Pope Leo XIV signals continuity on fighting abuse with new head of child protection board - International
Verny, 59, replaces American Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the retired archbishop of Boston. O'Malley was the founding president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, an advisory group Pope Francis established in 2014 to advise the church on best practices to fight abuse and protect children.
As the abuse scandal spread globally during Francis' 12-year pontificate, the commission initially lost influence and its crowning recommendation — the creation of a tribunal to judge bishops who covered up for predator priests — went nowhere. After many years of reform and new members, it has become a place where victims can go to be heard and bishops can get advice on crafting guidelines to fight abuse.
Verny, who is currently the bishop of Chambery, France, has been a member of the commission since 2022 and heads the child protection council of the bishops' conference in France, where the church has been rocked by revelations of decades and abuse by priests and bishops. He was among the commission members who met with Leo last month.
The bishop has been responsible for doing an annual audit of the French church's centres for receiving victims, an initiative that was started after a devastating 2021 report into the French scandal estimated 330,000 children in France had been sexually abused over the past 70 years by church personnel.
Cardinal O'Malley praised the appointment, saying Verny has developed in-depth experience helping victims and working with law enforcement and civil authorities to ensure accountability 'for the serious failures of the church in France.'
In a statement, O'Malley also praised Leo for continuing to consider the commission a priority.
'The Holy Father's words and deeds in these early months of his pontificate assure the world that the Church will not grow complacent in her efforts to as best possible ensure the protection of children, vulnerable adults and all people in our communities,' he said.
Verny, for his part, praised O'Malley's leadership as courageous and having served as 'a moral compass' for the church, a reference to O'Malley's occasional statements of outrage when even Francis bungled an abuse case.
'I am committed, together with the members and personnel, to building on that legacy,' Verny said in a statement.
The American-born pope made the appointment the day before heading for a six-week vacation at the papal summer retreat south of Rome.
Follow us on:
Short link:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
See - Sada Elbalad
43 minutes ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Macron Begins 1st State Visit to UK in Post-Brexit Era
Rana Atef On Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron, accompanied by his wife Brigitte Macron, began a three-day state visit to the UK. Macron was invited by King Charles III and Queen Camilla. This marks the first state visit by a European leader to the UK since Brexit, underlining a new chapter in Franco-British relations. French President Emmanuel Macron arrived in the United Kingdom on Tuesday for a three-day state visit at the invitation of King Charles III. It is the first visit by a European Union leader to the U.K. since Brexit. Photo: AFP #CHANNEL8 #UK #France #Macron #KingCharlesIII — Channel 8 English (@Channel8English) July 8, 2025 The visit comes in response to King Charles and Queen Camilla's visit to France in September 2023 and aims to highlight the historical and strategic bonds between the two countries. President Macron is scheduled to hold talks with newly elected UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, focusing on bolstering bilateral cooperation in key areas including defense, security, energy, AI, culture, space, and trade. 🚨🇬🇧🇫🇷 WEF Deep State Shill Emmanuel Macron deliberately disrespects King Charles by marching in front of him earlier today. Remember when Trump did this with the late Queen & it attracted international outrage? — Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) July 8, 2025 According to the Élysée Palace, this visit reflects growing alignment between Paris and London on major global issues, especially their joint support for Ukraine. The visit also seeks to build on the strategic defense partnership agreed in May 2025—the first of its kind since Brexit. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War News "Tensions Escalate: Iran Probes Allegations of Indian Tech Collaboration with Israeli Intelligence" News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream Technology 50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean
Daily News Egypt
5 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities
The past year has laid bare a growing and dangerous campaign against American universities — one that threatens to undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the right to dissent. What began with pro-Palestinian demonstrations in late 2023 has escalated into a calculated effort by the Trump administration to police campus discourse, punish ideological nonconformity, and suppress political protest. Behind the rhetoric of combating antisemitism lies a far more ambitious project: transforming America's independent centres of scholarship into compliant instruments of state power. The first major flashpoint came at Harvard, where over thirty student groups issued a statement in October 2023 holding Israel responsible for escalating violence in Gaza. The backlash was swift. Prominent donors, conservative commentators, and federal officials demanded punitive action. Though Harvard's administration initially distanced itself from the protests, its response was neither swift nor severe enough to appease critics. By early 2024, the Trump administration had frozen $2.3bn in federal research grants to Harvard, accusing the university of tolerating antisemitic expression — despite the absence of formal findings to that effect. The message was unmistakable: universities that fail to suppress pro-Palestinian activism will face financial ruin. This retaliation set a precedent. At Yale University, a student group protesting an Israeli official's lecture in late 2024 was branded antisemitic, prompting the university to revoke the group's recognition and sparking campus unrest. Yet even that concession was not enough to prevent federal reprisal. In April 2025, the administration threatened Yale's accreditation, signalling that institutions would now be punished not only for what they say, but for what they allow others to say. The University of California, Berkeley faced its own reckoning in May 2025, when it rejected federal demands to monitor international students' social media accounts for alleged 'anti-American' or 'antisemitic' content. The response was immediate: Berkeley lost $100m in federal research funding. A faculty-led strike followed, with professors warning that such intrusions violated the most basic principles of academic freedom and would devastate American research. Berkeley's defiance made clear that this was not an isolated clash over campus culture, but part of a systematic campaign to bring universities to heel. The consequences are dire. Harvard's Alan Garber noted that the frozen grants threaten vital research on gene editing and GLP-1 drugs — work central to treating genetic disorders and obesity. Steven Pinker warned that the US risks ceding its scientific leadership to nations like China, where research may face ideological limits but not this kind of self-inflicted sabotage. This campaign is not only about silencing dissent; it is about disabling the innovation that has long defined American higher education. Equally alarming is the erosion of academic freedom. Through ideological audits, pressure to dismantle DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, and threats to accreditation, the administration has created an environment in which both faculty and students are discouraged from engaging with politically sensitive topics. The chilling effect is unmistakable. Universities that once prided themselves on fearless inquiry now weigh the cost of financial or political backlash for permitting protest or controversial scholarship. This climate of coercion has fuelled unrest across already polarised campuses. Yale's suppression of student groups and Columbia's heightened policing of protests have sparked further demonstrations. The risk of a nationwide student movement, reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, grows. Yet unlike past waves of protest, today's confrontations stem not from universities defying authority, but from institutions struggling to survive under relentless external attack. Perhaps most insidious is the threat to institutional autonomy. By wielding funding freezes, accreditation threats, and tax status reviews, the administration bypasses due process and replaces independent governance with political fiat. It transforms universities from self-governing scholarly communities into state-dependent contractors — a tactic common in authoritarian regimes, but newly and openly deployed in the American context. The damage also reverberates globally. Visa restrictions and demands for surveillance of international students have already deterred global talent, undermining the diversity and international collaboration that fuel scientific and cultural progress. If the US ceases to be a destination for the world's brightest minds, it will forfeit the intellectual prestige it has long enjoyed. Though comparisons to Hungary's Viktor Orbán or China's Xi Jinping are often made, the Trump administration's tactics are more brazen. Freezing billions in funding without legislative oversight and demanding student surveillance are not the slow, bureaucratic tools of autocracies — they are ideological purges executed with speed and force, bypassing both law and tradition. To be clear, universities must protect all students and ensure civil, inclusive discourse. Antisemitism must be confronted wherever it exists. But using that imperative to justify the suppression of political protest is dishonest and deeply damaging. Harvard's legal challenge to its funding freeze — backed by a coalition of 400 college presidents — is a crucial first step. Yet only sustained resistance by faculty, students, alumni, and the broader public can defend higher education's essential role in a free society. The Trump administration's vendetta against American universities, sparked by pro-Palestinian protests, threatens to dismantle the very principles that have made US higher education a global model. The assault on dissent, the coercion of scholars, and the policing of speech must be recognised for what they are: an attack not only on universities, but on democracy itself. The survival of both now rests on whether those under siege choose silence — or resistance. Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and Writer
Daily News Egypt
5 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
The B-2 Gamble: How Israel is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics
The Middle East has long been a region where contradictions fuel conflict. It is a place where terrorism morphs into political authority with both regional and international consent. It is a battlefield for nuclear brinkmanship, where occupying powers and others pursue dangerous ambitions for weapons they may never dare to use. It holds nearly 40% of the world's energy reserves, while wealthy nations depend on superpower protection to ensure their survival. This volatile mix provides endless justification for intervention, for redrawing borders, and for reinventing regional power structures under shifting global agendas. The latest chapter of this evolving story began on October 7, 2023, and has intensified with the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran. At the centre of this accelerating transformation stands a blunt truth: Israel is being prepared not merely as a stakeholder, but as the region's official security enforcer and power broker. What distinguishes this moment is not that the United States is grooming a proxy to police the region — Washington did so in the 1950s with the Shah of Iran after the ousting of nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The difference now is that this is not a US design imposed on Israel — it is Israel's own blueprint, carried out with Washington's endorsement. The evidence is no longer subtle. Just weeks ago, Admiral James Kilby, acting US Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress that America's military operations in the Arabian Sea were rapidly depleting its arsenal at an unsustainable rate. Over a billion dollars' worth of missiles had been launched against Houthi rebels, with three Super Hornet jets lost in three months — one due to friendly fire. Kilby's message was calculated and unambiguous: while US interests in the Gulf and Middle East remain vital, the costs have become prohibitive. Perhaps it is time for a regional actor to shoulder that burden. That actor is, unmistakably, Israel. US lawmakers are already moving in that direction. Following recent American strikes on Iranian assets, Congress proposed new legislation granting President Donald Trump authority to transfer advanced strategic weaponry to Tel Aviv — including the formidable B-2 stealth bomber and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, capable of destroying targets buried sixty metres underground. This is not routine arms support. It is about enabling Israel with autonomous deterrent capabilities, easing Washington's political load regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. The so-called 'Bunker Buster Act,' backed by Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler, seeks to give the president sweeping powers to ensure Israel's readiness for any scenario should Iran advance its nuclear programme. If enacted, it would transform the Middle East's military landscape. For Israel, the implications would be historic. Acquiring B-2 strategic bombers would allow Tel Aviv to enforce its long-held doctrine of 'open skies' — ensuring uncontested air dominance from Lebanon to Iran via Syria and Iraq. This would not only disrupt supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas but would also grant Israel a definitive military veto over any regional force aspiring to strategic parity. Trump and Netanyahu are perfectly aligned in this vision. Their recent summit — the third in just six months — marked a turning point in US-Israeli relations. Trump saw in Israel's role during the strikes on Iranian assets confirmation of Tel Aviv's enduring strategic value. Notably, no global power — not even China or Russia — condemned the attacks. This silence was telling, reinforcing deterrence and giving Trump a window to advance a Middle East order grounded in preemption and militarised regional policing. At the core of the Trump-Netanyahu dialogue was a pragmatic and unapologetic vision for the region: to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through a binding deal that curbs its regional influence; to stabilise Syria under pro-Western — or at least anti-Iranian — leadership; to integrate defence systems and economic corridors under an expanded Abraham Accords framework; to marginalise Chinese influence through deeper military ties with Gulf states; and to preserve Israel's absolute military and technological edge. For Israel, the immediate challenge is not competing with Gulf states for investments or high-level visits. Its real dilemma lies in defining its role within this emerging order while avoiding premature confrontations. Historically, Israel has operated as Washington's indispensable regional asset, equipped with one of the world's most advanced military machines, backed by extensive Western intelligence networks. In contrast, even the wealthiest Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — remain militarily vulnerable, a condition unlikely to change despite multi-billion-dollar arms purchases. Within this emerging structure, Israel is positioned to become the frontline executor of US interests — at least until tensions ease and Iran's nuclear file is closed. To solidify this role, Israel must progress along three tracks: maintaining its independent military superiority, now bolstered by the proposed B-2 transfer; pursuing pragmatic relations with regional powers like Turkey to prevent destabilising flare-ups; and embedding itself within new regional economic frameworks by leveraging its unmatched technological base. Yet none of this is inevitable. History consistently reminds us that no geopolitical vision, however heavily armed, is immune to resistance. The region's future will hinge on whether its nations possess the resolve, strategic cohesion, and unity to challenge this vision — before Israel secures uncontested authority over the Middle East's airspace, politics, and resources. The clock, however, is ticking. Dr. Hatem Sadek, Professor at Helwan University
