Following the death of Pope Francis, ​​the Catholic Church begins an election process which has remained unchanged for 800 years.

When the newly elected Pope Francis stepped onto the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica in 2013 to greet the crowd, he joked that the cardinals had gone “to the end of the world” – his native Argentina – to find a new pontiff.

Indeed, the conclave, stunned by the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, had been actively looking beyond Europe for a powerful communicator bold enough to take on the leadership of an institution plagued by sexual and financial scandals.

But as 135 cardinals, those under the age of 80, as per the voting rules, prepare to gather for a new papal conclave following Francis’s death, Vatican analysts say electors now appear to be looking for a sober and unifying figure who can piece together an institution shaken by his revolutionary style and bring stability to the Church’s central government.

“Francis was chosen because he would not have been afraid to create chaos and reform. The next pontiff must be someone who can calm things down,” said Andrea Gagliarducci, a Vatican analyst at the Catholic News Agency.

Striving for unity

Back in 2013, the goal was to shift the Church’s centre of gravity from Europe to Latin America – an indication of the growing influence of Christians there – and to restore order in the Curia, the central government of the Holy See that had come to be viewed by many as corrupt and dysfunctional.

Pope Francis did not shy away from the task. Throughout his papacy, he shook the status quo by radically shifting tone, style and priorities, causing excitement among reformers, but dismay among conservatives who accused him of diluting the Church’s teachings.

His reforms, such as allowing priests to bless same-sex couples (in certain circumstances) and overhauling the Vatican’s bureaucracy, infuriated many. His unpredictable governing style, which relied on a small group of confidantes and reduced the power of the Church’s central government, stirred tensions.

But Francis also frustrated some of the more liberal-leaning voices as his changes never seemed to translate into fundamental reforms in the Church’s doctrine, especially when it came to the role of women in the Church and same-sex marriage.

There is a consensus that the cardinals must focus on choosing a reassuring figure – someone who will not undo past progress, but equally will not push boundaries excessively.

“We must move towards a pope who finds unity in the diversity of the Church, maintains love for the poor, attention for the most marginalised, but who also rebuilds, and not restores, the governing institutions of the Church,” said Massimo Franco, a political columnist for Corriere della Sera and author of eight books about the Vatican.

Names have started to float around. A strong contender is Louis Antonio Tagle, 65, a close ally of Pope Francis and a progressive. If chosen, the Filipino would become the first Asian pontiff. There is also Cardinal Peter Erdo from Hungary, 72, a traditionalist and theologian known for opposing divorced Catholics receiving communion and his anti-migrant views. From the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, 65, is known for his stance on human rights and anticorruption efforts.

Among Italians, the most recurrent name is Pietro Parolin, 70, the Vatican’s secretary of state, who played an important diplomatic role and was a central figure in Pope Francis’s leadership. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, 60, was the Vatican’s top official for Middle East affairs, and his experience in the region gained him widespread respect.

Looking to the Global South

Geographically speaking, the choice has never been wider. During his tenure, Francis appointed 80 percent of the cardinals who will vote at this conclave, and effectively changed the face of the clerical leadership by making it far more representative of the Global South.

The voting cardinals currently hail from 65 countries – many from Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania, with those from Europe now representing 39 percent of the total, compared with 52 percent in 2013. There are also fewer North Americans than there were before Pope Francis was elected.

This means that, for the first time, there will be more cardinals from the Global South than from Europe, even though Europeans still represent a relative majority.

Cardinals from the Global South have tended to be strongly aligned with Pope Francis’s push for progress on issues such as social justice, migration, climate change and ending the conflict in Gaza and Ukraine – even when that meant angering Western leaders who often expected the pontiff to take a stronger stance against Russia, or a softer one on Israel.

In one notable case during US President Donald Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021, the pope spoke against the US-Mexico border wall, saying a person who builds walls instead of bridges was “not Christian”. Trump snapped back at the time, saying the pope’s questioning of his faith was “disgraceful”.

A more conservative outlook?

The Global South’s stronger presence in the conclave may ensure that such positions will not be overlooked by the Church going forward, said Marco Politi, a Vatican expert and author of the book, Pope Francis Among the Wolves.

Advertisement

Still, being appointed by Francis does not necessarily translate into supporting his vision on all fronts. “Some of the new elected cardinals from the Global South are more conservative when it comes to social and gender issues, especially concerning the role of women and homosexuals’ rights within the Church,” said Politi.

For instance, DRC’s Cardinal Ambongo, who was made cardinal by Francis in 2019, was a staunch opponent of Francis’s push to allow priests to bless same-sex couples. The pushback was such that the pope was forced to dilute a 2023 landmark ruling and allow blessings only as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies, nor given in contexts related to civil unions or weddings.

Another factor is that many of the cardinals barely know each other and, for at least 80 of them, this will be their first conclave and their first encounter with the complexities of the Church’s central government – an “intimidating” prospect even for those accustomed to it. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, joked to the BBC that he had thought the conclave would “pass me by” as he is only a few months off his 80th birthday. When he was informed that the pope was seriously ill, he realised: “Oh Lord, this is going to come my way.”

“The pope wanted to appoint cardinals from distant countries to increase the internationalisation of the Church, but they might have little knowledge of the structure of the Church as a world body that governs 1.4 billion people,” said Politi.

Advertisement

While a date has not yet been set for when the cardinals will be sealed in secrecy inside the Sistine Chapel to vote for the next pope, for the next nine days, they will gather twice per day for pre-conclave meetings inside the Vatican.

It was at one of these congregazioni, as the meetings are called in Italian, before the 2013 conclave, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave a speech that propelled him to prominence. A few days later, he became Pope Francis.

All cardinals, including those over 80, can attend these meetings. As they present their positions on what they believe are the main issues the new pope should tackle, they may offer a clue as to just what kind of figure they are looking for.

World Opinions + Al Jazeera

L’article Pope wanted: What are cardinals looking for in a new leader?.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Hypocrisy. This is the first word that came to mind when I learned of the United Nation’s decision to appoint the Islamic Republic of Iran – a government with a proven history of discriminatiion against women and minorities – to its Commission on the Status of Women, the “principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women” and “documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

The secret ballot vote which took place on April 21 and was carried out by the UN’s Economic and Social Council, gives Iran a 4-year term on the committee. It drew the ire of several prominent female human rights activists and the executive director of the Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, who called the move “absurd” and “morally reprehensible.”

Neuer equated the decision to elect the Islamic Republic of Iran to a post meant to protect women’s rights “like making an arsonist into the town fire chief.” Neuer is correct. This move only further legitimizes and rewards the Islamic Republic of Iran’s bad behavior.

The abuse of women in Iran by the regime and its operatives is no secret and has drawn widespread condemnation, increasingly so over the past few years and especially during the previous administration which was the toughest on the Iranian government in modern history which empowered many to speak out more fervently against the government’s civilian abuses.

It is public knowledge that Iran’s compulsory hijab law has been a tool of oppression for the more outspoken women in the nation. Many courageous women’s rights activists who have been openly opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s regime have seen the inside of Iran’s notorious Evin prison. These include Nasrin Sotoudeh, Monireh Arabshahi, Yasaman Aryani, Mojgan Keshavarz. These women protested peacefully. However, any internal act of opposition to the Iranian regime – no matter how peaceful – is seen as a betrayal and dealt with as such.

Acclaimed Hollywood producer Marcia Ross and her husband Jeff Kaufman produced, directed and wrote “Nasrin”, a film that was taped in secret over several years in Iran and documents the extraordinary bravery of the human rights attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh, whose personal sacrifice on behalf of all Iranian women must not be taken in vain.

On April 26, Iran sentenced Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to another year in prison. Ratcliffe has been jailed in Iran since 2016, found guilty of propaganda activities against the Iranian regime. She was not given a fair trial nor was there proof to substantiate the regime’s claims against her.

In Iran, the legal system is heavily biased against women. In fact, it often prevents women from being able to get a divorce if they are in an abusive marriage and their lives are at risk. Among Iran’s fundamentalist mullahs’ abuse of women is a law which allows for girls to marry at age 13 and even younger with parental and judicial consent.

Ironically, in December 2020, the UN Women’s account tweeted, “Women are not objects.” However, their actions do not match their words.

In March 2015, Amnesty International reported on proposed law that would reduce women to “baby making machines” by restricting their ability to use contraceptives. The Bill to Increase Fertility Rates and Prevent Population Decline (Bill 446) set out to abolish family planning programs and blocking access to educational reproductive services.

The contrast between women’s rights under the Islamic Republic of Iran and the late Shah of Iran are stark. In 1963, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi launched the White Revolution (the name is attributed to the fact that it was bloodless) which included his enacting of the Family Protection Laws; a series of laws that included women’s rights to divorce. The laws also raised the minimum marriage age for all, curtailed polygamy, and mandated spousal consent before lawfully marrying a second wife. It also allowed women to divorce their husbands if they were suffering or unhappy and provided them with the right to keep custody of their children. All of this went away following the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Many women’s rights activists took to social media to condemn Iran’s appointment to the UN commission on women’s rights including Masih Alinejad, renowned for starting white Wednesdays during which Iranian women take to the streets and remove their head coverings to rail against the compulsory hijab. Alinejad wrote, “This is surreal. A regime that treats women as 2nd class citizens, jails them for not wearing compulsory hijab, bans them from singing, bars them from stadiums & doesn’t let them travel abroad without the permission of their husbands gets elected to UN’s top women’s rights body.”!!

Australian academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who was held hostage in Iran on charges of espionage for 804 days (September 2018 -November 2020), expressed shock that the UN would elevate the IRI to such a sensitive post. 

The more the Islamic Republic of Iran is permitted to get away with its abuse of women and minorities by being rewarded with posts that run counter to the regime’s ideological underpinnings, the more emboldened they will become and the greater the suffering of women living in that oppressive environment will be. The UN has already lost tremendous credibility. It must now correct its errs before its largely symbolic role is further denigrated in the rolls of history.

By Adelle Nazarian – newslooks.com

L’article Electing Iran to UN Women’s Rights Post an Insult est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.