A US cardinal accused of mismanaging clerical sexual abuse has been listed as playing an official role in the ceremonies to close Pope Francis’ coffin and for his burial.

Cardinal Roger Mahony, the retired Archbishop of Los Angeles, is among a group of nine cardinals and a small number of priests and bishops set to take part in the rites which will include the pope’s burial at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.

Mahony, 89, retired as archbishop in 2011. He was relieved of all his official duties in the archdiocese in 2013 – although these duties were not specified.

However, the American cardinal is listed as participating in the forthcoming ceremonies as a “cardinal priest,” a position within the College of Cardinals. The college includes “cardinal deacons,” “cardinal priests” and “cardinal bishops.”

Mahony holds a senior position among the cardinal priests as he is one of the longest-serving — those who have served longer than him are in their nineties. Other cardinals taking part in the ceremonies include Giovanni Battista Re, who is the dean of the College of Cardinals; Pietro Parolin, who is the most senior cardinal bishop under the age of 80 and is the Holy See Secretary of State; and Dominique Mamberti, the “protodeacon” who will tell the world when a new pope has been chosen.

A spokesman for the Holy See said Mahony was involved because he was the most senior cardinal priest available to take part in the ceremonies, with others unable to participate.

This is not the first time Mahony’s involvement at a time of papal transition has caused controversy. In the run up to the 2013 conclave which elected Francis, a petition in Los Angeles was signed urging him not to take part. This time, due to his age, the cardinal does not have the right to vote – only those under the age of 80 are eligible to do so.

Mahony, who led the Los Angeles archdiocese from 1985 to 2011, has repeatedly apologized for his handling of clerical sexual abuse. In 2013 internal church records revealed that in the 1980s, he and his vicar for clergy failed to remove priests accused of abuse and cooperate with law enforcement.

The cardinal’s successor, Archbishop Jose Gomez, said in 2013 that Mahony “will no longer have any administrative or public duties” in Los Angeles although the archdiocese later clarified that he remained a “priest in good standing.”

Mahony hit back at Gomez’s ban saying to him that “not once over these past years did you ever raise any questions about our policies, practices, or procedures in dealing with the problem of clergy sexual misconduct involving minors.” He said he had repeatedly acknowledged that he made “mistakes, especially in the mid-1980s” over abuse but that he had handed over an Archdiocese that was “second to none in protecting children and youth.”

The clerical sexual abuse scandal has led to historically high payouts by the Los Angeles archdiocese. In 2007, it paid $660 million in a financial settlement to 508 victims and last year a further $880 million to 1,353 survivors in cases going back decades. Mahony was also accused of mishandling the case of an abuser priest when he was Bishop of Stockton.

For many years, Mahony was a prominent figure in the US church hierarchy and considered a strong voice for immigrants, workers’ rights and the importance of Hispanic Catholics for the US church.

During his pontificate, Francis ordered a number of important reforms to deal with the scourge of clerical sexual abuse, but experts say it will be up to his successor to implement them.

“Cardinal Mahony is our Archbishop Emeritus. He retired in 2011 as Archbishop of Angeles and has continued his ministry in our Archdiocese as a retired archbishop,” the archdiocese said. “He has always been in good standing.”

It continued, “We are blessed to have Cardinal Mahony represent our Archdiocese in Rome for the funeral of our Holy Father and the election of our new Pope.”

The Israeli military acknowledged on Thursday that it was responsible for killing a United Nations aid worker in a strike on a UN guesthouse in Gaza last month, backtracking on its previous denials in the face of mounting public evidence of Israeli responsibility.

The Israeli military said its preliminary investigation into the incident “indicates that the fatality was caused by tank fire from IDF troops operating in the area.”

The strike killed Marin Marinov, a 51-year-old from Bulgaria who worked to deliver life-saving aid to the population of Gaza, the UN said. Six others were injured in the deadly attack that occurred one day after Israel renewed its bombardment of Gaza, ending a two-month ceasefire.

“The building was struck due to assessed enemy presence and was not identified by the forces as a UN facility,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement. “The IDF regrets this serious incident and continues to conduct thorough review processes to draw operational lessons and evaluate additional measures to prevent such events in the future. We express our deep sorrow for the loss and send our condolences to the family.”

The Israeli military initially denied any role in the strike on the UN guesthouse and Israel’s Foreign Ministry accused the United Nations of “baseless slander” for saying Israeli tank fire was the source of the attack.

This marks the second time in the last month that the Israeli military has made false statements about an attack on aid workers, only to backtrack in the face of irrefutable evidence contradicting the Israeli military’s official account. Last week, the Israeli military acknowledged “mistakes” that led its forces to attack multiple ambulances, a fire truck and a UN vehicle, killing 15 rescue and aid workers – but only after video of the incident emerged, disproving the IDF’s initial account.

Evidence of Israeli responsibility for the strike on the UN guesthouse on March 19 emerged almost immediately.

Trevor Bell, a former US Army senior explosive ordnance disposal team member who reviewed the footage, said the fragments were consistent with the M339, an Israeli tank shell. N.R. Jenzen-Jones, director at Armament Research Services (ARES) who also analyzed the footage, said at the time the “remnants appear to be from an Israeli 120 mm tank projectile, most likely the M339 multi-purpose model.”

A subsequent report by the Washington Post earlier this month found that two Israeli tank shells very likely killed the UN worker and wounded five others in that strike. The Post report also identified an Israeli tank position just over two miles from the guesthouse in satellite imagery captured the day before the strike.

The United Nations said it had repeatedly informed the Israeli military about the guest house’s location, including as recently as the night before the strike.

The Israeli military said its initial findings had been presented to the Israeli military’s chief of staff and to UN representatives and that a full investigation would be completed “in the coming days, pending the receipt of additional required information.”

‘More intense and significant pressure’

On Thursday, the IDF carried out a strike on a police headquarters in Jabalya, completely destroying the building and killing 10 Palestinians, according to Fares Afana, the director of emergency services in northern Gaza.

The Israeli military said the strike targeted a command and control center for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that “was used to plan and execute terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF troops.”

A separate attack in Gaza City severely damaged two apartment buildings, killing seven Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Civil Defense organization. Video from the scene shows a child on the roof of a building crying for help, blood streaked across his forehead as he waves a hand covered in dust in the air.

“If we do not see progress in the return of the hostages, we will expand our activity into a more intense and significant operation,” said IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir during a visit to Gaza Thursday.

The Israeli military also issued evacuation orders for two areas in northern Gaza as Israel broadens its bombardment of the besieged territory in what it says is an effort to put increasing pressure on Hamas. The IDF says the evacuation orders were issued after troops faced “terrorist activities and sniper fire.”

Imposing a deadline on a negotiation for a deal you desperately want is a risky tactic if your only move is to walk away.

President Donald Trump has threatened just this, and emphasized on Wednesday it is proving easier to make a deal with Russia than Ukraine. Yet that seems a perilous misreading of his own predicament. It is easier for Trump to pressure Kyiv, yes, because they are dependent on US aid and intelligence for their mere survival. But that does not mean Russia is more amenable to a deal. In fact, they are palpably dragging their feet.

This is where the gulf between a life in business deals and one steeped in geopolitical negotiation yawns desperately. Now, Trump is not in the world of real estate – he is not trying to get Putin to buy something. Trump is pushing hard and fast for the Kremlin to agree to terms to end the war that Putin has clearly divined will improve, not worsen, over time.

Trump applied pressure to Putin briefly on Thursday, posting “Vladimir: STOP!”, after Russian missiles targeted Kyiv, killing at least 12 people. But even the scolding used a friendly lexicon, and seemed as upset at the timing of the Russian attack as its casualties.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has publicly rebuffed the US and Ukraine’s now 44-day old offer of a 30-day, unconditional ceasefire. Instead, the Kremlin unilaterally declared a truce for Easter that lasted 30 hours and that Ukraine claimed they violated about 5,000 times. Both sides have accused the other of breaching an energy and infrastructure truce for March and April

This dabbling with ceasefires has left a huge question mark over whether diplomatic agreements will be honoured, or can deliver. Ukraine’s allies point to the Easter truce – unilateral, brief, sudden – as proof the Kremlin think ceasefires are for re-equipping, and negotiation is what happens when you are biding time so you can later pursue your military goals.

The larger problem with Trump’s proposed deal is it is not publicly known what he expects Moscow to cede. A lasting pause in the fighting does seem, on the evidence of the past month, to be a stretch. A wider US-Russia détente may be desired by the White House. But without an enduring settlement for Ukraine, this would result in a long-term fissure in the Transatlantic alliance and even NATO. That would likely spook many establishment Republicans, countless Americans, damage the dollar, and US economic and geopolitical standing. These are real costs that would outweigh the gain of a likely brief make-up with the Kremlin.

Trump’s second problem is it is also unclear – in public so far – what he expects President Zelensky to cede. He told Zelensky in his post on Wednesday to “GET IT DONE”, but it is unclear what the IT is.

Trump was specific he was not demanding Kyiv recognise Russia-annexed Crimea as part of Russia, as has been reported (Ukraine’s constitution prohibits such an act, as it also demands Ukraine move to become part of NATO – an ambition Trump may also ask it to abandon.)

The proposed Trump deal, it seems, may ask Ukraine to accept a freezing of the frontlines, and perhaps American recognition of Crimea as Russian. But both concessions are of limited utility.

Crimea is a peninsula, linked to Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine yet separated from Russia bar a precarious bridge. European and Ukrainian sanctions would continue to isolate Crimea after any peace deal, and both Europe and Kyiv have made it clear they won’t accept its recognition as part of Russia – the altering of land borders by force. With this, Trump is offering Putin a frail fig leaf of respectability. But that is not, in of itself, surely enough?

So what of deal that freezes the frontlines? This may also not be in Moscow’s interests. Putin’s recent bid to drag out the diplomatic process suggests the Kremlin thinks its best battlefield days may lie ahead of it. The oil price may continue to drop, and Moscow may feel manpower crunches ahead. Yet these problems are minor compared to Kyiv’s recruitment issues and the likely dent in its funding when Biden-era cash runs out next year.

The Kremlin’s other vague red lines, voiced by various officials, will be as disruptive to a longer peace. They don’t want European troops acting as a peacekeeping or reassurance force on Ukrainian soil – an idea quite advanced in its planning, that echoes the early version of a peace plan proffered by US envoy Keith Kellogg when he was a private citizen. They are against continued foreign aid to – and intelligence sharing with – Ukraine. Russia wants sanctions lifted up front, ideally. None of this is compatible with wider security concerns on the continent, and will force the Europeans, and Ukraine, to go it alone. That too does not bring a peace deal.

The overriding problem is Putin thinks time is on his side and Trump has repeatedly said the clock is ticking. These two contrasting positions will not yield a lasting deal. The Kremlin has perhaps wisely ascertained it can, over months, hive off tiny concessions from the White House, and slowly build a geopolitical picture that is more in its favour. Consider the first 90 days of Trump’s presidency and how far the world has already changed in Moscow’s favour.

At each crunch point, Moscow also sees Trump turn on Zelensky. The Kremlin see little or no consequences for it breaching the energy – or its own unilateral – ceasefire. It sees a vividly impatient US president, whose team are often loose with the facts, and whose key envoy, Steve Witkoff, struggled to name the regions of Ukraine under occupation in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson. All are also only partially under Russian occupation.

The longer Moscow talks, the better the deal seems to get. The longer it fights, the better the battlefield will likely also get. There is every incentive for the Kremlin to keep diplomacy alive, even to sign on to an early, chaotic deal it may later renege on. But there is no reason to believe it wants talks that actually resolve the war, or fighting to stop either.

William Shakespeare’s marriage to Anne Hathaway may have been happier than previously thought, according to new research.

It has been long believed that the playwright left his wife behind when he moved to London, but new findings from the University of Bristol suggest that the couple were living together in London for some period of time between 1600 and 1610.

Shakespeare married Hathaway in 1582 and the couple shared three children. Experts have long thought that Shakespeare then moved to London from his home in Stratford-upon-Avon, leaving his family behind.

Now, a long forgotten letter may turn that theory on its head, according to Matthew Steggle, a professor of English at Bristol University.

The fragments of the letter, addressed to “good Mrs Shakspaire,” (the name’s spelling at the time) were found sewn into the binding of a 1,000-page theological book in the city of Hereford, about 50 miles from Stratford-upon-Avon.

Although the letter’s writer hasn’t been identified, they refer to a fatherless apprentice called John Butts.

Steggle found just one person by Butts’ name who fit the criteria and lived in London at that time.

The letter writer accuses the husband of “Mrs Shakspaire” of withholding money from Butts and asks her for the funds. In what may be a reply from Hathaway herself, the recipient stands by her husband and refuses to settle the claim.

The letter also refers to a “Shakspaire” couple who lived in a place called Trinity Lane. Out of the four couples living in London with the surname, Steggle believes only the playwright and his wife could have afforded to live in the relatively prosperous area.

Steggle said the discovery opens the path to more revelations about the playwright’s life.

“We know so little about exactly where Shakespeare lives in London, so it’s another sort of data point for that,” he said. “It’s another kind of anchor on where he might have been living, how he might have been, and how he might have been living in his London career.”

As for challenging views about Shakespeare’s relationship with his wife, Steggle credits a shift in attitudes towards women and greater academic work in this area.

“There’s this narrative, like the film ‘Shakespeare in Love,’ where he’s got this wife who’s this kind of distant encumbrance in Stratford, and (Shakespeare is) having all these romantic love affairs in London separately,” he said, referring to the Oscar-winning 1998 movie.

The letter is a “game-changer” that suggests Hathaway was not absent from her husband’s London life, but present and engaged in his financial and social networks, argues Steggle.

“The reason it’s gone unnoticed for so long is that it’s not in London… where there’s been a lot of quite intensive searching for Shakespeare,” Steggle said of the letter’s discovery.

Looking outside the city – and in the binding of books printed by the Bard’s old friend – could point the way “towards the possibility of more discoveries.”