P

ope Leo XIV on Wednesday presided over his first Christmas Eve Mass as head of the Roman Catholic Church, leading the traditional service at St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican.

The Mass was attended by cardinals, bishops, priests, diplomatic representatives accredited to the Holy See, and invited guests. Before the service, Pope Leo greeted worshippers gathered in St. Peter’s Square, offering Christmas wishes to the faithful.

Following the death of Pope Francis on April 21, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected on May 8 as the 267th pope of the Catholic Church, taking the name Leo XIV.

In his homily, the pope criticized materialism, warning that a distorted economic system treats human beings as commodities.

Observers noted that, unlike his predecessor Pope Francis, Leo began the Christmas Eve Mass later than in recent years, closer to midnight, and conducted a longer service. Media reports interpreted the timing as a symbolic return to older Vatican traditions.

Pope condemns Gaza conditions

On Thursday, during his first Christmas Day sermon, Pope Leo drew attention to the humanitarian conditions faced by Palestinians in Gaza, delivering an unusually direct appeal during the solemn celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth.

Reflecting on the nativity story while presiding over Christmas Holy Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica, the pope said Jesus’ birth in a stable showed how God chose to dwell among humanity in fragility.

“How, then, can we not think of the tents in Gaza, exposed for weeks to rain, wind and cold?” he asked, referring to widespread displacement caused by Israel.

Leo, the first pope from the United States, is known for a more reserved and diplomatic preaching style but has repeatedly voiced concern in recent months over the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Call for compassion amid global conflicts

The pope also lamented the suffering of homeless populations worldwide and the devastation caused by ongoing wars, saying modern conflicts continue to leave behind destruction and long-lasting trauma.

“Fragile is the flesh of defenseless populations, tried by so many wars, ongoing or concluded, leaving behind rubble and open wounds,” he said.

Leo further highlighted the plight of young people forced into armed conflict, criticizing what he described as hollow rhetoric that sends them to fight and die.

Later on Thursday, Pope Leo is expected to deliver his traditional Urbi et Orbi (“To the City and the World”) message, which typically addresses major global crises and calls for peace.

(Source: Anadolu and Reuters)

T

he journey of the veil transcends time. From its depiction in French couture to a resurgence in 1990s fashion trends, the veil’s versatility continues unabated. Amidst ever-changing cultural norms, it remains a reflection of identity. From ancient Greece to the present day, the veil reflects the history of mankind.

The veil has a history going back thousands of years and is intricately woven into the cultural fabric of Europe. It is not only a sign of changing fashion, but also a reflection of women’s evolving roles, changing social norms, and religious ideologies. From ancient traditions to modern representations, the history of the veil offers a deep insight into the complexity of European history.

Its evolution from religious symbols to fashion statements reflects the changing currents of society. As Europe continues to evolve, the multilayered meaning of the veil remains. It serves as a tangible link to the past and a lens through which we view the complexity of our shared cultural heritage.

Roots beyond Christianity

Although Christianity played a crucial role in shaping the European veil tradition, the origins of the veil can be traced back to ancient cultures. In ancient Greece, the veil was a sign of respectability and high status. It distinguished women who were protected and women with loose morals. It was illegal for lower status women, such as slaves and prostitutes, to wear a veil, illustrating the role of the veil in the social hierarchy.

With the rise of the Roman Empire, the tradition of veiling took on a new dimension. Women wore the veil as a symbol of their marital bond. The veil became a strong symbol of the husband’s authority, which was emphasized by traditions such as the colorful bridal veil. The roots of this practice reached back to Roman matrons, the vestal virgins, and their particular veiling rituals.

Theological debates further defined the role of the veil. Tertullian’s On the Veling of Virgins emphasized the subjugation of women and spoke of a dangerous attraction that needed to be concealed. Clement of Alexandria echoed similar thoughts in his writings, emphasizing modesty as a reason for veiling. The Council of Gangres reinforced this idea and solidified veiling as a sign of submission.

The development of fashion in medieval Europe gave new meanings to the veil. Noblewomen veiled themselves with hoods and caps, embodying both fashion and humility. The Renaissance, characterized by elaborate headdresses and an evolving esthetic, influenced the development of the veil style. The Protestant Reformation challenged veiling and led to different practices in different denominations. For instance, in Anabaptism, it is believed that wearing a head covering aligned with Saint Paul’s teachings, making it obligatory to be worn continuously.

Transition to modernity: From tradition to accessory

The early 20th century marked a turning point for veiling traditions. The change was epitomized by the rise of “flapper” culture in the 1920s. Flappers were young women who rebelled against the social norms and expectations of the time. They wore short skirts, had bobs, and challenged traditional gender roles. They embraced a freer and more independent lifestyle, and often enjoyed jazz music, dancing, and socializing. This cultural movement symbolized a break with tradition and reflected the general social changes of the time.

Fast-forward to the 1960s and Europe was swept by another wave of cultural change. World War I and the social changes that followed set the stage for the so-called sexual revolution in the Western world. Traditional norms were challenged and the role of women began to change. The birth control pill and the increasing availability of contraceptives triggered the sexual revolution. Conventional notions regarding gender roles, relationships, and clothing norms were completely overturned. The veil, once a symbol of modesty and marital status, was relegated to the background.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the southern states cultivated a unique “church crown” culture inspired by biblical verses: hats, worn with strict etiquette, became a cultural emblem.

Even though veiling has become less common in everyday life in the Western world, it is still present. Mourning veils and religious practices preserve the solemnity of this tradition. The symbolism of the veil is also changing: from obedience to identity, it remains in various forms. In some Orthodox Christian countries, the veil is maintained in churches, while religious communities such as the Amish and Mennonites, maintain the tradition in everyday life.

The Amish branched off from Switzerland, Alsace, Germany, Russia, and Holland and they migrated to the US in the 19th and 20th centuries. In some parts of Europe, the tradition of women wearing a veil during religious practices is maintained. In Orthodox Christian countries, for example, veiling is still required in churches. In Catholic countries, such as Spain and Portugal, however, the custom has disappeared over time.

Continuing legacy and debates

The changing meaning of the veil reveals deeper social currents. Especially with the Muslim worker migration to Europe in the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s. Veiling practices have often been associated with male dominance and female subjugation, and interpreted as tools of patriarchal control. Mona Eltahawy and some contend that instead of symbolizing choice and devotion, the veil has, on occasion, been employed to oppress women’s autonomy and erode gender equality.

Moreover, current considerations about the veil have sparked controversial debates about cultural integration, religious freedom, and secularism. The presence of the veil in European societies has sometimes been questioned for its perceived deviation from secular values, with some voices calling for stricter regulations on its use in public.

From its ancient origins to its role in Christianity and fashion, the veil has reflected changing social norms and beliefs. It is a timeless symbol of evolution and continuity in the fabric of European tradition. In today’s world, where debates continue not only in European society but also on a global scale, the veil retains its complex status as a symbol of tradition, identity, and self-determination. While discussions and bans on the issue continue in global political discourse, people remain determined to preserve their deeply held beliefs.

On July 25, 2022, Pope Francis personally apologized for the Church’s role in the decades-old plight of indigenous communities in Canada. More than 150,000 indigenous children were forced to attend the church-run residential schools, where they were physically and mentally abused and died in countless numbers.

“I am deeply sorry—sorry for the ways in which, regrettably, many Christians supported the colonizing mentality of the powers that oppressed the Indigenous Peoples,” Pope Francis said, as he spoke to a crowd of 15,000 people during his week-long “penitential pilgrimage.”

Survivors in Canada had repeatedly demanded that the pope apologize for the Church’s role in the “cultural genocide” with calls multiplying last year after the groundbreaking discovery of unmarked graves near residential schools.

The findings triggered a nationwide outrage over the atrocities committed against Canada’s Indigenous communities and gravely affected the pope’s reputation. “I feel sorrow and shame for the role of a number of Catholics,” the pope said to the representatives of survivors in Rome on April 1, 2022. Last year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the first head of state to publicly apologize for the crimes committed by residential schools.

Though the Church’s apology in Canada was the latest to hit the headlines, it wasn’t the first apology by Pope Francis or his predecessors. In fact, it was a further addition to a series of papal apologies.

Sweden’s dark past

Last November, the Swedish Church officially apologized for its centuries-old repression and abuse of Sami people.

The Sami are indigenous to countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and northern Russia. For more than 400 years, the Swedish government, along with the Church, suppressed their language and culture, subjected them to racial abuse, and forcefully assimilated them to Christianity. Their land was exploited and their social ties were broken. Resulting from the colonial school system practiced at the time, the majority of Sami children were forced to leave their homes.

“We have been curved inward on ourselves, we have not stood up to racism and abuse of power. Our backs are bent by the guilt we carry. We have placed unjust burdens on you. We have burdened your ancestors with shame and pain that has been inherited by new generations,” Archbishop Antje Jackelén said as he apologized during a special service.

The effects of “unjust burdens” mentioned by Jackelén are still traumatizing for many Sami people.

The apology will be made twice. A second public apology is expected in the upcoming Sámi church conference in Luleå in October 2022.

 France’s hidden sins

On October 6, 2021, Pope Francis expressed “shame” and apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for the grave acts committed by pedophile priests in France. His remarks came after a shocking report which revealed that 330,000 French children were sexually abused by Church authorities over a period of more than 70 years.

According to the independent commission report, an estimated 216,000 people were abused by priests, clerics, and other church figures. The report also revealed that most of the victims were boys aged between 10 and 13.

“I would like to express to the victims my sadness, my sorrow for the trauma that they have suffered,” Pope Francis said to his weekly audience in the Vatican last October. He urged all bishops in France to make sure that the church is “a safe place for all.”

The grave crimes of the Church and the demands for an apology have not been limited to the above examples. In fact, forceful assimilation, starvation, and sexual abuses have carved a bitter mark on the history of countries like Australia, Chile, and Ireland.

The willingness to apologize has almost become a defining characteristic of the modern papacy. Unlike popes in the past, Pope Francis stands with the victims and assures them of his support. Whether apologies are enough is up for debate.

For India’s religious minorities, 2021 has been described a “year of fear” and “annus horribilis,” after the country experienced an unprecedented level of communal violence, but what makes the previous year stand out from others during the Narendra Modi era is the way in which Christians have come under increasing pressure and attack.

While attacks against Muslims have become the norm since 2014, with Hindu nationalist leaders and hate preachers openly urging genocide, as mobs belonging to fringe Hindu organizations, such as Bajrang Dal, hunt and lynch Muslims in the streets – the country’s 25 million Christians had, until now, been spared the worse of what has become a government backed effort to transform India into a Hindu-only nation.

These radicals have deliberately engineered a “hate storm,” and it’s without coincidence that a wave of attacks were carried out against Christians days after Hindutva hate preachers at the Dharma Sansad (Hindu convention) in mid-December vowed to “kill and die” for a Hindu nation, and “be ready to kill and go to jail,” while others urged Indian security forces to mimic the Myanmar military’s crackdown against Rohingya Muslims.

The final month of 2021 saw a spike in violence against Christians and their places of worship, including attacks on churches in Karnataka, a Christian school in Madhya Pradesh, a Jesus statue in Haryana and the disruption of Christian celebrations in Assam and Uttar Pradesh, with Christmas Day witnessing more than a half-dozen hate crime incidents alone.

A total of 486 incidents of violence against Christians in India were recorded in 2021, representing a 75 percent increase on the previous year, with 104 of these attacks occurring in the final two months of the year, according to the United Christian Forum, which called 2021 the “most violent year for Christians in India since 2014.”

While Persecution Relief, a non-profit that tracks violence against Christians, has documented a steady rise in attacks against the religious minority since Modi came to power, climbing 60 percent from 2016 to 2019.

The upward spike during the past year has come largely on the back of Hindu nationalist groups falsely accusing Christians of using Christmas celebrations as a front to lure Hindus into the Christian faith, and then forcibly convert them. The regional general secretary of Hindutva outfit Bajrang Dal in Uttar Pradesh told members, “They [Christians] lure [Hindu] children by making Santa Claus distribute gifts to them and attract them towards Christianity.”

Tejasvi Surya, a BJP member of parliament and card carrying member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), stated demands for Christians to be “brought back” into the Hindu fold, perpetuating the myth India’s religious minorities were duped or forcibly pulled away from the Hindu faith, which signals the government’s support to those who commit violence against Christians and Muslims under the pretence of forced conversions.

In fact, India’s ruling party – Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – says its working on a “strong law” to combat religious conversion in several states, including Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, while promising prison sentences of up to 10 years for those found guilty of converting others by “force” or “fraudulent methods,” despite there been zero evidence Hindus are being lured or forced against their will into Christianity or Islam, which is why critics have described these proposed laws as the “Nazification of India’s laws.”

Christian leaders fear these bills will further embolden Hindu nationalist groups and individuals to further target the community, with Peter Machado, Archbishop of Bangalore, telling BBC Hindi, “Once the bill is passed, we will have to wait for more persecution and more difficulties.”

These proposed anti-conversion bills draw their inspiration from the passing of a so-called “anti-Love Jihad” law in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh last year, after an online conspiracy alleged Muslim men are tricking Hindu women into marriage with the aim of converting them to Islam. The state’s Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath threatening death to those who lure Hindu women, saying “I warn those who conceal identity and play with our sisters’ respect. If you don’t mend your ways your ‘Ram naam satya’ (a chant associated with Hindu funerals) journey will begin.”

Notably, the Modi government has not only refused to condemn calls for genocide and violent attacks against religious minorities, but also has signalled its support for anti-Christian attitudes in recently blocking Missions for Charity, a Catholic-based charity associated with human rights icon and Nobel laureate recipient Mother Teresa, from receiving international dominations in response to allegations it is forcibly converting Hindus to Catholicism, therefore cutting off a major source of funding for desperately impoverished and disabled Indians.

But nobody should be surprised by this unjustified and callous cruelty, given there’s zero daylight between Modi’s BJP and Hindu nationalist organizations, as noted by a former RSS member who said exactly that, proclaiming, “There is no difference between the BJP and RSS. BJP is the body. RSS is the soul, and the Bajrang Dal is the hands for beating.”

This escalating attacks against Christians by Hindu nationalist supporters in the streets and accompanying support by BJP in the country’s legislatures are taking place inside an ecosystem of hate and a culture of impunity. In the minds of Hindu nationalists, the logic becomes self-evident – if authorities have done nothing to halt anti-Muslim violence, then why not also target Christians?

The objective is clear, according to political scientist Zoya Hasan, who says isolating and demonizing minorities is part of the “plan” to consolidate Hindu supremacism and establish a Hindu state. “It is well thought out and purposeful,” he says.

More concerning still is the way in which the country’s institutions, particularly the police and courts, have been corrupted by Hindu nationalist sensibilities, which is why human rights groups have witnessed an institutional siding with Hindu perpetrators over non- Hindu victims of violence, leaving religious minorities nowhere to turn.

In other words, violent Hindu extremists have been given a “free run” to attack religious minorities whenever and wherever they find them, which is why experts are warning Christians and Muslims find themselves on the brink of genocide in Modi’s India.

On October 5, Jean-Marc Sauvé, the head of the independent commission charged by the Catholic Church itself to investigate sex crimes in its ranks, publicly and solemnly released the massive 2,500 page report, whose conclusions he shared in a two-hour, surgically and factually devastating live presentation in front of the press, politicians, associations of victims, and Catholic officials.

The result of a three-year investigation by a panel of 22 experts in all relevant fields (law, theology, psychiatry, social sciences, anthropology, history of religions, etc.), based on Church, court, and police archives as well as interviews with victims and witnesses, the Sauvé Report is being hailed by all, without a single exception, as a model to be emulated by other nations and institutions worldwide seeking to investigate sex crimes. In its scope, conclusions, and methodological sophistication both quantitative and qualitative, it is simply unprecedented and has no equivalent anywhere in the world.

It is an understatement to say that ever since its public release, that the report, akin to a fragmentation bomb or cataclysm, has been sending shockwaves across not just the Catholic institution but the whole nation and to a much lesser extent other countries. Although everybody knew the Catholic Church had always been a hotbed of pedophilia and that was an open secret—after all, among other goals Jean Calvin’s reform movement back in the 16th century already intended to react against the massive debauchery he could observe in the Church from top to bottom—and despite widespread common awareness, the Sauvé Report stunned and shocked by the extent and gravity of what it is describing.

Main Findings

A mere few facts and numbers may give an idea:

• Between 1950 and 2020, a 70-year period, less than a lifetime, 216,000 children, 80% of whom young boys, have been raped, often repeatedly over a long period of time (several months or years) by about 3,000 predator priests or bishops (3% of the total), and a few nuns. Some of those priests raped hundreds of children.
• If one adds those who were abused by laymen working for and in the Catholic Church (catechists, monitors of youth camps, etc.), the figure rises to 330,000 victims.
• All along, the Catholic hierarchy from the peers of the criminals all the way to bishops, cardinals, and popes, including Pope Francis, knew the identity and crimes of most of the serial rapists. Yet, not only they did nothing to stop them, but they actively, systematically, and methodically denied and covered up the crimes; sheltered and protected the serial rapists from public exposure and criminal prosecution; and consistently refused to pay any attention to the victims, whose abuse they denied and whom they refused to listen to—as was still the case a mere few years ago.
• In some cases, for decades, highly organized and effective actual networks of pedophiliac priests shared among themselves and with others both the children and the pornographic material (images, etc.) produced during those sessions on church grounds.
• As Alain Cordier and other commission members declared, “I want to emphasize the fact that it is NOT a problem of the past but a problem of the present. Because the problem continues today.”

A second instant achievement of the report has been to completely pulverize all the denial, spin, hypocritical lines of defense, and attempts at minimizing the nature and extent of the crimes the Catholic Church had been able to use to oppose such accusations until October 5, 2021. At least they are no longer trying, as shown by the pope’s reaction when he lamented, “Dignity to our Lord! Shame, shame, shame on all of us!” while the other Church officials, shamed and rendered speechless, could only admit everything and hypocritically feign surprise, and then ask for “forgiveness.”

At least the French Church is no longer trying to hide or minimize any of this as it was still doing yesterday, and it has now fully accepted the conclusions of this horrifying report. Historically, this in itself is colossal progress.

To take the full measure of this, one needs to keep in mind four other facts:

1) The figures above would be terrible for a country the size of a continent like the United States with a population of 330 million. But we are here talking about a small country with a population of 67 million, the size of the state of Texas, a country where one can drive from east to west and north to south in half a day or less.

2) Those numbers include only minors, but sex crimes against legal adults above 18 years old whether nuns or practitioners are also widespread and would need to be added to the already horrible picture.

3) The comparison between the French situation and similar investigations conducted in other countries like Germany, Ireland, the United States, or Australia suggests France may actually be at the bottom of the list. One will remember that the famous 2002 Boston Globe investigation, popularized by the star-studded 2015 blockbuster Spotlight, uncovered nearly 100 pedophiliac priests and thousands of victims in a mere few dioceses of that one U.S. city and that in the years that followed, similar or worse patterns were discovered all across the country in hundreds of cities.

4)  Those numbers, whether French or American, are the “low and minimal estimates” as the Sauvé commission members have always been careful to specify in their many public interventions.

Institutionalizing Rape and Pedophilia

A few quotes by Jean-Marc Sauvé himself will illuminate the systemic nature of the crime, which can no longer be reduced to a mere few rotten apples or a matter of individuals, even thousands of them, in an otherwise healthy institution.

Until the 2000s, the Catholic Church showed a complete and cruel indifference to the victims.

Sex abuse in the Catholic Church has been a massive and systemic phenomenon, covered by a veil of silence.

Catholic authorities covered up the abuse over decades, in a systemic manner.

The cover-up has permitted mass crimes for decades.

The French findings are furthermore fully corroborated by previous findings from other countries, suggesting without a doubt that the exact same has been happening everywhere where the Catholic Church operates:

For the first time, we can all begin to understand the systematic cover-up by Church leaders that followed. The abuse scarred every diocese. The cover-up was sophisticated. The Church protected the institution at all costs […] The cover-ups by the Church served a key purpose—the longer they covered up abuses, the less chance that law enforcement could prosecute predator priests because the statute of limitations would run out. “As a consequence of the cover-up, almost every instance of abuse we found is too old to be prosecuted,” the grand jury found.

To sum up, four main lessons clearly emerge from this picture. First, the Catholic Church has been and, as Alain Cordier made clear, remains a massive breeding ground of organized mass pedophilia and a true safe haven for its thousands of sex predators. Second, pretty much everybody knew everything all along including bishops, cardinals, and popes, who were aware of the identities of the priests and children, when and where this was happening, yet not only did they do nothing but they actively covered it up, guaranteeing, in full knowledge, that this activity would go on—and one should remember here how Pope Francis himself, who now claims shock and surprise in utmost hypocrisy much to the victims’ anger, in 2018, was still defending predator priests while calling their victims liars, publicly accusing them of “slander and calumny.”

Three, besides the family (for obvious reasons such as that is where children spend most of their time, relatives have easy and permanent access, etc.), the Catholic Church has been (and most likely remains) quite simply the institution where the most pedophiliac crimes occur, well ahead of schools, sports clubs, youth camps, etc. In that domain it simply has no match. Four, and this needs to be stated without euphemism: what is described here is a gigantic collective crime—what the Catholic Church has done was to institutionalize mass pedophilia, make it part of its culture, of its DNA, and entrench then preserve and protect it like no other institution besides the family ever did, possibly in human history.

Liberation theology can provide a critical and deep understanding of how politics and religion, and in particular the Catholic Church in Latin America, are interrelated. Liberation theology reveals how religion can be used as a vehicle to justify and translate the religious understanding of politics into concrete action. The message that advocates of liberation theology want to convey is that religion is heavily involved in society, and that the core and essence of its teaching is to advocate on behalf of the oppressed – even if it comes at a cost.

During the 1960s and 1970s, a debate emerged in Latin America that aimed to provide a critique of liberation. In the Latin American context, liberation theology was viewed as a means to strengthen the Church’s presence in public life. It rejected lecturing people from an ivory tower and losing touch with reality under the banner that the church should be separate from politics and that religion should remain pacifist even in cases where oppressed groups are subjected to violence. Concepts such as wisdom and rational knowledge became secondary and complementary to the notion of liberation.

In this context, liberation had three meanings: (1) political liberation, meaning the liberation of oppressed nations; (2) religious liberation, meaning people’s liberation from “sins”; and (3) historical liberation, meaning the liberation of humans as part of the course of history.

The introduction of political liberation to the overall meaning of liberation shifted the discourse and the involvement of the Catholic Church in politics and public life in Latin America. This revolutionary definition of liberation made actors, who had control and influence over the Church for a long time, such as the Vatican and the U.S. administration, feel uncomfortable. Put simply, this new discourse threatened their influence over the Church and its followers.

In 1984, the Vatican issued a document directed at its churches and followers warning them against the theology of liberation, which was advocated by a group associated with the Catholic Church.

In 1984, the Vatican issued a document directed at its churches and followers warning them against the theology of liberation, which was advocated by a group associated with the Catholic Church. These attempts didn’t prove successful and they indirectly contributed to strengthening the liberation discourse of the Church and its clergy.

The first meeting of the Catholic liberation clergy was held in Colombia in 1968. In 1972, a year before the military coup in the country, another theology of liberation conference was held in Chile, organized by a group called “Christians for Socialism.” The declared goal of the conference was to encourage human rights against authoritarian regimes and to give meaning to theology by connecting it to society and politics.

Ernesto Cardenal, a scholar, painter, artist, poet, and political figure, is considered one of the leading names of the theology of liberation in Latin America. He was among a number of priests in Nicaragua who led a revolution against the Somoza family, which governed the country for more than 43 years.

He eventually became the minister of culture after the revolution and engaged in a campaign to spread literacy and culture in the country. Eventually, he resigned following differences over managing the country’s affairs with his comrade and president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega.

When Pope St. John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he openly asked that Cardenal and four other priests who advocated the theology of liberation be removed from governmental posts over their involvement in the revolution and public life.

When Pope St. John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he openly asked that Cardenal and four other priests who advocated the theology of liberation be removed from governmental posts over their involvement in the revolution and public life.

A famous photo of Pope John Paul and Cardenal shows the former telling the latter that he “must fix [his] affairs with the Church.” A year later, the pope suspended Cardenal because of his role in politics – the order lasted until 2019, when Pope Francis lifted it.

Liberation Theology in the Middle East

In the Middle East, the theology of liberation has gained prominence in countries which suffer from oppression with attempts made to create a movement of Arab theology in Egypt. In Palestine, Hilarion Capucci, a Syrian Roman Catholic priest who was located in Jerusalem, was involved in smuggling weapons to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) through Jordan and Lebanon. As a result, he was imprisoned in Israel for 3.5 years, during which period he went on hunger strike a number of times. He was eventually released as part of a deal between Israel and the Vatican whereupon he was relocated to Latin America.

Capucci spent the rest of his life in exile in Rome. Ironically, he has supported the Assad government despite the immense suffering, destruction, and displacement it has caused the Syrian people. In 2019, a drama series was produced about Capucci which served as propaganda to whitewash Assad and his regime.

Theodosios (Hanna) of Sebastia is the archbishop of Sebastia, a position he holds under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and is known for his opposition to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. He is seen at nearly every Palestinian national conference or protest.

In late 2019, his political stance almost cost him his life. Theodosios accused Israel of attempting to poison him over his stance against its occupation of Jerusalem after Israeli forces fired a gas canister into his Jerusalem church. He was rushed to hospital and later received treatment in Jordan.

The theology of liberation is an attempt to show that devout Christians around the world see the role of the Church in public life and politics as going beyond feeding the poor and offering them prayers. Its advocates assert that Christianity is about defending the poor and vulnerable, and sacrificing one’s life for this purpose. Christianity, for them, is not simply offering prayers and shying away from public engagement.

The end of the Cold War in the 1990s and the emergence of religiously motivated political groups on the international scene, made us aware of the role of religion in international conflicts. The Clash of Civilizations written by Samuel Huntington around this time, became central to decipher the political role of religion. Although it has been invalidated by numerous surveys that show that actually clashes occur mostly within civilizations (which are far from operating as homogenous monoliths), the thesis nevertheless remains politically influential.

In the current international context, this simplified vision of religion on the international scene has led to the exclusive focus on Islam and terrorism. This contributes to the misleading perception, that the scope and reach of terrorism in the name of God has grown out of control, that this violence is inspired by the specifics of the Islamic tradition and resilient to usual forms of compromise or negotiation. The reality is that all religious traditions can partake into political violence and challenge democracy.

Case in point: in the 1960s, the Catholic Church was seen as a major obstacle to democratization because of its support to authoritarian and military regimes from Franco in Spain to Pinochet in Chile. The ongoing radicalization of Buddhism in Myanmar or Hinduism in India are highlighting that shift to radicalism that can affect all traditions, not to mention the rise of global Orthodoxy that pursues international projects in contradiction with the international order. Regretfully, the systematic comparison of these modes of radicalization has yet to be undertaken.

I have repeatedly shown that the relevance of religion is not in the content of the religious  tradition per se but in the interactions between religious and political actors, institutions, and ideas. From this perspective, limiting Islam or any other religious tradition to beliefs or texts proves to be a dead end as the text can lead to opposite interpretations and mobilizations.

Instead, looking at the ways religious belonging and behaving intersect with political identities and behaviors solve the puzzle of apparently very secular projects leading to political battles over Islamically correct social behaviors, which are currently happening not only in Egypt, Iraq, Sudan to name a few but also India, Myanmar or Israel.

In other words, the social and political visibility of religion is not caused by an increase in personal beliefs or religiosity. People are not more fervent believers than they used to be, but their identification to religion has certainly shifted, creating a conjunction of religious and political identities that facilitate political mobilization and sometimes radical actions.

The politicization of religion in Muslim countries can be traced back to the building of the nation-state and the active role of “secular rulers” in reshaping the Islamic tradition.

Such a perspective requires a “longue durée”, historicized analysis that drastically challenges the rational choice centered theories that still dominate the field of radicalization and security studies.

To be more specific, the radicalization of religion is related to its nationalization. To be clear, most of religions within nations operate peacefully but to understand how and when religious identities or practices become radicalized, the starting point is the establishment of the modern political community a.k.a.  the nation.

Religion and National Community

For example, the politicization of religion in Muslim countries can be traced back to the building of the nation-state and the active role of “secular rulers” in reshaping the Islamic tradition. Nation-building put an end to the political  autonomy of religious institutions  that dominated the caliphal periods. It also went hand-in-hand with the homogenization of the populations inhabiting the nation’s territory.

That is why nation-building systematically omitted and sometimes eradicated particular ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups in order to create one nation defined by one religion and one language. This homogenization led to a politicized narrative of religion, that I have called political Islam.

With the rise of the nation-state, a congruence was created between Muslims of a certain religious obedience (for example, in the Sunni groups, Maleki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Hanafi schools) and bounded territory. Although the westernized elites were not always pious, they understood that they could not build a nation without including the belonging to Islam. To be clear, this readjustment to the national territory happened to all religious traditions but with different outcomes.

For example, Christianity in Europe at the time of the Reformation, saw its societal influence reordered by the nation-state, but also its doctrinal content redefined to make room for the state sovereignty over mundane matters. In the case of Islam, what I have called hegemonic forms of religion appeared.

Religious hegemony is not reflected in whether a state has an official religion but in a wide range of government religion policies found in many states without official religions.

It entails three main features:

– Absorption of the institutions and personnel of the religion into the state system while the other religions at best do not benefit from the same status or at worst lack legal recognition

– Inclusion of some of religious prescriptions within the legal system (family law, blasphemy)

– Shaping of the national narrative by making the belonging to the hegemonic religion the by default civic and national identity of all citizens.

In other words, religious hegemony refers to exclusive legal and political privileges granted to a specific religious group, and the association of this religion with citizenship and national belonging, while all other religious groups are marginalized. This nationalization of religion also happened in Buddhist countries like Thailand, Myanmar or Butan. Surveys show that states with hegemonic religions tend to be less democratic, independently of the specificity of the religious tradition.

Judaism, along the same line, has become a hegemonic religion in Israel, hence fueling discrimination against other religious minorities as well as uncompromising positions vis-à-vis the Palestinian claims. That is a sharp departure from the status of Jewish minorities in Europe where they had adapted to the secular national contexts by disconnecting their religious belonging from allegiance to the European political communities. We see the same trend of hegemonic Hinduism expressed in Hinduist movements that now dominate the political scene in the originally secular Indian democracy.

Additionally, global radical groups like Al Quaida or ISIS do not represent a return to pre-national forms of Islam. Quite the contrary: They are the result of dissemination of concepts that were originally framed within nations but now have spread beyond national boundaries. In other words, the existing forms of global Jihad are the transnational versions s of the interpretations of Sayyid Qutb (initially aimed at fighting against the national unjust ruler), combined with the Wahhabi doctrine which is also a modern (albeit not a modernist) religious interpretation.

Unlike the forms of national Jihad, the transnational dimension of the global Jihad appeals to young Muslims across countries because it offers and idealized and imagined Community of Believers all united in one single goal. In other words, to understand the radical forms of Islam today, it is more relevant to look into the political and cultural socialization of the activists than into their level of piety or the content of the Islamic tradition.

This nationalization and globalization of religion is also visible in Christian majority countries. Although religious diversity and pluralism in the U.S. has increased over recent decades, Christians remain the largest religious group in the country. Seemingly paradoxically, this increase in religious diversity has also been accompanied by an increase in the view of America as a Christian country. Like in Muslim countries, such a perspective remains for most Christian citizens symbolic without becoming intolerant or radical.