So if I'm understanding this correctly, he's saying that Iran hates him in particular so much that a group there did a sophisticated deep fake of a man that maybe 5 people out of a hundred generally aware of issues in Iraq would know at who knows how much cost and at a speed that would probably set a record.
Got it.
Pray for this man to learn humility and when to admit a mistake. O don't know if he should step down or not but this is a horrible look for a Church leader.
It's not quite freeware, but it's really cheap, and I expect you could go from OK, to capable of fooling people on a radio phone interview without getting ridiculously expensive or inaccessible.
I have acquired a sudden appreciation for podcasters that require their interviewee to physically show up to their studio (e.g. Matt Fradd, Joe Rogan).
First of all, remember the fake tweet making fun of Kamala Harris which faked her voice but which sounded exactly like her? Technology these days can make that happen and there is enough Iranian/Hezbollah influence or pressure in Lebanon to make such a fake interview be produced.
Second, Cardinal Sako is hated by Iran because he is a major threat to their influence in Iraq. He has voiced his opposition against the discrimination of Christians in Iraq by the Iranian backed Shiite Iraqi government. Iraq has a strange voting system where the Christian minority are guaranteed representation in the Iraqi parliament, but the entire Iraqi voting population picks the Christians who will sit in parliament from a list of Christian candidates. This has led to the Shiite majority picking corrupt Christian candidates backed by Iran, instead of true Iraqi Christian leaders which the Christians would want to represent them. Cardinal Sako is very humble. He actually called for reunification of the Chaldean Catholic Church with the Oriental Orthodox Assyrian Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church of the East, and offered to resign so that a new Patriarch of the reunited Church under the Pope would be elected. Unfortunately, the Orthodox churches rejected the proposal though theologically they are the same except for rejecting the primacy of the Pope.
It's also far from the first time that Cardinal Sako has been embroiled in controversy and drama in the last few years. Even the most charitable interpreter would have to wonder if it really is that people are out to get him over and over again, or if it's not the man himself that's at fault.
I still don't understand what a cardinal may and may not say of the conclave. Plenty of information is coming through, and this is no worse than the rest, is it.
I really wonder whether Leo needs to look at massaging the rules for Conclave secrecy. We don’t want it to be a free for all but at the same time I personally feel it’s not a good look to have all the cardinals essentially flouting the rules. Maybe make it so the vote counts are strictly secret but general info is ok? Because as I read the rules there have been a lot of violations since May 8th.
Part of the problem might be just the sheer number of cardinals from so many places. It’s a bit easier to maintain secrecy when it’s like 50 guys all from Italy.
Yeah good point. I might be being pedantic but since it’s an ecclesiastical rule it’s probably better to have the rule reflect accepted practice than just not follow the rules. The church already has had problems with that and this is a very public example. Now, it’s hardly a pressing issue, but maybe worth a look for Leo XIV down the line.
Yeah, I agree that this is clearly not a discipline that very many of the cardinals take seriously, and I’m not sure how much it really helps to have it in place to begin with.
I’m generally not fond of things that are “secret” without an exceptionally good reason. Obviously the activities of the conclave should be kept strictly confidential while they are happening, but once an election has happened, it seems practical to me to just put some of the details “on the record.” Frankly, it seems like even vote counts in the several scrutinies would be reasonable to disclose.
My wife and I have a policy with our daughter: “There are no secrets, there are only surprises.” In other words, things may be kept confidential for a period of time for a good reason, but there’s nothing you should be “hiding” from other people.
Secretiveness can, in many circumstances, be very damaging. The loose lips from every corner of this conclave makes me think that transparency would outweigh rumor and gossip.
This does seem to me to be an extremely trivial incident - according to the report, if I understand it correctly, one cardinal had a blank ballot slip stuck to the back of his and didn't notice, accidentally including a blank slip with his vote in the ballot box (or equivalent). I don't think this constitutes voting twice. I can't see that whether it happened matters one way or the other - and if there was a bit less secrecy, as you suggest, I doubt if it would interest anyone. It's only in the absence of any information that such a trivial matter assumes undue importance.
You’re right it’s quite minor and IIRC the UDG provides for handling an extra blank ballot with one that’s filled out (it’s discarded). One thing I never see pointed out or demonstrated in the movies is that the rules say the ballots are to be folded twice, once each direction, so that two votes by the same elector “stick together” rather than separating when the ballots are shaken.
Something tells me the press in Tonga or Erbil or Montevideo is a lot less interested in conclave drama than are the Italian paparazzi. I think "fifty guys all from Italy" explains more about the current dysfunction in the Vatican than it does present a path toward better operation of conclaves or governance.
I still see a good reason to keep the rule in place. Imagine if a cardinal voted for another candidate and it is well know that you CAN talk about it, you do not have an effective way to recuse yourself from constant inquiries about what happened. That means walking out of the conclave while most cardinals are yapping about how they voted for the new pope. The cardinals who voted against the new pontiff would immediately be identified by their silence. This I fear would lead to a sort of factionalism among the cardinal. Whereas the current promise of secrecy allows the college to stand on the loggia in unity no matter how they voted.
I am minded of my trade union days and the very old joke about the elections: Vote early, Vote often. If the cardinals followed the procedures step by step, the sort of error described in the article should be nearly impossible. And the chance of clever fingerwork juggling two bits of card should be much reduced.
‐-------------
Each cardinal, in order of precedence, writes the name of their chosen candidate on the ballot, folds it, holds it aloft so it is visible, and carries it to the altar. There, a chalice is placed with a plate covering it.
Each elector says aloud, in Italian:
"Chiamo a testimone Cristo Signore, il quale mi giudicherà, che il mio voto è dato a colui che, secondo Dio, ritengo debba essere eletto".
(“I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one whom I believe should be elected according to God".)
The cardinal then places the ballot on the plate and uses it to drop the vote into the chalice, bows to the altar, and returns to his seat.
Cardinals who are present but unable to walk to the altar due to illness give their folded ballot to one of the scrutineers, who brings it to the altar and deposits it in the same manner, without reciting the oath again.
Unwell Cardinals voting from their rooms
If any cardinals are too ill to be in the chapel, the three infirmarii visit them with a tray of ballots and a sealed box (previously shown to be empty, then locked with the key placed on the altar). The top of the box has a slit where the folded ballots can be inserted. Once the votes are cast, the infirmarii bring the box back to the chapel, where it is opened in front of the electors. The votes are counted and added to those already in the main chalice.
On the one hand, this ballot incident would be really easy to verify and confirm if Sako is lying. (If it did occur, how else would they have known about it?) so if it didn’t occur, then he’s telling the truth. But on the other hand, nearly impossible to confirm, because who else would risk breaking the secrecy?
So if I'm understanding this correctly, he's saying that Iran hates him in particular so much that a group there did a sophisticated deep fake of a man that maybe 5 people out of a hundred generally aware of issues in Iraq would know at who knows how much cost and at a speed that would probably set a record.
Got it.
Pray for this man to learn humility and when to admit a mistake. O don't know if he should step down or not but this is a horrible look for a Church leader.
Check this out: https://www.descript.com/blog/article/best-ai-voice-cloning-tools
It's not quite freeware, but it's really cheap, and I expect you could go from OK, to capable of fooling people on a radio phone interview without getting ridiculously expensive or inaccessible.
I have acquired a sudden appreciation for podcasters that require their interviewee to physically show up to their studio (e.g. Matt Fradd, Joe Rogan).
First of all, remember the fake tweet making fun of Kamala Harris which faked her voice but which sounded exactly like her? Technology these days can make that happen and there is enough Iranian/Hezbollah influence or pressure in Lebanon to make such a fake interview be produced.
Second, Cardinal Sako is hated by Iran because he is a major threat to their influence in Iraq. He has voiced his opposition against the discrimination of Christians in Iraq by the Iranian backed Shiite Iraqi government. Iraq has a strange voting system where the Christian minority are guaranteed representation in the Iraqi parliament, but the entire Iraqi voting population picks the Christians who will sit in parliament from a list of Christian candidates. This has led to the Shiite majority picking corrupt Christian candidates backed by Iran, instead of true Iraqi Christian leaders which the Christians would want to represent them. Cardinal Sako is very humble. He actually called for reunification of the Chaldean Catholic Church with the Oriental Orthodox Assyrian Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church of the East, and offered to resign so that a new Patriarch of the reunited Church under the Pope would be elected. Unfortunately, the Orthodox churches rejected the proposal though theologically they are the same except for rejecting the primacy of the Pope.
It's also far from the first time that Cardinal Sako has been embroiled in controversy and drama in the last few years. Even the most charitable interpreter would have to wonder if it really is that people are out to get him over and over again, or if it's not the man himself that's at fault.
I have to wonder if the Eastern Churches can be trusted to solve their problems without intervention from Rome.
If he did give the interview, wouldn't he have incurred automatic excommunication for violating his oath of secrecy for the conclave?
I still don't understand what a cardinal may and may not say of the conclave. Plenty of information is coming through, and this is no worse than the rest, is it.
I feel like someone thought about this headline and decided, “golly I’m gonna go for it” ;)
I suspect they are lying in wait for an opportunity to say that Archbishop Broglio got caught in an imbroglio.
Well played!
Cardinal cries confabulation, confidently contradicting controversial conclave cross-examination, culminating in Chaldean confusion
Hahaha excellent
I really wonder whether Leo needs to look at massaging the rules for Conclave secrecy. We don’t want it to be a free for all but at the same time I personally feel it’s not a good look to have all the cardinals essentially flouting the rules. Maybe make it so the vote counts are strictly secret but general info is ok? Because as I read the rules there have been a lot of violations since May 8th.
Part of the problem might be just the sheer number of cardinals from so many places. It’s a bit easier to maintain secrecy when it’s like 50 guys all from Italy.
Yeah good point. I might be being pedantic but since it’s an ecclesiastical rule it’s probably better to have the rule reflect accepted practice than just not follow the rules. The church already has had problems with that and this is a very public example. Now, it’s hardly a pressing issue, but maybe worth a look for Leo XIV down the line.
Yeah, I agree that this is clearly not a discipline that very many of the cardinals take seriously, and I’m not sure how much it really helps to have it in place to begin with.
I’m generally not fond of things that are “secret” without an exceptionally good reason. Obviously the activities of the conclave should be kept strictly confidential while they are happening, but once an election has happened, it seems practical to me to just put some of the details “on the record.” Frankly, it seems like even vote counts in the several scrutinies would be reasonable to disclose.
My wife and I have a policy with our daughter: “There are no secrets, there are only surprises.” In other words, things may be kept confidential for a period of time for a good reason, but there’s nothing you should be “hiding” from other people.
Secretiveness can, in many circumstances, be very damaging. The loose lips from every corner of this conclave makes me think that transparency would outweigh rumor and gossip.
This does seem to me to be an extremely trivial incident - according to the report, if I understand it correctly, one cardinal had a blank ballot slip stuck to the back of his and didn't notice, accidentally including a blank slip with his vote in the ballot box (or equivalent). I don't think this constitutes voting twice. I can't see that whether it happened matters one way or the other - and if there was a bit less secrecy, as you suggest, I doubt if it would interest anyone. It's only in the absence of any information that such a trivial matter assumes undue importance.
You’re right it’s quite minor and IIRC the UDG provides for handling an extra blank ballot with one that’s filled out (it’s discarded). One thing I never see pointed out or demonstrated in the movies is that the rules say the ballots are to be folded twice, once each direction, so that two votes by the same elector “stick together” rather than separating when the ballots are shaken.
Something tells me the press in Tonga or Erbil or Montevideo is a lot less interested in conclave drama than are the Italian paparazzi. I think "fifty guys all from Italy" explains more about the current dysfunction in the Vatican than it does present a path toward better operation of conclaves or governance.
I still see a good reason to keep the rule in place. Imagine if a cardinal voted for another candidate and it is well know that you CAN talk about it, you do not have an effective way to recuse yourself from constant inquiries about what happened. That means walking out of the conclave while most cardinals are yapping about how they voted for the new pope. The cardinals who voted against the new pontiff would immediately be identified by their silence. This I fear would lead to a sort of factionalism among the cardinal. Whereas the current promise of secrecy allows the college to stand on the loggia in unity no matter how they voted.
I am minded of my trade union days and the very old joke about the elections: Vote early, Vote often. If the cardinals followed the procedures step by step, the sort of error described in the article should be nearly impossible. And the chance of clever fingerwork juggling two bits of card should be much reduced.
‐-------------
Each cardinal, in order of precedence, writes the name of their chosen candidate on the ballot, folds it, holds it aloft so it is visible, and carries it to the altar. There, a chalice is placed with a plate covering it.
Each elector says aloud, in Italian:
"Chiamo a testimone Cristo Signore, il quale mi giudicherà, che il mio voto è dato a colui che, secondo Dio, ritengo debba essere eletto".
(“I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one whom I believe should be elected according to God".)
The cardinal then places the ballot on the plate and uses it to drop the vote into the chalice, bows to the altar, and returns to his seat.
Cardinals who are present but unable to walk to the altar due to illness give their folded ballot to one of the scrutineers, who brings it to the altar and deposits it in the same manner, without reciting the oath again.
Unwell Cardinals voting from their rooms
If any cardinals are too ill to be in the chapel, the three infirmarii visit them with a tray of ballots and a sealed box (previously shown to be empty, then locked with the key placed on the altar). The top of the box has a slit where the folded ballots can be inserted. Once the votes are cast, the infirmarii bring the box back to the chapel, where it is opened in front of the electors. The votes are counted and added to those already in the main chalice.
‐---‐-------------
The guy's gotta go.
On the one hand, this ballot incident would be really easy to verify and confirm if Sako is lying. (If it did occur, how else would they have known about it?) so if it didn’t occur, then he’s telling the truth. But on the other hand, nearly impossible to confirm, because who else would risk breaking the secrecy?