&w=3840&q=100)
Pope Leo XIV condemns nationalist movements, calls for reconciliation
The pope celebrated Sunday Mass in St. Peter's Square in front of tens of thousands of faithful and prayed to the Holy Spirit to break down barriers and tear down the walls of indifference and hatred' read more
Pope Leo XIV (C) addresses the crowd during the jubilee of movements, associations and new communities at St. Peter's square in The Vatican. AFP
Pope Leo XIV criticised the rise of nationalist political movements throughout the world as he prayed Sunday for reconciliation and dialogue, a message consistent with his commitment to make the Catholic Church a beacon of peace.
The pope celebrated Sunday Mass in St. Peter's Square in front of tens of thousands of faithful and prayed to the Holy Spirit to 'break down barriers and tear down the walls of indifference and hatred.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Where there is love, there is no room for prejudice, for 'security' zones separating us from our neighbours, for the exclusionary mindset that, tragically, we now see emerging also in political nationalisms,' the first American pontiff said.
He didn't mention any particular country or politician.
Leo also recalled the words of late Pope Francis, who said that 'we are all connected, yet find ourselves disconnected from one another, anaesthetized by indifference and overwhelmed by solitude' on the feast of Pentecost in May 2023.
The pope also condemned conflicts, which 'are plaguing our world,' and prayed to the Holy Spirit for 'the gift of peace.'
'First of all, peace in our hearts, for only a peaceful heart can spread peace in the family, society and international relations,' Leo said, then prayed for reconciliation and dialogue wherever there is war in the world.
Soon after becoming pope, Leo pledged to work for unity and peace. His first message, 'Peace be with you all,' set the importance of peace as a pillar of his papacy.
He has also appealed for a genuine and just peace in Ukraine and a ceasefire in Gaza.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump is battling America's elite universities—and winning
Editor's note: On April 14th the Trump administration froze $2.2bn of federal funds for Harvard University after the Ivy League college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. This was not a hidden plot, but an open plan. In the eyes of the right, America's elite universities are guilty of a litany of sins: they propagate illiberal, left-wing ideas; they exclude or censor those who question woke views; they discriminate against the majority in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); they allow antisemitism to fester. Before Donald Trump's second term as president began, conservative activists had laid out in considerable detail the retribution they were preparing to exact for these misdeeds. The retribution is now under way. Mr Trump's administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from prestigious schools, mostly in the Ivy League, and threatened to yank billions more. It has rescinded visas for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, in some cases by having plainclothes officers grab them on the street and push them into unmarked cars. It has capped overhead costs for scientific research in ways that have already led to thousands of lost jobs. Other levers, over access to federal student loans, for instance, have not even been pulled yet. Every university president in America dreads the arrival of 'the letter' from the administration. The first was sent to Columbia University on March 13th, shortly after $400m of grants were withheld. To win the money back, the letter demanded that Columbia expel certain students who participated in protests, reform its admissions policies and place its Middle Eastern studies department into 'academic receivership'. The university capitulated to all the demands. Its president, herself a stand-in, resigned a week later. 'The Columbia opening salvo was incredible to me,' says Chris Rufo, a prominent culture warrior. 'It's almost unbelievable how weak, feckless, and pathetic these folks have been.' More shakedowns have followed. On March 19th Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, wrote in the Atlantic that the Trump administration's actions presented 'the greatest threat to the American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s'. That may be an understatement: Joseph McCarthy, who hounded suspected communists, was a mere senator, without the weight of the federal government behind him. In late March the federal government informed Princeton that it was suspending research grants worth $210m, ostensibly because of antisemitism. On April 3rd a letter from the government arrived at Harvard threatening $9bn-worth of grants unless the university scrapped its DEI programmes and reformed 'departments that fuel antisemitic harassment'. This week $1bn in funding for Cornell and $790m for Northwestern was frozen. Disdain for elite universities is not new to the American right. Ronald Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 by pledging 'to clean up the mess at Berkeley' and clear out the 'beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates' who had 'brought such shame' to the flagship state university. But the long-running antagonism has gradually intensified as education has become more of a dividing line in American politics, with university graduates tending ever more strongly to vote Democratic. In the 1970s there were fewer than two academics who described themselves as liberal for every conservative. Four decades later the ratio was six to one. Humanities faculties, in particular, have championed ideas unpopular with ordinary voters: that American society is structurally racist, for example, or that everyone has a 'gender identity' unrelated to their sex. Trust in universities has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In 2015 nearly 60% of respondents told Gallup, a pollster, that they had a great deal of confidence in higher education. That has since fallen to 36%, almost the same proportion as say they have 'very little' or 'no confidence'. Republicans are especially critical; only 20% of them express faith in universities, compared with 56% of Democrats. 'The isolation of the academy writ large, from the whole of society, is at the root of a lot of these problems,' says Greg Weiner, the president of Assumption University. Loud and lengthy protests against Israel's war in Gaza over the past 18 months have further cemented the idea that campuses are out of kilter with mainstream opinion—and given the right an opportunity to attack universities for not doing enough to make Jewish students and faculty feel safe. The administration has been using supposed antisemitism as grounds to demand reforms. 'In some cases, these are not just unconstitutional demands, but there is also no statutory authority for them,' says Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University. Mr Jaffer points out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the administration has invoked on behalf of Jewish students and faculty, does allow for sanctions—but only after a formal investigation. Even then, 'The remedial measures have to be limited to the programme found to be in violation.' The withdrawal of grants could also be challenged. Universities might argue that the conditions the administration is imposing for their restoration amount to unconstitutional coercion. In 1967 in Keyishian v Board of Regents, the Supreme Court found that academic freedom is 'a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom'. The deportation of foreign students involved in protests is of dubious legality, too. In Bridges v Wixon in 1945 the Supreme Court affirmed, 'Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.' The Trump administration has explicitly rejected this idea. In its deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia involved in protests against the war in Gaza, the administration is citing a seldom-used law allowing the secretary of state to cancel visas for migrants whose continued presence could yield 'potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences'. The Supreme Court has never opined on this law, but in 1996 in Massieu v Reno, a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. As it happened, the judge in question was Maryanne Trump Barry, the late sister of Mr Trump. It seems unlikely that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would endorse all the Trump administration's attacks on universities, if asked. Yet most of the victims seem more inclined to capitulate than litigate. That may be because universities are worried that even if they prevail in one instance, the administration will simply find other ways to punish and coerce them. Moreover, judicial relief comes only slowly; there would be lots of financial difficulties during the delay. Talented faculty might decamp to other institutions with fewer government headaches. By the same token, although many of the universities affected are enormously wealthy (see chart), the federal government can impose costs in so many ways that most see no hope of simply enduring the financial pressure. Instead, universities, whether recipients of letters or not, are disavowing the policies the right so dislikes, academic freedom notwithstanding. The University of Michigan has shuttered its DEI office, on which it had lavished $250m over the past decade. The University of California, which pioneered the requirement that prospective hires provide 'diversity statements' (in effect, professions of support for DEI), recently dropped them. 'This is the Vichy moment. It's a classic collaborationist dilemma,' says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, an as-yet-untargeted institution. 'You can have preserved your school but you live in a sea of authoritarianism.' Bringing universities to heel from 'a position of savage strength', as Mr Rufo puts it, may yield only superficial results. Because Mr Trump's approach is so hostile and extreme, it may actually discourage universities from honestly assessing how they went wrong and correcting course. 'None of this will make any difference in the long run unless it is accompanied by a full accounting of what has happened for the last two decades in higher education in America,' says Anthony Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School. There is also little logic in the government's decision to switch off funding for science in order to punish ideas that emanated from humanities departments. Another recent decision, to cap the share of research grants that can be spent on overheads, will diminish the amount of scientific research conducted at all American universities, not just the elite ones. So will the gutting of the National Institutes of Health, which dispense huge amounts of funding for medical research. The administration's general antipathy towards immigrants will presumably also take a toll. 'Our universities are the best in the world. We drain the world of human capital. It's the goose that lays the golden egg,' says Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale. Mr Rufo is undaunted. He hints that the campaign against woke academics is only in its infancy. Certainly, more universities will come under attack and more means of coercion will be tested. There is talk in conservative circles of demanding the sacking of particular professors. Mr Rufo gives short shrift to talk about the sanctity of academic freedom. 'Freedom is the wrong lens to analyse the problem,' he says. 'The Columbia post-colonial studies faculty are not engaged in academic research. They're engaged in political activism. They're engaged in ideological mania. And in order to have academic freedom, you have to accept academic responsibility.' But even accepting the remedies Mr Trump is dispensing does not seem to have been enough in Columbia's case, at least. Although it has complied with the administration's demands, it still has not received the $400m that had been frozen. Correction (April 11th 2025): A previous version of this piece said that Eugene McCarthy was the senator who pursued suspected communists in the 1950s. In fact it was Joseph McCarthy. Sorry.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
UN nuclear watchdog board censures Iran, Tehran reacts with announcement of new enrichment site
The UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors on Thursday formally found that Iran isn't complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years, a move that could lead to further tensions and set in motion an effort to restore United Nations sanctions on Tehran later this year. Iran reacted immediately, saying it will establish a new enrichment facility 'in a secure location' and that 'other measures are also being planned.' 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this political resolution,' the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said in a joint statement. US President Donald Trump previously warned that Israel or America could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed — and some American personnel and their families have begun leaving the region over the tensions, which come ahead of a new round of Iran-US talks Sunday in Oman. In Israel, the US Embassy ordered American government employees and their families to remain in the Tel Aviv area over security concerns. Nineteen countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's board, which represents the agency's member nations, voted for the resolution, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the outcome of the closed-doors vote. Russia, China and Burkina Faso opposed it, 11 abstained and two did not vote. In the draft resolution seen by The Associated Press, the board of governors renews a call on Iran to provide answers 'without delay' in a long-running investigation into uranium traces found at several locations that Tehran has failed to declare as nuclear sites. Western officials suspect that the uranium traces could provide further evidence that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program until resolution was put forward by France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. Speaking to Iranian state television after the vote, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said that his agency immediately informed the IAEA of 'specific and effective' actions Tehran would take. 'One is the launch of a third secure site' for enrichment, spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. He did not elaborate on the location, but the organization's chief Mohammad Eslami later described the site as 'already built, prepared, and located in a secure and invulnerable place.' Iran has two underground sites at Fordo and Natanz and has been building tunnels in the mountains near Natanz since suspected Israeli sabotage attacks targeted that facility. The other step would be replacing old centrifuges for advanced ones at Fordo. 'The implication of this is that our production of enriched materials will significantly increase,' Kamalvandi said. According to the draft resolution, 'Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran … constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.' Under those obligations, which are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally bound to declare all nuclear material and activities and allow IAEA inspectors to verify that none of it is being diverted from peaceful uses. The draft resolution also finds that the IAEA's 'inability … to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful gives rise to questions that are within the competence of the United Nations Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.' The draft resolution made a direct reference to the US-Iran talks, stressing its 'support for a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by the Iranian nuclear program, including the talks between the United States and Iran, leading to an agreement that addresses all international concerns related to Iran's nuclear activities, encouraging all parties to constructively engage in diplomacy.' A senior Western diplomat last week described the resolution as a 'serious step,' but added that Western nations are 'not closing the door to diplomacy on this issue.' However, if Iran fails to cooperate, an extraordinary IAEA board meeting will likely be held in the summer, during which another resolution could get passed that will refer the issue to the Security Council, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue with the media. The three European nations have repeatedly threatened in the past to reinstate, or 'snapback,' sanctions that have been lifted under the original 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Iran does not provide 'technically credible' answers to the U.N. nuclear watchdog's questions. In a joint statement to the IAEA board of governors, the three European nations said that they would 'spare no efforts to work towards a diplomatic solution' but added that without a satisfying deal, they would 'consider triggering the snapback mechanism to address threats to international peace and security arising from Iran's nuclear program.' The authority to reestablish those sanctions by the complaint of any member of the original 2015 nuclear deal expires in October, putting the West on a clock to exert pressure on Tehran over its program before losing that power. The resolution comes on heels of the IAEA's so-called 'comprehensive report' that was circulated among member states last weekend. In the report, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said that Iran's cooperation with the agency has 'been less than satisfactory' when it comes to uranium traces discovered by agency inspectors at several locations in Iran. One of the sites became known publicly in 2018, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed it at the United Nations and called it a clandestine nuclear warehouse hidden at a rug-cleaning plant. Iran denied this, but in 2019, IAEA inspectors detected the presence of uranium traces there as well as at two other sites. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, who campaigned on reaching out to the West, struck a harder line after the IAEA vote. 'I don't know how to cooperate with the outside world to stop them from doing evil acts and let the people live independently in this country,' Pezeshkian said. 'We will continue down our own path; we will have enrichment.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump teases 'Gold card' for US residency again as skepticism mounts
TOI correspondent from Washington: MAGA supremo Donald Trump once again teased the imminent arrival of "Trump GoldCard," with his minions claiming millions of foreigners are waiting to fork out $5 million each to buy American residency and a path to citizenship. Almost 15 weeks after he announced the new visa program would be rolled out in two weeks, Trump unveiled a sketchy website that merely said that "The Trump Card is Coming" and asked those interested to "Enter your information below to be notified the moment access opens." There was no date and no details of the program. Patchy details previously announced by the administration said the program, intended to replace the existing EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, is aimed at granting permanent US residency and a "potential path" to citizenship for wealthy foreigners with a "gold car" on payment of $5 million. Unlike the EB-5 program, which requires investments in job-creating businesses, the Gold Card, now dubbed "Trump Card" appears to involve a straightforward $5 million payment without specific job creation requirements Trump and his lackeys have thrown out fantastic numbers, talking up the prospect of attracting more than 1 million foreigners paying $5 million each to generate $5 trillion, a sum that could pay down the country's mounting debt that now stands at $36 trillion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo While MAGA diehards seem resentful of US citizenship sold in such a crass manner to foreigners, others are fantasizing about millions of foreigners paying off the US debt and creating a surplus. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed in March that he had "sold" 1,000 cards (in the yet to be rolled out program), generating $5 billion, and that Elon Musk "is building the software right now" for the application process. But there is widespread skepticism, about both the legitimacy of the programs and the tall numbers, with some experts estimating that only 20,000–30,000 non-American centimillionaires (with a net worth of $100 million and above) globally could afford the $5 million fee, far below the 1 million targeted by Trump. There is a ceiling of 10,000 visas annually for the existing EB-5 program and even that, requiring an investment of only around 1 million, is not filled in some years. Trump has announced that there will be no ceiling on the so-called Gold Card. In further sweeteners to 'wealthy and successful' individuals Trump hopes to attract to the US from across the world, he has said they would not be required to pay taxes on their global income. US lawmakers, including some Republicans, are also in a wait and watch, arguing that creating a new visa category requires congressional legislation, a power reserved for Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The executive branch, they maintain, cannot unilaterally grant permanent residency or alter tax laws for foreigners. MAGA diehards have more fundamental concerns -- about a US overrun by wealthy foreigners replacing poor immigrants.
