The election of any Pope tends to be retro-fitted in ways that make the choice seem inevitable. God’s will, no less. If the new Pope had been Italian (“Time for the papacy to return home!”) or a staunch conservative (“Time for a balance to the liberalism of Francis!”) then much the same process would be taking place.
One thing that does seem apparent about Cardinal Robert Prevost is that he looks to have been a protege of Pope Francis, who made him a cardinal in 2023. This was in the wake of the 2022 Curia reforms that de-centralised power in the Vatican in general, and elevated the role of bishops’ conferences in particular. Francis then made Prevost the head of the “discastery” responsible for choosing bishops and overseeing their diocesan work. This role put Prevost in touch with all of the far flung power nodes of the Catholic Church, and (overnight) made him future papal material.
While one hopes for the best, on the hot button social issues facing the Church, Prevost does have some troubling history. In Chicago, he chose to briefly house in a monastery a fellow Augustinian priest against whom credible cases of sexual abuse of children had been laid – and did so without warning a nearby Catholic school about the predator’s presence. In 2022 in Peru, Prevost allegedly failed to properly investigate a complaint laid by a Peruvian woman and her two sisters, concerning their sexual abuse by a priest :
…The alleged victims claim that Prevost failed in 2022 to open an investigation into the accusations of sexual abuse dating back to 2007. They say that any documentation that may have been sent to Rome was purposely designed to look inadequate so as to prevent action on the case.
The allegations that Prevost engaged in covering up abuse reports are particularly significant, since Prevost’s current post as head of the Dicastery for Bishops oversees complaints and investigations of episcopal negligence in abuse cases around the world… [As] head of the Dicastery for Bishops, [Prevost] oversees cases of episcopal negligence worldwide under the norms of Vos estis lux mundi [ie. the directive issued by Pope Francis in 2019 on the procedures for handling of sexual abuse cases.]
In response, the local bishopric in Peru “maintained that the accusations had been handled according to canonical norms and in line with Church policy – that Cardinal Prevost had met with the young women in April 2022, and encouraged them to take their case to the civil authorities, while opening an initial canonical investigation.” The accounts by the alleged victims and the bishopric then differ very sharply as to why this canonical investigation went no further.
Unsurprisingly, Prevost’s views on gender ideology are in line with the Church’s opposition to the teaching of anything that could be construed as condoning the existence of a non-binary gender identity.
In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.” As bishop in Chiclayo, a city in north-western Peru, he opposed a government plan to add teachings on gender in schools. “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist,” he told local news media.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. On this issue, Pope Francis was equally hostile to “gender ideology.” Francis was notably inclusive of gays and trans people as “sinners”, while being strongly opposed to their “sin.” After all, Catholic theology is grounded in the necessity for mercy and forgiveness – but its teachings on gender identity (and on sexuality) are also based on the primacy of procreation, within what the Church considers to be a divinely-ordained binary world. Its hardline views on contraception, abortion and non-binary identity largely flow from this strong emphasis on sex-as-procreation, and then only within unions blessed by marriage.
On the upside, Prevost has also – like Francis – publicly opposed the Trump administration’s rhetoric and actions on immigration. Like Francis, he has also publicly criticised the attempt in February by vice-president J. D. Vance (a Catholic convert) to peddle a theological justification for Trump’s harsh immigration policies. All of the commentaries on Prevost agree that his reserved manner will be in marked contrast to the style of his immediate predecessor.
Pot Calls Out Kettle
The calls by the Israel Institute of New Zealand for Peter Davis to resign from the Helen Clark Foundation because of comments he made with regard to an ugly, hateful piece of graffiti are absurd. The graffiti in question said “I hated Jews before it was cool!” On social media, Davis made this comment :
Netanyahu govt actions have isolated Israel from global south and the west, and have stoked anti-Semitism. Yitzak Rabin was the last leader to effectively foster a political-diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestine impasse. He was assassinated by a settler. You reap what you sow.
IMO, this sounds like an expression of sorrow and regret about the conflict, and about the evils it is feeding and fostering. Regardless, the Institute has described that comment by Davis as antisemitic.
You cannot claim to champion social cohesion while minimising or rationalising antisemitic hate,” the Institute said. “Social trust depends on moral consistency, especially from those in leadership. Peter Davis’s actions erode that trust.”
For the record, Davis wasn’t rationalising or minimising antisemitic hate. His comments look far more like a legitimate observation that the longer the need for a political-diplomatic solution is violently resisted, the worse things will be for everyone – including Jewish citizens, via the stoking of antisemitism.
The basic point at issue here is that criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government do not equate to a racist hostility to the Jewish people. (Similarly, the criticisms of Donald Trump’s actions cannot be minimised or rationalised as due to anti-Americanism.) Many Jewish people in fact, also feel appalled by the actions of the Netanyahu government, which repeatedly violate international law.
In the light of the extreme acts of violence being inflicted daily by the IDF on the people of Gaza, the upsurge in hateful graffiti by neo-Nazi opportunists while still being vile, is hardly surprising. Around the world, the security of innocent Israeli citizens is being recklessly endangered by the ultra-violent actions of their own government. If you want to protect your citizens from an existing fire, it’s best not to toss gasoline on the flames.
To repeat: the vast majority of the current criticisms of the Israeli state have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. At a time when Israel is killing scores of innocent Palestinians on a nightly basis with systematic air strikes and the shelling of civilian neighbourhoods, when it is weaponising access to humanitarian aid as an apparent tool of ethnic cleansing, when it is executing medical staff and assassinating journalists, when it is killing thousands of children and starving the survivors…antisemitism is not the reason why most people oppose these evils. Common humanity demands it.
Ironically, the press release by the NZ Israel Institute concludes with these words: “There must be zero tolerance for hate in any form.” Too bad the Institute seems to have such a limited capacity for self-reflection.
Footnote One: For the best part of 80 years, the world has felt sympathy to Jews in recognition of the Holocaust. The genocide now being committed in Gaza by the Netanyahu government cannot help but reduce public support for Israel. It also cannot help but erode the status of the Holocaust as a unique expression of human evil.
One would have hoped the NZ Israel Institute might acknowledge the self-defeating nature of the Netanyahu government policies – if only because, on a daily basis, the state of Israel is abetting its enemies, and alienating its friends.
Footnote Two: As yet, the so-called Free Speech Union has not come out to support the free speech rights of Peter Davis, and to rebuke the NZ Israel Institute for trying to muzzle them. Colour me not surprised.
Women in custody
While the state of the world does seep into today’s music, strikingly few songs address political issues or outrages directly. (The pop rapper Macklemore has been almost alone in condemning the carnage in Gaza and on the West Bank.) This decline in what used to be called “protest music” makes this new single by Fiona Apple – her first new music in five years – even more notable.
Apple has worked for years as a volunteer to help women held in custody pre-trial, because they could not afford bail. This injustice does obvious harm to the children raised in female-headed households. Good song, overlooked subject. Musically, it repeats the sparse percussion-driven aspects of the Fetch The Bolt Cutters album.