Deacon Sabah Hana Alshekh
The bitter and difficult reality left behind by the former Patriarch—and which the next Patriarch will have to face—is how to deal with the resigned Patriarch, who publicly announced his withdrawal but in reality merely changed his position and returned to media activity: articles, statements, clarifications, TV interviews, and interventions (framed as “wishes”) in the process of selecting the new Patriarch by influencing the bishops he himself ordained. This has been openly reflected in the comments published on his media platform after each post. One commenter wrote: “I hope all the honorable bishops, whom His Beatitude Louis appointed and elevated—those who now live outside Iraq and have gained status—will gather and decide who will replace the respected Patriarch Louis Sako, who cannot be replaced. They should decide to re-elect him for a second term.”
There are even more striking comments that expose the superficial level to which the former Patriarch’s statements, clarifications, teachings, and interviews have brought the faithful. Some naïve believers now think in terms of political elections—asking why he should not be granted a second term, or perhaps even a third or lifelong term, as is demanded of political leaders. Do we now realize the level of ecclesiastical and theological shallowness we have reached?
The new Patriarch will face a real crisis with his predecessor and his supporters, who maintain aggressive and influential social media platforms filled with offensive language. These supporters have already exposed themselves through their comments and will not retreat from their populist positions. They will continue the noise and online agitation introduced by the former Patriarch, who believes—according to his recent NourSat interview—that the primary authority lies in media, forgetting that the primary authority belongs to Christ and the Church alone.
Under the former Patriarch, Chaldean patriarchal media was abundant in statements, declarations, clarifications, and interviews—but poor in theological and ecclesial depth. It contributed to the breakdown of bridges with others and failed to build trust. The language was weak and lacked seriousness; expressions were emotional, provocative, and devoid of Christian spirit. There were public attacks against priests and bishops, exposure of internal matters, and attempts to demonize and discredit ecclesiastical, political, and social figures by accusing them of opposition or attempted coups.
The result: his influence dropped to zero, and his media output became material for opportunistic exploitation—at the cost of the Church’s dignity and prestige.
The Chaldean patriarchal media platform effectively became a space for the former Patriarch to present himself as savior, redeemer, and sole leader, displaying strength through shallow and trivial content. It turned into an arena for settling scores and reacting populistically. In reality, as many know, the Church’s direction was often shaped in reaction to content published on the Kaldaya Me website, to which the former Patriarch would respond, forming positions and decisions accordingly.
Today, the Chaldean public poses pressing questions to the next Patriarch: how will you deal with the former Patriarch, who will confront you at every step? Will you oppose him and endure his media attacks? Will you form a different team that challenges his direction? Will you continue working with the same figures he relied on to target opponents, or choose others? Will he accept that? Are you capable of opening sensitive files such as finances and endowments? How will you limit his media activity? Do you have the courage to declare that his statements represent his personal opinion—not the Church’s? Where will he reside? Will you receive the same visitors he did? Will you engage with his political opponents in Iraq?
You stand before decisive questions: if you align with him and repeat his positions, prepare for stronger opposition from Chaldean bishops than before—and direct criticism from the Eastern Congregation. If you oppose him and take a different path, you must be ready to endure public criticism, media attacks, and accusations of betrayal, conspiracy, and disloyalty—along with claims that you are siding with those who allegedly plotted a “coup,” a concept alien to Church teaching and law, yet promoted by the former Patriarch and echoed by his supporters.
The most sensitive issue will be this: if you oppose him—openly or quietly—and adopt different decisions (as expected by the Chaldean synod and the Eastern Congregation), you will implicitly affirm that the opposition of the five bishops was genuine and justified. Even more troubling, the silence of the other bishops may then be interpreted as complicity or unjustified weakness, as they appeared to submit to the former Patriarch’s authority. This could lead to a sense of collective responsibility for the crises that engulfed the Church.
In this scenario—whether intended or not—you risk transferring real authority to the former Patriarch’s opponents, placing yourself under their influence. Opposing him becomes, in effect, a full endorsement of their stance. The result may be a Church governed not by a single center, but by multiple influential authorities. Centralization would be gone.
As is said in Iraq: “America removed Saddam and created dozens like him.” The fear is that what happened in Iraq after 2003 could be mirrored in the Church: The Vatican removed a strong—yet authoritarian—central authority in less than 24 hours, potentially opening the door to multiple competing authorities. And everyone knows: when central authority disappears, who guarantees unity? Who sets the direction?
This raises the most serious internal question: is the synod ready to confront itself and admit its mistakes, or will it bury them to preserve balance? Is the new Patriarch capable of managing this file without triggering deeper divisions? Are we facing a Church led by a unified authority—or a network of competing ones?
In reality, we may be heading toward greater losses—losses that the former Patriarch may quietly take satisfaction in, as they validate his claim that no bishop in the Chaldean synod is capable of leading the Church as he was, presenting himself as the ultimate savior.
This concern is heightened by the fact that many bishops in the diaspora are preoccupied with their expanding communities and may lack the time, capacity, or energy to follow developments in Iraq. This could leave the new Patriarch alone to face storms with unpredictable consequences.
And that will be the subject of our final message to him.
Stay tuned for the fourth and final episode.
Add Comment أضف تعليق