🏅 Top traders

Dear @traders, thank you for participating in this market. Here you can find my reasoning for resolving YES. If you have any feedback or questions, please let me know.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/10/ukraine-war-briefing-pope-defends-europe-and-its-role-in-peace-talks-from-trump

"Pope Leo XIV has insisted Europe must have a role in any Ukraine peace deal and criticised what he said was the Trump administration’s effort to “break apart” the US-European alliance."

@LasseRasinen Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Here are the relevant segments of the press briefing:

[00:01:35] Journalist: "Holiness, we are live on Rai News 24. President Trump continues to question Europe's role for peace in Ukraine. What do you think about it?" [A.I. Translation]

[00:01:40] Pope Leo XIV: "But really I think that the role of Europe is very important and the unity of European countries is truly significant, especially in this case, no? And seeking a peace agreement without including Europe in the conversations, let's say, is not realistic. The war is in Europe and I think that the guarantees that are sought, also of security today and in the future, Europe must be part of. Well unfortunately not everyone understands it that way, but I think there is a very big opportunity here for the leaders of Europe to unite and to seek a solution together." [A.I. Translation]

[00:02:43] Journalist: "Good evening would you tell us please what you think about Trump's peace plan for Ukraine do you think it's fair?"

[00:02:59] Pope Leo XIV: "I haven't read the whole thing. I think unfortunately some of the remarks that I have seen make a huge change in what was many many years through alliance between Europe and the United States. The remarks that are made about Europe also interviews and I think are trying to break apart what I think needs to be a very important alliance today and in the future. So, it's a program that president Tump and his advisors put together.And he's the President of the United States and has the right to do that. It has a number of things in it that I think ... well perhaps many people in the United states would be in agreement with. I think many others would see things in a different way."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/tETePgpRiNw?si=huBIfyYfAFd2O03N

@redcat do you consider this sufficient for a YES resolution?

@traders I'd like to open a discussion on whether the remarks from the press briefing on Dec 9, 2025, meet the resolution criteria for YES.

@redcat I don’t think a policy disagreement is a criticism but because this is a subjective market, I have pulled up my stakes and sold my position.

This is a tricky one. I've sold off my small stake because I'm satisfied with the current price.

It's certainly a very tactful way of wording it. But it depends on what definition of "criticize" were working with here.

@Quroe Hard agree. I think what I had in mind was the kind of criticism that would make Trump's fragile ego have to respond with "Well....the pope is an asshole, and a lot of people are saying it". But criticism that Trump is engaging in Neville Chamberlain type diplomacy with Russia, is technically a criticism.

@redcat I'm against resolution on this. It's perfectly diplomatic language. It's critical but not oriented at Trump personally. But good to discuss this.

It also depends on if/how you want to weigh the "openly" word in "openly criticize" where it's used.

@traders I am currently leaning towards resolving this as YES. The transcript shows the Pope explicitly identifying a "program" by "President Trump and his advisors" and stating that "unfortunately" these remarks are "trying to break apart" a "very important alliance." This specific negative judgment appears to meet the criteria for direct criticism by identifying a policy as harmful. While he mentions Trump "has the right" to do this, I view that as a diplomatic hedge—acknowledging his authority to act, but not endorsing the content of the plan itself. Everyone with a differing opinion has the opportunity to sway mine, so please reply if you come to a different interpretation.

@Quroe Yes, IMO "openly" implies both "publicly" (versus privately) and "transparently" (versus vaguely). Since this was a live televised statement where he explicitly named Trump -breaking the usual Papal norm of vague diplomatic language- it meets the definition in both medium and substance in my view. Do you agree?

@redcat I think your explanation is fair and justified.

@redcat It's your subjective impression that controls here, and my subective take is that this is the same type of tepid criticism popes give to roman catholic politicians like Biden who support abortion. But, as I said, I pulled up my stakes based on a very broad reading of the word criticism.

@KevinBlaw I get what you're saying. This market illustrates the unique position of Manifold compared to platforms like Kalshi or Polymarket. We can trade on the 'thin diplomatic line' of Papal communication here, but the cost is that the result hangs almost entirely on semantics and my subjective judgment (as market creator). While it’s an interesting tool to reflect on how the Vatican softens its blows, the question is: does the resolution actually capture a meaningful reality, or have we just turned a few words of diplomatic hedging into an arbitrary win/loss condition? I'm not sure. Do you have any ideas on how to better formulate conditions and manage such a market?

@redcat I don't have any great ideas. But I prefer this type of subjective market to the ones that are like "guess my favorite beverages (even though you don't know dick about me)".

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/pope-calls-deep-reflection-us-about-migrants-treatment-under-trump-2025-11-04/

@JoshuaWilkes there is some room for interpretation based on Leo's reported speech in this story vs the description, but my guess is that this will resolve YES now

I don't think it counts because he didn't explicitly criticize Trump or the U.S. government, if I'm not mistaken.

And I think from his cautious choice of words, like saying "a deep reflection needs to be made" and "[people] have been deeply affected by what's going on right now", it wasn't an explicit attack on Trump.

@ItsMe

In reference to the Broadview inmates, he said on Tuesday that the spiritual rights of detainees need to be considered.

"I would certainly invite the authorities to allow pastoral workers to attend to the needs of those people," he said.

"Many times they've been separated from their families for a good amount of time; no one knows what's happening, but their own spiritual needs should be attended to."

"Direct criticism of a current US government policy or action is considered criticism of the Trump administration." - from description.

I don't think this is clear cut, thus my above statement and somewhat cautious betting, but I think this could count

@ItsMe I agree.

@JoshuaWilkes Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I view these as advocacy statements for a constituency, with implied criticism, but not direct criticism of the Trump administration. There's a meaningful difference between saying "migrants deserve better treatment" and saying "Trump's policies are harmful or wrong."

I like how this market makes me reflect upon Pope Leos communication style. Theres a thin line between his standing as a universal moral authority and being viewed as a biased political actor.

Consider how Pope Pius XII didn't directly criticize Hitler during the Holocaust. It's an extreme example for a pattern that may be viewed as a principled restraint maintaining moral authority, complicity through calculated ambiguity, or something in-between.

Very interesting subject. I wonder if there are some good books about it...

@FecalAbhuman When has a pope ever openly criticized a western leader? Probably not since the end of the Papal States.