Deacon Sabah Hana Alshekh
Part One
“I had promised myself to keep away from the internal conflicts of the Church and the game of chairs, but neither my conscience nor my pen yielded to my mind, as our entire Chaldean Church stands at a crossroads. So I decided to offer my perspective, in the hope that my brother bishops might read and see, through the eyes of the public, what is happening.”
The former Chaldean Patriarch appeared on NourSat TV in an episode of the program (“Al-Noor Ma‘ana” / “The Light Is With Us”) via Zoom on March 23, 2026. He launched a sharp attack on the Eastern Congregation in the Vatican and revealed the real reasons that led him to resign, namely:
-
His failure to secure the rights of Christians that had been taken by a political party, and the government’s lack of response to his requests, to the point that he reached exhaustion and burnout from this path.
-
The intervention of the Eastern Congregation in the Vatican in managing the affairs of the Chaldean Church, especially in the recent decision regarding the appointment of the Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Santiago (USA). He said in a concerned tone: “They do not respect us, and they exercise guardianship over our churches.”
We would like to pause at these two points and direct three messages to the Chaldean bishops gathered to choose the new Patriarch. We say: you are not merely choosing a person—you are handing over an entire phase, with all its complexities, contradictions, and crises left behind by the previous period. He will have to deal with this troubled reality, which resembles a real minefield requiring wisdom, courage, patience, and thorough deliberation. The responsibility for the entire future of the Chaldean Church and its presence in Iraq and the world rests on you.
We begin with the first and most serious issue—the failure: are you truly ready to choose someone capable of carrying this heavy burden and legacy, or are you simply looking for a figure to manage the current crises? Do you want a Patriarch who temporarily pleases everyone, or one who unsettles everyone because he will try to put things in their proper place?
You must be frank with him about how to deal with the political situation in Iraq, and how he can confront the chaotic and troubled political landscape there—this is a file that is itself full of mines. Iraq and the Middle East are undergoing sensitive and fundamental transformations, with the possibility of tensions and even explosions not far off. There are militias, factions, and armed groups across multiple arenas: Iraq, Lebanon, and perhaps Syria. The region is open to all possibilities.
The former Patriarch was deeply immersed in political affairs and did not hesitate in interviews to express his political opinions. He aligned himself with certain parties against others, often attacking some political figures while appeasing others.
Moreover, the Christian presence in Iraq is caught between two fires: Baghdad and Erbil. The former Patriarch was burned by both—he sided with Baghdad against Erbil on the issue of self-rule, opposing it strongly “And here, his stance must be commended.” and accusing Erbil of displacing Christians from Baghdad and Mosul to gain Western favor. Then he later attacked Baghdad during the decree crisis and aligned with Erbil, which exploited the opportunity to strike its rivals in Baghdad.
The new Patriarch will not be given the option of neutrality; he will be pushed to take a side: with whom are you? which axis do you belong to? This is the first trap—and perhaps the first mine that will quickly explode. If he remains silent, his silence will be interpreted as a stance. If he speaks, his words will be counted as alignment. Will he have the courage to coordinate positions with the other bishops in Iraq, or will he act independently as his predecessor did?
Here more unavoidable questions arise: does the coming Patriarch have the courage to say “no” when it must be said, even if it costs him political relationships—especially since political decision-making is fragmented and often influenced by competing powers? Or will he fall into the temptation of fragile balances, pleasing one side at the expense of another until he loses everyone’s trust? How will he protect the Church from becoming a bargaining chip in the hands of political forces? Does he have a clear vision for the Church’s role in the state, or will he continue reacting to daily pressures?
Will he continue the approach of the former Patriarch, who himself admitted failure in this file? What would the Church gain from repeating an experience that proved ineffective—becoming merely an extension of an ongoing conflict? Or will he adopt a different approach, which will immediately be read as alignment with his predecessor’s critics, giving them reason to say: we were right in our assessment of the former Patriarch’s performance?
According to his own words, the former Patriarch failed in dealing with the political scene. It is clear that many politicians became cautious in dealing with him after the “Normalization Mass” on December 20, 2026, which led him into an isolation he could not bear. He had been known for his wide network of relationships and frequent visits, which suddenly stopped. Those relationships, once a source of strength and support for his approach, suddenly became a heavy burden he was not prepared to carry.
The new Patriarch must realize that the era of personal relationships as a substitute for institutions is over, and that excessive closeness to politicians may quickly translate into losing the trust of his people before gaining their support. Here, more painful and realistic questions arise: will he be able to accept isolation if it is the price of taking the right stance? Or will he seek presence in the political scene at any cost, even at the expense of his credibility? Will he build relationships with a “non-state government,” with parties, or with militias? Will he be an independent voice demanding rights, or a petitioner knocking on politicians’ doors in hope of mercy? And does he realize that the most dangerous loss is not losing politicians, but losing the trust of the faithful and the bishops?
How will the new Patriarch deal with this complex political reality? What is his vision? Will he diverge from his predecessor’s direction—implicitly proving the failure of the previous phase and aligning with its critics—or will he continue the same path, allowing crises to accumulate?
The most dangerous outcome would be for him to become a “reactionary Patriarch,” either an absolute opposite or a blind continuation of what came before—recycling positions—leading the Chaldean Church to lose its presence on both the ecclesiastical and Iraqi stages, with the Chaldean people paying the price.
But the decisive question remains: will the coming Patriarch possess a vision upon which a new phase can be built, or will he remain trapped in managing daily crises? Are we at the beginning of something new, or merely another chapter of the same crisis with different names?
Stay tuned for the next part.
