White Smoke And Speculation: The Election Of Pope Leo XIV
The occasion of electing another Pope was a spectacle in time and, in many ways, outside it. It was the one rare occasion in the twenty-first century where ancient ceremony, the old boy network – many presumptive virgins – along with festive dressing up, were seen with admiration rather than suspicion. Feminists were nowhere to be heard. Women knew their place; the phallocrats were in charge. Secret processes and factions, unscrutinised by media or any temporal body, could take place in secure, deliberative seclusion. Reverential followers of unquestioning loyalty turned up to the square of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome awaiting the news of the election. Then, the white smoke rises from the Sistine Chapel's chimney, with gasps of excitement and elation.
Taking a punt on who the new leader of the Catholic Church will be once the conclave of Cardinals concludes is a failing bet. A mischievous remark was once made by an Australian commentator on Church matters that you would have better chances picking a winner at the Melbourne Cup horse race than the next pontiff.
The choice of Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, was suitably surprising. Few had their cards on a pick from the United States, let alone a pick from Chicago, Illinois. But ever politic, the church narrative was quick to point out his naturalised status as a Peruvian and his elevation to the position of Bishop of Chiclayo in September 2015. He had been an Augustinian missionary. Not only was he a Western hemispheric representative, but one who doubled up as truly American, comprising North and South. This was an identitarian jackpot, a treat for the advertising wing of the Vatican.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
Clues on what Leo's reign will look like are few in number. 'We must seek together,' he urges, 'how to be a missionary Church, a Church that builds bridges, dialogue, always open to receive like this square with its open arms, all, all who need our charity, our presence, dialogue and love.' His choice of name suggests a lineage of diplomatic and doctrinal-minded figures.
Much Fourth Estate commentary has been vague, laden with cryptic references and snatches of speculation. In the absence of detail, obsession over minutiae becomes paramount. He turned up in the garb of Benedict XVI, suggested one observer on the BBC World Service, but spoke like his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis I. 'We saw a balance of the aesthetics of the traditional church,' opined Charlie Gillespie of Sacred Heart University, 'along with language that sounded like Pope Francis.'
Any use of the term 'moderate' is also bound to be meaningless, though Leo's brother, John Prevost, has aired his own prediction: 'I don't think we'll see any extremes either way.' Such a figure is straitjacketed by doctrine and buttoned up by process. One who is bound to follow ancient texts drafted by the superstitious, however modernised in interpretation, will be caged by them. In 2012, for instance, Prevost was revealing on that very issue when commenting on church attitudes to homosexuality. Certain Western values, he thought, proved sympathetic to views 'at odds with the gospel', one of them being the 'homosexual lifestyle.'
The same cannot be said about Leo's attitudes to migrants and the poor. A social media account bearing Prevost's name did not shy away from attacking the immigration policy of the Trump administration via a number of reposted articles. In February, for instance, an article from the National Catholic Reporter titled 'JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others' featured. Suffice to say that his selection did not impress certain figures in the MAGA movement, most notably Steve Bannon. Calling Leo the 'worst pick for MAGA Catholics,' Bannon sniffed a conspiracy. 'This is an anti-Trump vote by the globalists that run the Curia – this is the pope Bergoglio [Francis I] and his clique wanted.'
The orbit of other problems will also be impossible for the new pontiff to escape. The stain of clerical sex abuse remains an immovable reminder of organisational defect and depravity. Terrier like activists continue their sorties against the Church, demanding redress and publishing their findings on such outlets as ConclaveWatch.org. Earlier this year, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), along with Nates Mission, another survivors' organisation, named the then Cardinal Prevost as one of six figures seminal in covering up sexual abuse in the church. These formed a dossier of complaints submitted to Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's secretary of state. According to the campaigners, the dossier documenting claims of mismanagement and cover-ups marked 'the first time multiple high-ranking cardinals have been targeted … by co-ordinated, survivor-led action.'
An open letter published on May 8 by SNAP also proved sharp on the election. 'The sex offender in the collar commits two crimes: one against the body, and one against the voice. The grand pageantry around your election reminds us: survivors do not carry the same weight in this world as you do.' The organisation further stated that Prevost, when provincial of the Augustinians, permitted Father James Ray, a priest accused of child abuse with restricted ministry since 1991, to reside at the Augustinians' St. John Stone Friary in 2000. From the outset, the Pope's ledger is already a heavy one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
18 hours ago
- Newsroom
Gold standard: fast-track mining project must pass environmental audit
Comment: There's been a great deal of noise about the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. Widely panned for lowering environmental standards, here's how it might roll for one big project. Though the scale of this gold mine is very large, the process will be very similar for all substantive applications under the act. The Clutha River runs south through the Tarras Valley into Lake Dunstan near Cromwell. It's a wine and fruit-growing area boarded to the east by Bendigo Station, part of the South Island high country, notable for its wild, undeveloped landscapes. In those hills lies the site of the proposed Santana Minerals Ltd Bendigo Ophir project, an open-cast gold mine. Santana is an Australian company. The mine's open pit would be very large and deep. Some underground extraction is also proposed. A tailings pond would store toxic processing waste on site behind a dam. For ever. Santana says it will be lodging its formal application this month for various consents under the fast-track process. These will include approvals under the Resource Management Act and under various conservation laws. The process is complicated and fast. Before even lodging its application, Santana must consult with entities listed in the act, including relevant local councils and iwi and hapū. That must be meaningful, which the Environmental Defence Society considers requires Santana to provide a full draft of its assessment of environmental effects. It can then apply to the Environmental Protection Authority, which must publish the application without delay on the fast-track website. At this point the authority undertakes a 'completeness' assessment. Inadequate consultation or incomplete technical assessments would render an application incomplete and therefore should be returned to the applicant. If complete, the authority passes the application to the Panel Convenors to set up an expert panel. The panel then takes over the process and acts independently from the Environmental Protection Authority. It has broad discretion over how the application is considered and who will be heard. The Environmental Defence Society considers itself an affected party with respect to Santana's application given that it represents a relevant aspect of the public interest and has independent technical evidence to bring to bear. Key local community groups may also be heard. Given the scale and complexity of Santana's project, and its highly sensitive ecological and landscape location, EDS expects that the panel would opt to hold a formal hearing with expert witnesses, cross-examination and expert conferencing. It should also commission its own independent peer reviews of key aspects of the proposal. Each procedural decision made by the authority, panel convenors and panels, including the completeness assessment, the membership of the panel and who the panel asks to provide feedback, can be judicially reviewed in the High Court if there are valid grounds. The key statutory test that the panel will undertake boils down to a proportionality assessment set out in section 85 of the act: are the adverse impacts of the mine sufficiently significant to be out of proportion to the project's regional or national benefits? It's novel wording, and the way it is interpreted by panels will undoubtedly be tested by the courts on appeal or review or both. The starting point therefore requires an economic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of environmental effects. No fast-track application should pass the completeness test without both included. An economic analysis is quite different from an assessment of the financial returns of a project. And under the act, those benefits must be found in New Zealand, not overseas. The Environmental Defence Society engaged the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research to advise which questions should be addressed in Santana's economic analysis. Based on its advice, the list includes: What are the direct and indirect economics impacts of the project on the local, regional and national economy? What is the method used for the analysis? What are the GDP, consumer spending, and employment impacts? How will the workforce requirements of the project affect Central Otago, considering direct and indirect workers? Where will they be sourced? What are the expected impacts on businesses, wages, housing, infrastructure, healthcare, schools, and recreational amenities in Central Otago? What are the competitive advantages of the project that make it the 'lowest cost gold mine' in Australasia, in comparison with other gold mines or a 'typical' Australasian gold mine? What potential changes might Santana make to the project if projected profits fall to levels indicated in the sensitivity analysis, such as below $1 billion or below $500 million? What are the economic valuations of the various environmental impacts (terrestrial ecology, freshwater ecology, freshwater availability, landscape, etc)? How has the assessment accounted for the project's end-of-life costs? What activities will be entailed in finishing the project, restoration and leaving the area? If Santana were required to set aside a substantial contingency fund or long-term bond to fund long-term restoration of the site, what would be the effect on the economics of the project? Specifically, what would be the effect of a substantial bond on total profits, the benefit-cost ratio, and the net benefit? The second part of the assessment relates to environmental impacts. Santana's published material about the project lists some of its likely and potential impacts. The matters needing focused expert evidence include: Mine design: has the pond and tailings dam design been peer reviewed by an independent international expert (common practice offshore)? has the pond and tailings dam design been peer reviewed by an independent international expert (common practice offshore)? Terrestrial ecology: what indigenous plant and animal species inhabit the project site and are any threatened or at-risk; what habitats are located within the site and are any of significance; how will the RMA hierarchy (avoid, remedy, mitigate etc) be applied; are consents required to destroy protected wildlife; and what is the overall significance of the impacts on the ecological values in a regional and national context? what indigenous plant and animal species inhabit the project site and are any threatened or at-risk; what habitats are located within the site and are any of significance; how will the RMA hierarchy (avoid, remedy, mitigate etc) be applied; are consents required to destroy protected wildlife; and what is the overall significance of the impacts on the ecological values in a regional and national context? Freshwater ecology (including streams, wetlands and aquifers ): what is the baseline state for freshwater health on, around and downstream of the site; what impacts are there on freshwater ecology and how will they be addressed; how will leakage from the tailings dam (if any) be prevented; and what effects cannot be avoided? ): what is the baseline state for freshwater health on, around and downstream of the site; what impacts are there on freshwater ecology and how will they be addressed; how will leakage from the tailings dam (if any) be prevented; and what effects cannot be avoided? Environmental hydrology and geochemistry: what will be the impact on ecosystems and groundwater users from groundwater drawdown related to the open pit and mine dewatering? what will be the impact on ecosystems and groundwater users from groundwater drawdown related to the open pit and mine dewatering? Water use: what volumes of takes are required; where will the abstraction come from; what effects will that have on existing users and ecosystems; where will discharges be made; what are the chemical parameters of the discharges? what volumes of takes are required; where will the abstraction come from; what effects will that have on existing users and ecosystems; where will discharges be made; what are the chemical parameters of the discharges? Landscape: what are the landscape values of the site; what are the likely effects; are any effects unable to be avoided; will there be remote view impacts; what about light impacts offsite and night; and are simulations provided? what are the landscape values of the site; what are the likely effects; are any effects unable to be avoided; will there be remote view impacts; what about light impacts offsite and night; and are simulations provided? Cultural and heritage: what are the impacts and are they positive or negative? what are the impacts and are they positive or negative? Local effects: what are the traffic, noise, dust, recreational use, amenity and energy impacts? what are the traffic, noise, dust, recreational use, amenity and energy impacts? Performance bond: is there a long-term bond proposed to guarantee post-closure maintenance of the site that also covers any catastrophic failure of the tailings dam and if so is the quantum adequate? is there a long-term bond proposed to guarantee post-closure maintenance of the site that also covers any catastrophic failure of the tailings dam and if so is the quantum adequate? Conservation covenants: what are the implications on the existing conservation covenants present over the subject property? When the panel has completed its assessment, it must decide whether to decline or approve the application. If the latter, it would propose conditions, and there would be a chance for participants to comment on them. After the decision is made, there are limited opportunities for an appeal and wider ones for judicial review which must be filed within 20 working days. EDS is engaging substantively in fast-track projects but is putting significant effort into Santana's application given its imminence, and potential environmental effects. We are waiting to see the full application and evaluate its merits with our experts. Because input is time-limited, that means we must invest resources well in advance of the full application being available. Notably, Santana has indicated it will not share its assessment of environmental effects before filing (after earlier indicating it would do so). EDS believes this project needs rigorous testing through the limited opportunities available under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. This is a statutory process which must be conducted independently, fairly and reasonably and follow the legal pathway. Hyperbolic cheerleading by ministers about the alleged benefits of mining have no place here. Whether Santana passes the section 85 test remains to be seen. There are many fast-track applications pending and communities and councils will be watching with concern. Some projects will be positive, others not. This analysis will hopefully assist in better understanding the way the legislation is likely to operate. To further assist people to engage in other fast-track proposals, EDS has published a peer-reviewed, plain-language guide to the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.
Otago Daily Times
19 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Settlement reached
Rua Bioscience has reached a settlement with Australia's Cann Group following legal proceedings initiated by Rua in February last year. In an update to the NZX, Rua said both parties undertook mediation as part of the legal proceedings which had led to the settlement. Both companies had executed new supply agreements to support their respective operations in the New Zealand and Australian medicinal cannabis markets. The commercial terms of the settlement were confidential and took effect immediately.
Otago Daily Times
19 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Our last hope — geoengineering?
Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya, who sued a German energy firm arguing that the company's emissions contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers, standing by Lake Palcacocha. PHOTO: REUTERS This is the second anniversary of the arrival of the emergency but practically nobody is mentioning it. Instead people are choosing to worry about more familiar problems like global trade wars, the rise of fascism and genocidal wars. It's kind of a global displacement activity: if we don't mention it, maybe it will go away. Two years ago this month (June 2023) the average global temperature jumped by a third of a degree Celsius in a single month. That shook the climate science world to its foundations, because the orthodox predictions assumed about one-tenth of a degree of warming every five years. The June 2023 event was "non-linear". Like most major shifts in natural systems, the pressure built up and up, and then suddenly the system flipped into a different stable state. It took more than another year — until last December — to figure out what actually happened. Ninety percent of the extra heat in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels goes straight into the ocean. That heat was bound to affect the ocean currents, and sooner or later one of those currents would start returning very warm water to the surface. The water gave up its heat to the air — and suddenly, two years ago, the low-level clouds over the eastern North Atlantic started to thin out, letting in much more sunshine to warm the ocean's surface. This chain of events, where the warming we cause triggers further changes in the climate, is called a "feedback" — and since we didn't cause it directly, we can't turn it off. So two years ago we got three-tenths of a degree of warming in one huge lurch — from +1.2°C to +1.5°C in June 2023 — and since then about one-tenth of a degree more in slow but steady warming. The average global temperature has been about +1.6°C for the past year. Many scientists had hoped that we could hold the warming down to +1.5°C at least until the mid-2030s, but that's already passed. This means more and bigger forest fires, floods, droughts, cyclones and killer heatwaves, which is bad enough — but it also turns the future into a minefield. The "never-exceed" limit on warming, set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 10 years ago, was +2.0°C. They chose that limit because they knew we would activate many feedbacks if the warming went past there. Some they knew about (eg melting permafrost), but they also feared that there might be some hidden feedbacks north of +2.0°C. It's turning out that big hidden feedbacks start kicking in at a much lower temperature. We already hit one at +1.2°C two years ago, and for all we know there could be another feedback just ahead. In fact, feedbacks might even come in clusters that cascade and carry us quickly up into much higher temperatures. Unlikely, but not unimaginable. So suddenly the absolute priority is to hold the heat down. Greenhouse gas emissions must be stopped far sooner than the "Net Zero by 2050" target the IPCC originally set, but there is no way that can be done in less than 10 or 15 years — and the World Meteorological Organisation says that we could reach +1.9°C average global temperature as soon as 2029. The only way to hold the heat down in the short term is geoengineering: direct intervention in the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space and thereby cool the planet. Many people are nervous about it, but we find ourselves in a position where geoengineering is the least bad option. I am not a climate scientist, but I have been paying close attention to the subject for a long time (two books), and I spent three days in Cape Town last month interviewing many of the leading scientists in the field at the largest ever conference on geoengineering. None of the men and women I spoke to were ready to deploy geoengineering techniques now, but they could probably begin to deploy within five years if a crash programme was launched right away. Which governments could finance and direct such a programme? The United States is no longer a serious contender (although possibly a major obstacle). The Russians have shown no interest in the subject. But the United Kingdom, the only country committed to open-air research on geoengineering, could lead a European group. China also has the scientists and is keenly aware of the threat, and India would almost certainly join in such an enterprise. Developing countries are desperately exposed to climate damage and would also collaborate. It's a long shot, but that would be the best available outcome. • Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
