World Religions News

(RNS) — Bishop Shio Mujiri will now be known as Patriarch Shio III, leading the Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the most prominent institutions in the country. He was enthroned in the 1,000-year-old Svetitskhoveli Cathedral in Mtskheta, an ancient capital north of modern Tbilisi, on Tuesday morning (May 12), taking over one of Eastern Orthodoxy’s oldest churches after the death of one of its longest-serving leaders. 

On Monday, Shio received 22 out of 39 votes from the Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church in Tbilisi’s Holy Trinity Cathedral, outpacing the two other hierarchs who had been shortlisted for the role after Patriarch Ilia II died in March. Shio will step into the shoes of a giant as Georgia faces one of the most politically tumultuous periods in its recent history. 

The Georgian Orthodox Church is one of the oldest Christian church bodies in the world, stretching back to the Apostle Andrew by tradition and by documentation at least as far back as the fifth century. 

Shio, 57, who was born Elizbar Mujiri, became the 142nd leader of the church since it was first granted autocephaly — meaning self-headed in Greek — under the Byzantines in 480 A.D. 

The church remains influential in Georgian society. A 2002 constitutional agreement gave the church special privileges far beyond the simple freedom of worship accorded to other religions in Georgia. 

“The Church has always been an unshakable pillar of Georgian statehood and spiritual strength,” Georgian Prime Minister Irakly Kobakhidze said in a statement congratulating Shio on his election. “It is the Orthodox faith that has preserved for us those eternal values, thanks to which our country has reached this day.

“I believe that your pastorate will serve the peaceful, united, and strong future of our country. May the Lord protect our country and its new spiritual father,” he added. 

Kobakhidze wasn’t just being diplomatic. A 2020 poll by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that nearly 80% of Georgians agreed that the Georgian Orthodox Church is the foundation of their identity. And 50% agreed that Georgian citizens should be Georgian Orthodox — despite the country’s 10% Muslim minority, and long-standing Jewish, Yazidi and non-Georgian Orthodox Christian communities. 

“It’s really the textbook example of a national church being the cornerstone of national identity,” Samuel Noble, a scholar of Orthodox Christianity at Belgium’s University of Liège, told RNS. “If you look up any polls done in Georgia, always the most trusted institution is the church, the most trusted individual was Patriarch Ilia.”

Ilia II served in the patriarch role for nearly 50 years. Enthroned in 1977, he is remembered by many as a source of continuity and stability in Georgia.

Under Soviet rule, even when the church was deeply infiltrated by the KGB, he earned respect for sheltering anticommunist Georgian activists. And when the Iron Curtain crashed down, he shepherded the church through the emergence of an independent Georgia, defending its canonical independence, defining its cultural identity and building ties with different political factions in and out of Georgia. 

“His first two decades were probably the most difficult period for him with how the churches were organized and controlled under the Soviet regime,” Vladimer Narsia, a scholar of Orthodox Christian theology and head of the Canon Law Centre at Tbilisi’s Ilia State University, told RNS. “In the second part of his leadership, after the independence of Georgia, the church gained power and he went through these more than 25 years as a main player not just in the religious life of the nation, but in the political life as well.”

In a country where the median age is 37, Ilia was the only leader many Orthodox Christians knew for their church. 

“There’s not really anybody comparable,” Noble said, adding that Ilia was responsible for a “great deal” of cultural rebuilding postcommunism.  “ … Under Ilia, it wasn’t just that there was a new freedom for the church, but there was also a reassertion of the Georgianness of the church. … Traditional Georgian church music was revived, traditional Georgian liturgical practice, emphasis on Georgian rather than common Russian saints all came back, and the church was rebuilt in an incredible way.”

But Ilia’s tenure wasn’t without controversy. In 2017, a Georgian Orthodox priest was arrested in Berlin with cyanide in his baggage, allegedly planning on assassinating Ilia’s own secretary over an internal dispute. 

In 2021, a leak exposed that Georgia’s state security services had been spying on church leaders, allegedly recording illegal activity for potential blackmail. 

The church under Ilia also faced criticism for its reactions to LGBTQ+ activism in Georgia. In 2013, a group of clergymen led thousands to counter a small antihomophobia protest in Tbilisi — an encounter that ultimately devolved into a riot, with activists and journalists assaulted. Days earlier, Ilia had called homosexuality a disease and called for banning LGBTQ+ activists from Tbilisi.

Though Shio doesn’t have the long-standing cultural cachet of Ilia, nine years ago Shio was appointed by Ilia to oversee the leadership transition after the patriarch’s eventual passing. Over the years, Shio had already taken over many of Ilia’s duties as his health deteriorated. 

Shio isn’t expected to differ from Ilia much on social issues, but he is taking the helm in the midst of a second year of a protracted political crisis in Georgia, and many are watching to see how he navigates the church’s position. Nearly two years since disputed 2024 elections, Tbilisi is still wracked by protests against the ruling Georgian Dream party, which has responded with authoritarian crackdowns and legislation. 

“What happened in 2024 was the most important mark in the recent history of the Georgian nation,” Narsia said. By that point, he noted, Ilia had stepped back from politics due to his health, but the church had been an active participant in earlier years. The same year, in an attempt to court church support, Georgian Dream floated the idea of enshrining the Orthodox church in law as Georgia’s state religion, but Shio and Ilia shot down the idea. 

Shio’s ascension to the patriarchal throne comes amid another great divide. For years, the Orthodox world has been defined by a major rift between Moscow, seat of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the world’s largest Orthodox church, and Constantinople, seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a historical leader of Orthodox Christendom. 

In 2018, the Russian church broke ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the latter’s establishment of a Ukrainian Church independent from the Russian church. It created the largest schism in Orthodoxy since the break with Rome in 1054. 

In the weeks between Ilia’s death and Shio’s election, both Moscow and Constantinople accused the other of interference in the succession process. Ties with Moscow have also suffered ever since Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, and the Russian church has often been criticized for giving spiritual justification to the war in Ukraine and the Putin regime.

Shio, who completed much of his religious education in Moscow in Russian Orthodox institutions, has many concerned over those ties. 

“One of the great challenges that the Georgian Orthodox Church has today will be how the new patriarch reads the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church over the Georgian church,” Narsia said. 

(RNS) — A study group established by Pope Francis after the Synod on Synodality has called for a greater role for the laity and clergy in the selection of bishops, especially by involving the diocesan priests’ council and pastoral council.

The study group was set up in response to the synod’s call “to expand consultation with the faithful People of God, and to involve a greater number of lay people and consecrated persons in the consultation process.” The practical suggestions put forth by the study group represent a substantial expansion of the role of the laity and clergy in the process of choosing their bishop — and hark back to our current pope’s namesake.

Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century believed a true bishop should be elected by the clergy, accepted by the people and ordained by the bishops of the surrounding dioceses. This was a system of checks and balances that would have been loved by the writers of The Federalist Papers.

The clergy would meet and vote in the cathedral and then present their choice to the people waiting outside. If the people cheered, he was accepted. If they booed, the clergy would have to try again. There are faint echoes of this process in papal elections, where the cardinals, who are considered part of the Roman clergy, elect the bishop of Rome. The man chosen is then presented on the balcony of St. Peter’s to the people.

The final step in the process would be the candidate’s acceptance and ordination by the neighboring bishops, because a bishop is not just the leader of a diocese, he is also a member of the college of bishops. 

While this is a beautiful theory, for too long the reality was that kings and nobles often controlled the process and selected relatives or political supporters as bishops, leading to widespread corruption in the church. Church reformers pushed to free the appointments from the influence of civil authorities by giving the pope absolute authority over the appointment of bishops.

Centralizing episcopal appointments in Rome led to its own problems: careerism, cronyism and an insensitivity to local conditions. Each pope had his own priorities in selecting bishops, which might have nothing to do with the situation in the diocese.

Paul VI wanted pastoral bishops who would implement the Second Vatican Council and get along with their priests. John Paul II and Benedict XVI wanted bishops who would implement their interpretation of Vatican II and root out clergy and theologians who dissented from papal teaching. Francis wanted bishops who were pastoral and close to the poor.

My guess is that Leo XIV wants bishops who can unify their flocks while preaching peace, justice and concern for the planet.

It is the bishop’s “duty to build communion among its members and with the universal Church by fostering the variety of gifts and ministries given for its own growth and for the spread of the Gospel,” Leo said on June 25, 2025. In this sense, “a clear sign of [the bishop’s pastoral] prudence is his exercise of dialogue as a style and method, both in his relationships with others and in his presiding over participatory bodies: in other words, in his overseeing of synodality in his particular Church.”

Centralizing the selection process in Rome does not mean ignoring input from local churches.

Currently, the bishops of a province meet every three years, under the leadership of the archbishop, to send a list of priests they think might make good bishops to the nuncio, the pope’s representative to the church and government of a country. In keeping with synodality, the study group wants presbyteral councils and diocesan pastoral councils to meet before the bishops have their meeting.

“In an atmosphere of common prayer and fraternal exchange,” said the study group, “each of these bodies will collegially formulate a written opinion on the state and needs of the diocese.”

And each member of these bodies will submit to the bishop, in a sealed envelope, “the names of priests serving in the diocese whom they consider suitable for the episcopate.”

Where possible, “the cathedral chapter, the diocesan finance council, the lay council, the unions of consecrated men and women, and diocesan groups that institutionally represent youth and the poor should also be convened.”

In addition, they are also to submit sealed envelopes with “an opinion on the profile of the future bishop of their Local Church and the names of bishops or priests (not necessarily serving in the diocese) whom they consider suitable for succession.” The envelopes should include the reason for the choices. 

The bishop can also consult others and the results are sent to the nuncio and shared with the bishops of the province.

The nuncio is responsible for nominating three candidates for a vacant diocese after consulting with the bishops, clergy and people. He does this by sending a questionnaire about a candidate to select people, including clergy, religious and laity. He writes up a report on each nominee and on the diocese and sends them to the Dicastery for Bishops in Rome. Under the system recommended by the study group, he will now have additional input from the members of the priests’ council and pastoral council.

To help the nuncio in his work, the study group also recommends the establishment of a Committee for the Provision of the Local Church, made up of “two diocesan priests elected by the Presbyteral Council, two consecrated men/women and two laypersons elected by the Diocesan Pastoral Council, along with the Diocesan Administrator or Apostolic Administrator,” who runs the diocese when there is no bishop.

The committee members “take an oath to observe confidentiality, which does not prevent them from discreetly consulting other faithful of the local Church to gather useful information.” Then “the Nuncio relies on this Committee to clarify the state of the diocese, the profile of the new Pastor, and to receive opinions on possible candidates.”

These changes are incremental, not revolutionary, which is good. Those who fear change should not be scared because all of the input is advisory, not definitive. Those who want greater change, like the election of a bishop by the clergy and/or laity, should accept these changes as great improvements over the current process.

The study group’s recommendations are practical and easy to implement. They could be quickly adopted in the United States, where there is religious freedom and the government does not interfere in the selection of bishops.

Pope Leo is intimately familiar with the process for selecting bishops because he was head of the Dicastery for Bishops, which makes recommendations to the pope on bishops. These are sensible recommendations that he should accept. They are not what Pope Leo the Great wanted, but they are a great improvement over the current process.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran sent its response to the latest U.S. proposal to end the Iran war via Pakistani mediators on Sunday, but U.S. President Donald Trump quickly rejected it in a social media post as “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” — the latest setback to efforts to resolve the standoff in the Persian Gulf that has throttled shipping and sent energy prices soaring.

Iranian state television reported that Tehran rejected the U.S. proposal as amounting to surrender, insisting instead on “war reparations by the U.S., full Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, an end to sanctions, and the release of seized Iranian assets.”

Washington’s latest proposal addressed a deal to end the war, reopen the strait and roll back Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump’s rejection of the Iranian response included no details. In an earlier post, he accused Tehran of “playing games” with the United States for nearly 50 years, adding: “They will be laughing no longer!”

Trump is giving diplomacy “every chance we possibly can before going back to hostilities,” the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, told ABC earlier.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen or heard publicly since the war began, “issued new and decisive directives for the continuation of operations and the powerful confrontation with the enemies” while meeting with the head of the joint military command, the state broadcaster reported, with no details.

Drone attacks target Gulf Arab nations

The fragile ceasefire was tested when a drone ignited a small fire on a ship off Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait reported drones entering their airspace. The UAE said it shot down two drones and blamed Iran. No casualties were reported, and no one immediately claimed responsibility.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry called the ship attack a “dangerous and unacceptable escalation that threatens the security and safety of maritime trade routes and vital supplies in the region.” The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Center gave no details about the ship’s owner or origin.

Kuwait Defense Ministry spokesperson Brig. Gen. Saud Abdulaziz Al Otaibi said forces responded to drones but did not say where they came from.

Iran and armed allied groups such as the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group have used drones to carry out hundreds of strikes since the war began with U.S. and Israeli attacks on Feb. 28.

Iran says it’s on ‘full readiness’ to protect nuclear sites

Trump has reiterated threats to resume full-scale bombing if Iran does not accept an agreement to reopen the strait and roll back its nuclear program. Iran has largely blocked the strategic waterway that’s key to the global flow of oil, natural gas and fertilizer since the war began, rattling world markets.

The U.S. military in turn has blockaded Iranian ports since April 13, saying it has turned back 61 commercial vessels and disabled four. On Friday, it struck two Iranian oil tankers it said were trying to breach the blockade. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard navy says any attack on Iranian oil tankers or commercial vessels would be met with a “heavy assault” on U.S. bases in the region and enemy ships.

In an interview posted late Saturday, an Iranian military spokesperson said forces were on “full readiness” to protect sites where uranium is stored.

The U.N. nuclear agency says Iran has more than 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons grade.

“We considered it possible that they might intend to steal it through infiltration operations or heli-borne operations,” Brig. Gen. Akrami Nia told the IRNA news agency.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview with CBS that aired Sunday said the war isn’t over because the enriched uranium needs to be taken out of Iran. “Trump has said to me, ‘I want to go in there,’ and I think it can be done physically,” he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday that Moscow’s proposal to take enriched uranium from Iran to help negotiate a settlement remains on the table.

The majority of Iran’s highly enriched uranium is likely at its Isfahan nuclear complex, the International Atomic Energy Agency director-general told The Associated Press last month. The facility was hit by U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in the 12-day war last year and faced less intense attacks this year.

Iran warns against French-British effort in the strait

Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned against a planned French-British effort that aims to support maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz after hostilities are over.

“The presence of French and British vessels, or those of any other country, for any possible cooperation with illegal U.S. actions in the Strait of Hormuz that violate international law will be met with a decisive and immediate response from the armed forces,” Kazem Gharibabadi said on social media.

French President Emmanuel Macron responded by saying it won’t be a military deployment but an international mission to secure shipping once conditions allow.

Several attacks against ships in the Persian Gulf have occurred over the past week, and a U.S. effort to “guide” ships through the strait was quickly paused.

South Korea announced initial findings from an investigation that said two unidentified objects struck the South Korean-operated vessel HMM NAMU about one minute apart while it was anchored in the strait last week, causing an explosion and fire. Officials have yet to determine who was responsible.

Netanyahu denies telling Trump the war would cause regime change

In the interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” the Israeli prime minister denied New York Times reporting that he made a hard sell for Trump to start the Iran war by saying it would bring about regime change.

“We both agreed, you know, that there was both uncertainty and risk involved,” Netanyahu said. “And I remember that we — I said and he said — that the danger, there’s danger in action, in taking action, but there’s greater danger in not taking action.”

Asked whether he said in that February meeting that Iran would be so weakened it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, he said “the problem” of the vital oil shipping corridor “was understood as the fighting went on.”

“I don’t claim the perfect foresight,” he said.

Netanyahu also said he wants to “draw down to zero” the military aid provided by the U.S., which he said now stands at $3.8 billion per year.

Israel has been a leading recipient of U.S. military aid for decades, but the war in Gaza, with its high number of civilian casualties, has caused that aid to come under greater scrutiny as American public support for Israel declines.

Netanyahu, however, offered an extended timeline, saying he wants to see the aid cut off over the next decade.

___

Magdy reported from Cairo. Associated Press writers Munir Ahmed in Islamabad; Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel; Tong-hyung Kim in Seoul, South Korea; Julia Frankel in Jerusalem and Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

When I shared my recent sound bath experience last week, many of you responded letting me know life has been particularly challenging for you too lately. If you’re in that same boat—and especially if you’ve been feeling lonely, down on yourself, or overwhelmed—I have a feeling you’ll appreciate two free events that are coming up soon.

hen I emailed last week about my recent sound bath experience, many of you responded letting me know life has been particularly challenging for you lately too.

If you’re in that same boat—and especially if you’ve been feeling lonely, down on yourself, or overwhelmed—I …