
Adult baptisms in France are also up.
"France’s Catholic Church will welcome more than 10,384 adult catechumens at Easter this year, marking a 45% increase from 2024 figures, according to data released by the French Bishops’ Conference. The French report reveals the highest numbers ever recorded since the survey began over 20 years ago. Even more striking is the demographic shift — young adults now constitute the largest segment of converts."

As a Christian, it's always nice and encouraging to see people discover the faith in a meaningful way. Although you have to ask if we have lost the plot? Why does it matter that we gain numbers? For one, if you lose numbers, then you become a cultural and political target. But let's say that doesn't matter.    Another piece of the issue is whether declining interest means that God is no longer calling people or tugging at the hearts of people. We're all still human, and the internal desire that pulled people toward the search for God should still structurally be in place? So why aren't more people searching, not just for spirituality, but for Christ?

It does seem, though, that conversions to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the US are tracking with the rise of conservatism and traditionalism among young men. So the factors inspiring growth aside from immigration, to a large part, are cultural. But beyond cultural factors, where are all the people (of the 9 billion in this world) who are searching for Christ?

There is the so-called Benedict Option, the idea that the ideal may be to let the Church resize itself around a smaller core of pure believers, rather than be behemothy all things to all people. The problem is that this is not possible at all in the Roman Catholic Church. For a Church of 1 billion people, with assets worth billions, and real political and ecclesial power, no one in power wants fewer people. It's very, very difficult to give up power and the adulation of literally millions of people on a regular basis.

The Church will never voluntarily re-size, meaning the Benedict Option is not a remote possibility, which means the Church will remain a massive entity with organic internal growth and factors like immigration and cultural trends to spur it forward in terms of size.

But maybe the question is not if we're growing or how we can grow? But if people aren't flocking to our light, then perhaps that light has dimmed to a flicker, and we no longer reflect the Christ we claim to serve. 

Conventional wisdom used to be that neither the UN leader nor the Pope should come from superpower countries. The idea was to prevent undue influence by or collaboration with a superpower government that would undermine the mission of the UN or the Papacy. The election of Pope Benedict XVI threw out the norm for the Papacy. Germany, maybe not a superpower, is a very powerful and influential country, and electing a Pope from there and with a history as a combatant during the war was norm shattering.

However, the norm of preventing an American pope still lingered. The U.S. is an unusually influential culture. It is empire-like, which means it is irrestitible. Now, one can try to ignore its influence, and ignoring it does not diminish the influence. So the option is to lean into it.

Leaning into American influence has become even more pressing in the age of polarization and in the age of President Trump. First, you need someone who is American and who can be a counterweight to President Trump. Pope Leo XIV, a man from Chicago with some African blood in him :), a polyglot, who lived in South America, is not afraid of President Trump (His X account proves this). And, we'll see, but President Trump will be wary of picking a fight with an American Pope for fear of turning people against him. 

The other thing is that President Trump has shown just how vital America is to a law-based order in the world. It was something that was taken for granted, but now everyone realizes that the U.S. was the cornerstone of the international order--that a massive superpower like the US embraced a law-based system and upheld certain norms in the world was vital. But now that President Trump has shattered that assurance, the world realizes what it's lost. The symbolism and promise of American leadership and ideals were the oxygen that maintained a fragile system. So one would see how important it is to try to retrieve and revive that symbolism by electing an American Pope.

Pope Leo XIV, by all accounts, appears to be an impressive man. Just like Barack Obama fit the bill as the first black US president, this Pope seems like he's the kind of person the world expects from an American leader. His ancestry is varied. He speaks many languages. Appears to be very intelligent. Was a Bishop in Peru(!!!!). Strong administrator. Powerful but not overbearing. We'll see how he leads as Pope, but the symbolism for now is more important and a refreshing reset to restoring the right symbolic balance in the international order.

Yes, why is the Bishop of Rome the leader of Jesus' Church on earth--or Pope? There are two distinct issues here. One is about Petrine leadership, and the second issue is why the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor.

I have four questions. 

1. Did Jesus make Peter leader of his disciples and Church?
2. Does the Church need this Petrine leadership?
3. Is Petrine leadership transferable?
4. Why is Rome the instantiation of Petrine leadership?

Did Jesus make Peter leader of his disciples and Church?
This is an easy one. Yes!  John 21:15-19 is the clearest expression of this. Peter loved Jesus more than any of the other disciples, and Jesus told him to tend his lambs, feed his sheep, and feed his sheep. This is unambiguous. 

Does the Church need Petrine Leadership?
Yes!
Mt 16:18 tells us that Jesus declared to Cephas, "You are Peter" and "upon this rock I will build my church . . ." This follows Peter confessing that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. And Jesus says that God revealed that to Peter. It was not a deduction, but it was a gift of faith that no one else possessed (except, of course, Mary and maybe his family). The "this" of Mat 16:19 may be Peter or it may be Peter's declaration, but it doesn't matter. Because the Church is built on the testimony of the Apostles and not abstract claims. So, even if one argues that the "this rock" does not refer to Peter, it refers to Peter's confession (not some abstract claim). His confession that Jesus is Messiah and the Son of God was revealed to him, and it is his faith that becomes foundational for what is to follow. The Christian faith is not based on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Messiah, but that Peter and the other apostles say that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah. The faith is 100% based on the testimony of the Apostles, especially Peter.


So the question is not whether Peter's leadership is necessary. That's irrelevant. The issue is that Jesus declared it to be so. 

Is Petrine Leadership Transferable?
Now this is where it gets tricky and strange. I don't believe that the faith demands it. However, two things are relevant here. One is that both Matthew and John indicate that Peter's leadership is ongoing. In John, as long as there are lambs and sheep, then Peter's leadership is what Jesus desires. In Matthew, as long as there is a church being built, then the rock is needed. So it would stand to reason that as long as there's a church, Petrine leadership is needed and, unless Peter were to live forever, someone else would need to continue that leadership. The other piece of this discussion, which is underrated, is that the Church has the power to institute the transferability of Petrine leadership. Mt 16:19 says, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Church has the authority to continue Peter's leadership, whether it is explicitly declared or not. The issue is did the Church do so? The answer has to be yes, since we have had Petrine leadership for centuries now. So my take is that Jesus didn't authorize any transferability of Petrine leadership, but the Church can and did.

Why is the Bishop of Rome the Successor of Peter?
 . . .
The arguments are that Peter was Bishop of Rome (such as it is) and that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, making Rome special. The latter argument is ridiculous. I'll up you one. Jesus died in Jerusalem. Thus, by the logic where deaths have occurred, the Bishop of Jerusalem should then be the successor of Peter and the primary see. 
Can the Bishop of Rome validly claim to be Peter's successor? Yes, and the Roman church did, and it was unchallenged for the most part and accepted. And by Matthew 16:19 logic, the Church bound this in heaven and earth. However, Rome has no necessary claim to Petrine leadership. Just as the Church allowed Rome to claim that mantle, it can remove it. Although, practically, it would take an extreme emergency to agree that the Bishop of Rome no longer has an intrinsic claim to the papacy.

So . . . Petrine leadership is real, is continuous, it's transferable, and its intrinsic link to Rome all check the necessary boxes.