Translate

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Anti-Semitic attacks on the rise in Berlin


By (Reuters, September 28, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38217/


A leading member of Germany’s Jewish community had to point to a gun he was carrying to ward off a young man shouting anti-Semitic comments – the latest in a string of racist incidents in Berlin that has shocked Jews and city authorities.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany said its general secretary, Michael Kramer, endured a barrage of threatening insults from the man after leaving a Berlin synagogue with his two daughters on Wednesday.
“The man threatened us and made clear he would have lashed out if the children had not been there,” the council quoted Mr. Kramer, 44, as saying.
Mr. Kramer then pointed to a gun he is allowed to carry for personal protection to deter the man from attacking him.
Germany’s top-selling Bild newspaper carried a photograph of the young man that Mr. Kramer himself had taken at the time with his mobile phone. The man, with a partially shaven head, has an arm raised toward the phone as if about to push Mr. Kramer.
Bild quoted the man as having said to Mr. Kramer: “What are you doing here? Go back to where you came from.”
Mr. Kramer and his adversary are pressing charges against each other, German media said.
Last month, Daniel Alter – one of the first rabbis ordained in Germany since the Holocaust – was beaten up on a Berlin street in front of his young daughter by four attackers, prompting a seminary to advise its students to avoid wearing skullcaps in public.
Germany’s official Jewish population, now at around 120,000, has grown more than tenfold in the last 20 years – thanks largely to an influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union – but anti-Semitic attacks remain prevalent and policemen guard synagogues around the clock.



Christian Media Battle Over Controversial Figure


By Jonathan D. Fitzgerald ("Religion Dispatches," September 30, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38227/


In the relatively calm seas of the Christian media, a storm has erupted between Christianity Today, arguably the mouthpiece of contemporary American evangelicalism, and the Christian Post, a smaller competitor. At the center of the storm is David Jang, a popular preacher in East Asia but a relatively unknown figure in the United States, who has ties to the late Rev. Moon’s Unification Church and, according to sources in a recent Christianity Today article, may have led his followers to conclude that he is a “Second Coming Christ.”
The story begins, publicly at least, in mid-August when Christianity Today ran a long story co-authored by managing editor Ted Olsen and a blogger and former businessman named Ken Smith. As Olsen tells it, his interest in David Jang dates back several years. He describes a time, over four years ago, when Christianity Today was in talks with the Christian Post about working together in some capacity. Then, Olsen says, one of CT’s partners in the Global Christian Alliance cautioned CT about partnering with the Christian Post because “there were allegations that it had ties to the Unification Church.”
When CT raised this concern with the CP, Olsen recalls, “they denied it vehemently, threatened to sue us if we ever mentioned the allegation, and ended the discussion.”
But it wasn’t until this summer, as the news broke that Olivet University was interested in buying the Glorieta Conference Center from the Southern Baptist Convention’s LifeWay Christian Resources, that Olsen had an actual newspeg around which to investigate and write more about Jang and his various affiliated organizations.
And what he and Ken Smith found has far reaching implications for the world of Christian media and beyond.
The pair investigated claims that members of David Jang’s ministries were encouraged to believe that Jang embodies a “Second Coming Christ,” an act of blasphemy for Christians. In addition to drawing further ties between Jang and Rev. Moon, who famously declared himself the messiah, this recent controversy hits close to home for evangelicals because of Jang’s ties to many parachurch organizations with seemingly orthodox beliefs.
While Olsen and Smith are careful to cite sources who both confirm and deny that members are led to believe that Jang is the second coming of Christ, the article leaves the reader with the sense that, at least for a time, many of Jang’s followers did believe it.
Additionally, the CT article points out that the connections between Jang and the Unification Church go beyond surface similarities, noting that Jang taught at a UC seminary for 9 years (1989-1998), though in later interviews Jang claimed to be infiltrating the seminary with orthodox theology.
With Jang’s credibility called into question, along with affiliated ministries like Olivet University in San Francisco, the World Evangelical Alliance, and the Christian Post, a number of these affiliates went on the defensive.
No response was more immediate, or more aggressive, than that of the Christian Post.
Different Standards At Work
The day after CT’s article was published online, the Post published a long piece titled, “Sources in ‘Second Coming Christ Controversy’ Face Scrutiny,” followed days later by another with the less subtle headline, “Christianity Today Writer Ken Smith Is Founder of a Company Fined for Deceptive Business Practices; With Child Porn Ties.”
The main thrust of the first of the two Post pieces was to disprove the allegations that Jang’s followers considered him a new messiah by calling into question the legitimacy of the CT sources who made these claims.
But the attacks in this first response seem mild compared to the piece that followed alleging that Olsen’s co-writer Ken Smith was somehow connected to child pornography. Penned by the Post’s Katherine T. Phan, it highlights Smith’s work as the founder of the now defunct software company, Zango (which web-savvy readers may remember for their intrusive advertising in web browsers).
Smith acknowledged that Zango “partnered with some people that we should never have partnered with” in a 2009 post on his blog—which the CP article cites—titled “What Zango Got Wrong.”
When I asked if he was aware of Smith’s history with Zango, Olsen told me that “The child porn thing really came out of the blue. It wasn’t an issue that was on my radar until CP ran the article.” He continued, “That headline was really shocking. Did he distribute child porn? was the question in the headline. If you read the article the answer is no. Zango is not a child porn company and never was.”
What the article did indicate to Olsen was that, “there are different standards of journalism at work. Their article struck me more as an effort to smear and discredit the writer than to actually address what was in the article.”
Tim Dalrymple, who’s been watching and writing about the controversy, observed that “the response from the Christian Post was so over-the-top defensive of David Jang, and so massively pejorative toward anyone who questioned him, that the Christian Post (at least in that instance) essentially abandoned the pretense of journalism and became Jang’s defense attorney.”
Ted Olsen told me, “I was aware of almost everything in the [Post] article...There wasn’t anything that, even if it was true—which I have questions about—would have negated anything in our [CT] article.”
This shouldn’t come as a surprise since a meeting was held between the two prior to CT’s publication of the original article in which the Post attempted to present evidence that contradicts CT’s findings. According to Olsen, who noted that his understanding was that the meeting was off the record until the Post made it public, representatives of the Post and Olivet University wanted “to try to get CT to postpone publication.”
“The reasons for that were multi-fold,” he says, “but they were not compelling... not reasons that would have led us to postpone or kill the story.”
Repeated requests for comment from the Christian Post went unanswered, though I was eventually informed that the Post’s editor, Michelle Vu, who authored the August 17 response, had “politely decline[d]” my request.
Instead, I was provided with a brief statement: “Christianity Today wrote an article that implicated the Christian Post. CP responded with our own fact-finding article about the sources used. CP had already told CT and sent documents to the publication regarding the questionable integrity of its sources. Nothing should come as a surprise to CT.”
Round Two
On September 12, nearly a month after the original Christianity Today article, Olsen and Smith published a second piece. Emboldened by their initial reporting, former followers of Jang have come forward, including a couple identified as Edmond and Susan Chua, who are among the first to speak on the record about their experiences.
Until recently, the Chuas ran the Singaporean edition of the Christian Post—Susan worked on the business side while Edmond served as editor. The couple’s testimony revealed the level of connection between Jang and his affiliated ministries, telling of weekly chat room sessions in which Jang would set the agenda, at times even indicating which articles the Post should feature.
According to CT, a source for its original article, who wrote for the Singapore Post, was subsequently scrubbed from that publication’s website. The CT follow-up also reports that Christian Post leaders debated whether or not to include the publication’s history as part of its employee handbook, including an email noting that, “PD [Pastor David] doesn’t want the history in written, audio or video form to fall into a non-members’ hands.”
The Chuas were married on Jang’s birthday, October 30, 2006, along with 69 other couples, according to CT, an echo of the Unification Church’s practice of arranged, mass marriages; the piece also indicates that, like many of the others married on that day, their marriage was arranged for them.
This detail and several others from the second CT piece have been disputed by Jonathan Park, director of the Olivet College of Journalism (and a former Post correspondent himself) in an article cross-posted on Olivet’s website and on christianpost.com. According to Park, the event described was not a wedding, but a “service for couples who desire to dedicate their family to God in front of other believers before marriage.” Park also contends that couples are not arranged, but “apply to participate after a period of courtship.”
Park goes on to point out that after the initial CT article, Chua wrote one piece for the Singapore edition of the Post defending Jang’s orthodoxy, only to follow it up with another that contradicts his previous statements. (The second article by Chua has been removed from the Singapore Post site, while the first in defense of Jang remains.)
Park goes on to suggest that Chua’s second article, along with emails to Christianity Today, were fabricated by another person or written under coercion. He refers to comments made by Dr. Donald Tinder, dean of Olivet Theological College and Seminary, who says he found the original article “helpful,” but he thought, “a later email and article were either fabricated, or that Chua was somehow pressured into writing them.”
Park refers to Christianity Today’s article as containing distortions and exaggerations; one of his sources, Hokuto Ide, a reporter for Christian Today—a Jang-affiliated publication in Japan not to be confused with Christianity Today—describes CT’s articles as “predatory efforts by those with commercial interests,” and suggests they’re motivated by “trying to break Olivet’s deal to purchase [the] Glorieta [Conference Center].”
I asked Jonathan Park via email why he thought Christianity Today put so much time and effort—not to mention pages—into reporting this story; he replied, “As a director of a journalism program, I can say that the length of the CT articles doesn’t necessarily reflect the import nor the accuracy of their conclusions on a complex situation involving many individuals.” He notes that he can’t speak to CT’s motivations, but said that he shares their “interest in confirming orthodoxy and uplifting the household of faith.”
While Park continues to believe that CT arrived at the wrong conclusions about Jang, he is “encouraged that many other individuals, including a number of qualified and respected theologians, have similarly vetted related entities and materials, all arriving at different conclusions from those reported in CT,” and he remains confident, he writes, that “truth will be revealed.”
Park concludes his article with a paragraph attempting to minimize the “controversy,” referring to it as an issue limited to “a few voices in Asia, rather than many around the world.”
It may be too late, however, to downplay the effects of CT’s investigation as the fallout appears to be impacting the news that brought the issue to light in the first place. A recent article in the Tennessean notes that the potential sale of LifeWay’s Glorieta Conference Center to Olivet University may fall through in the wake of the scandal.
“The theology is no longer an issue,” Bill Wagner, Olivet’s president explained, “The Southern Baptists are saying, ‘We don’t want to be part of the controversy.’”


Can the Vatican Survive the Age of Digital Media?


By Alexander Stille ("The Atlantic," September 28, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38209/


Strange things have been happening at the Vatican this year. Beginning in January, documents written by high-level figures in the Catholic Church began finding their way into the Italian press, many of the letters to the pope denouncing instances of corruption and complaining about the direction and management of the Church.
When a book full of leaked documents, Sua Santità (His Holiness), was published in late May, the Vatican took the extraordinary step of arresting the pope's butler, Paolo Gabriele, a humble but trusted member of the papal household, and announced that officials had found numerous papal documents at Gabriele's apartment within the Vatican. At the same time, the Vatican Bank, under investigation for money laundering (charges the Vatican denies), fired its president, a respected Catholic banker, listing among the reasons for his dismissal allegations that sounded a lot like leaking: "Failure to provide any formal explanation for the dissemination of documents last known to be in the President's possession." Immediately after his firing, the former bank president hired his own bodyguard service and wrote a private memorandum to the pope, which he wished to disseminate "in case something should happen to him."
Power struggles and scandal are nothing new in the Vatican. Pope Alexander VI, for one, was accused of poisoning his enemies and sleeping with his daughter, the infamous Lucrezia Borgia. But until now the pope had been able to count on the loyalty and discretion of his inner circle and a hermetically sealed culture of silence, discretion, and secrecy that has often been compared with that of the Kremlin at the height of Soviet power. Now the last and most ancient of the world's absolute monarchies is suddenly in the fishbowl culture of the 21st century, where the most-trivial and the most-important details alike become transparent.
The job of managing this transition from secrecy to openness has fallen to Father Federico Lombardi, the pope's official spokesman, a Jesuit priest who wears a uniform of simple black pants and a black shirt with a white collar. When I met him this summer in Rome at the end of another long day at Vatican Radio, he had the deeply exhausted look of a man bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders. A thoughtful and kindly-looking man who trained as a mathematician, Lombardi now finds himself in the much messier world of media, in which appearance and reality, rumor and fact can all get mixed up in an impossible tangle.
For an organization famous historically for keeping its internal business as private as possible, the Vatican has gone out of its way since the scandal broke this spring to be as open and accountable as possible. Having been embarrassed by constant leaking, the Vatican has clearly decided to go on the counteroffensive, releasing information in anticipation of events so that it is not constantly caught off guard by embarrassing revelations. Lombardi has been giving nonstop press briefings since Paolo Gabriele was arrested on May 24; at an August briefing, he even took the extraordinary step of making public the indictment papers against Gabriele. The Vatican promised that his trial, set to begin September 29, would be made public (immediately after the May arrest, all the pretrial documents were posted on the Vatican press office's Web site). Also indicted but on lesser charges was a computer technician, Claudio Sciarpelletti, who is seen as a minor accomplice in the misappropriation of documents.
Suddenly, the word transparency, which was hardly pronounced during the first two millennia of the Catholic Church's history, is on everyone's lips at the Vatican, in what amounts to a kind of Copernican revolution -- an attempt on the part of an essentially medieval institution to join the Internet age. One medieval pope described himself as "the judge of all men who can be judged by none." The current Vatican has begun in recent years to accept, painfully, that this is no longer the case. If it does not want to be defined by others, the Church must respond to and even court public opinion, using modern media to shape its message.
Since he took the job as papal press officer, in July 2006, Lombardi has been dealing with one public-relations disaster after another. Just two months into the job and a year into the term of Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Ratzinger, Lombardi found himself in Germany, Ratzinger's birthplace where the pope was about to deliver a speech that contained this sentence: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman." The phrase was a learned quotation of a 14th-century Byzantine emperor in a long address on faith and reason, but journalists examining advance copies of the speech could see that, coming out of the mouth of a contemporary pope, the quote would seem like a frontal assault on Islam. They warned Lombardi, but the pope went ahead with his prepared speech, and a public firestorm followed, exactly as predicted. Then there was the 2009 fiasco in which the pope lifted the excommunication of four right-wing bishops, one of whom turned out to be a Holocaust denier.
Lombardi had to endure 2010, known at the Vatican as the annus horribilis, during which hardly a week went by without new shocking revelations of child abuse by ordained priests and, perhaps far worse, complicity among higher-ups in the Church principally concerned with covering up the scandal, silencing victims, and transferring predator priests rather than removing them from positions in which they could do further harm. With some justification, people at the Vatican felt that Benedict was getting a bad rap: he was the first pope to deal somewhat forthrightly with the pedophilia issue, and the worst abuses had occurred during the reign of his predecessor, the soon-to-be-sainted John Paul II. Yet Lombardi had to stand up day after day and take his lumps, as the crisis risked defining Benedict's papacy and seriously undermined the Church's credibility.
* * *
Lombardi gets high marks from almost everyone in the Vatican press corps for his honorability, honesty, and integrity, but as he himself acknowledges, the Vatican has not ever had a media strategy: the pope does as he sees fit, and Lombardi tries to explain his words or actions after the fact.
And Lombardi speaks for an elderly and not particularly charismatic pope: a 78-year-old theologian at the time of his election, now 85 and increasingly infirm; a scholar with more-solitary habits than his predecessor. Lombardi is also dealing with a new media environment. Dozens of Vatican news Web sites named Whispers in the Loggia, Vatican Insider, and the like, pick up and report on Vatican scuttlebutt that traditional media rarely, if ever, did. Victims of priestly sexual abuse have their own Web sites and can organize online; copies of court decisions, grand-jury reports, and compromising documents make their way around the world instantly.
In this environment, not having a media strategy is no longer a viable option -- a reality the Vatican implicitly recognized this summer when it appointed a journalist, Greg Burke, the Fox News correspondent in Rome (and a member of the Catholic religious order Opus Dei), as the Vatican's director of communications, a position that never existed before. It is one of a series of decisive moves the Vatican has made in response to "Vati-leaks": The new director of the Vatican Bank took the unusual step of inviting journalists to the highly secretive institution's offices and discussed the intentions to comply with modern banking norms. Father Lombardi began his regular press briefings -- another novelty. During the past year, Benedict opened a Twitter account. Moreover, since the Vati-leaks scandal broke, the pope has been calling in a range of Church leaders for much wider and more regular consultation. The scandal has clearly served as a wake-up call: a sign that the pope is trying hard to regain control of a Church that has begun to seem badly adrift. The pope has even made some effort to seek out the views of people outside the Roman curia -- the Vatican equivalent of going beyond the Beltway.
* * *
The Vati-leaks scandal is fascinating on a number of levels. First, there is the mystery element: Did the butler do it? And if so, why? Did he have accomplices? Were they inside or outside the Church? Then there are the contents of the documents themselves, which provide a glimpse into the exercise of power within the normally closed world of the Vatican's highest levels.
"One way to understand this situation is to think of the Vatican as a medieval or Renaissance court," says Father John Wauck, an American priest with the Opus Dei movement and a former student of Renaissance history. It is a world in which one person, the pope, makes the important decisions and people jockey for the ear of that one person.
The scandal has strained some of the odd contradictions of the Vatican: it is the smallest independent nation in the world, with a territory of 109 acres and a population of more than 800 people, and yet it is nexus of a transnational Church present in virtually every nation, with an estimated 1.2 billion adherents. It is thus simultaneously one of the largest and most important entities in the world and one of the smallest.
But is a tiny medieval court capable of governing an institution of such great scope and complexity in the current age? "I wouldn't bet against it," Father Wauck said. "Find me another institution that has lasted 2,000 years."
The Vati-leaks scandal has accentuated the already serious problem of the chasm between the Church and its people, between the hierarchy composed almost exclusively of elderly white men in their 60s and 70s living in the isolation within the Vatican walls and the 1 billion Catholics in the world contending with much more basic, day-to-day problems of life and of faith.
The anxiety in the Vatican in the wake of Vati-leaks is palpable. One interview subject insisted that I remove my computer and my tape recorder from his office before we began talking for fear, I suppose, of being surreptitiously recorded. Another source insisted on the phone that he knew nothing about Vati-leaks, but agreed to see me if we might discuss other topics -- then, as soon as we sat down, he launched into a highly knowledgeable discussion of the scandal. There are rumors that Vatican security -- after all of these embarrassing revelations -- is at an all-time high. People are nervous about communicating anything of substance on the phone or through email. "Remember, you can't quote me by name!" one priest told me. "If you do, they'd send me to Central Africa tomorrow!"
Although there is much we still don't know about Vati-leaks, several things are already quite clear. Among the likely speakers at the trial are high Church officials who testified for and against Gabriele, who in the indictment papers are identified simply as X or Y. The court proceedings should give us a look at the inside workings of the papal court in a trial that appears to be without precedent at the Vatican. "The Vatican tribunal is open and has handled other cases, a small theft or something, but nothing of this kind that I'm aware of," Lombardi told me in a phone interview in September. The tribunal is likely to deal in a circumscribed fashion with the legal position of Paolo Gabriele. But the mere fact of a public trial is an expression of the Vatican's desire to show its new spirit of openness. As for showing the inner workings of the Vatican itself, the documents may tell us much more.
No one disputes the authenticity of the documents themselves. No one I spoke with believes that the butler acted principally on his own initiative. And no one believes that he was simply being bribed or manipulated by members of the press into stealing documents. If the press had been controlling this operation, you would expect lots of juicy details about the pope and his personal life: his favorite TV programs, whether or not he falls asleep in meetings or has to wear adult diapers at night. "But there is none of this among the documents released, in fact nothing against the pope at all," one priest told me. "This suggests that Paolo Gabriele did not think he was acting against the pope, to whom he is very attached. The documents released were almost certainly chosen by someone -- or a group of people -- highly knowledgeable within the church, for they all pertain to church policy." Gianluigi Nuzzi, the principal journalist who broke the story in Sua Santità, insists that he spoke with several Vatican officials, not merely one, and that it was they, not he, who took the initiative. The other journalist who has published the most leaked documents, Marco Lillo of the daily newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano (The Daily Fact), told me the same thing.
The Vatican in its indictment chose to cast some doubt on this idealistic motivation. The documents revealed that Gabriele had allegedly misappropriated some expensive gifts offered to the pope: a Renaissance translation of Virgil's Aeneid, a gold nugget, and a check for 100,000 euros, which, because it was made out to His Holiness the Pope, would have been impossible for him to cash or deposit. Gabriele acknowledged taking them but says he was planning on giving them back. The indictment also summarized the results of two psychiatric examinations. The court psychiatrists found Gabriele sound of mind and able to stand trial, but one of them found elements of "grandiosity" and "paranoia." Gabriele himself admitted having a flair for "intelligence" work, suggesting he may be a bit of a Walter Mitty, enjoying the spy craft of Vati-leaks. The decision to include this material in a document distributed to the public implies a desire on the Vatican's part to paint this as a case of individual pathology.
Commenting on the investigation, Greg Burke, the new communications director, insisted that Vati-leaks, "is not a cancer. It's an injured toe that will heal. The body is healthy."
* * *
But if the pope's butler is the toe, there is clearly much more to this scandal.
Seen as a whole, the Vati-leaks documents have a common denominator: they describe a series of failed efforts at cleaning up aspects of Church life -- the finances of Vatican City, the Vatican Bank, and relations with Italian politics. And precisely because the leakers had lost an internal power struggle, they appear to have released the documentation of their struggle as their only weapon left, like the parting shot of a retreating army.
The principal target of the leakers is the current Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who is seen by his critics as concentrating too much power in his own hands and of not using it wisely or well.
"There is no room for internal criticism or debate, all power is concentrated in a single place," one letter to the pope states. "In various positions, people are nominated to positions where they play the contradictory role of both supervisor and those being supervised ... One sees the demoralization of honest, dedicated officials who are genuinely attached to the Church, leading one to believe that the Pope is not aware of what is happening."
Bertone's supporters insist that this moralizing language masks a naked power grab, the resistance of members of the Vatican old guard, composed mainly of the diplomatic corps, against the encroachment of outsiders -- the real reformers, Benedict and Bertone himself.
Traditionally, the high levels of the Vatican bureaucracy are manned by members of the Church's diplomatic corps, generally graduates of the elite Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (Pontificia Academia Ecclesiastica) in Rome. It is like the Vatican's foreign service, and rather than becoming parish priests its graduates train to work within the Vatican itself. "These men chose a career, and they regard the Vatican as theirs," one source very close to Bertone told me.
Although he spent 25 years in Rome as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was something of an outsider in the Roman curia, of which he is not particularly fond. Bertone is also a former academic, a longtime professor of Canon Law who was Ratzinger's trusted deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "They are personally quite close," one source says. "Bertone was with Ratzinger when his sister was sick and dying, and helped out in all sorts of ways from being a friend to doing the dishes."
This pope is a scholar, a rather timid and solitary man, who doesn't see that many people and is not that involved in the day-to-day management of the Church. Karol Wojtyla, at least before he got sick, was an extremely sociable person. "He always had six people at lunch, another six at dinner," one source told me. "He met with bishops, Cardinals, papal nunzios; he had a feel for the pulse within the Church." Benedict is more likely to have dinner alone with someone like Wojciech Giertych, a Polish-English Dominican priest, who is the official Vatican theologian. As a former professor of theology, Ratzinger much prefers discussing theology to daily Vatican business.
"The pope does not meet with the members of his government -- the equivalent of his cabinet -- but twice a year," said one ecclesiastical source. "Can you imagine a president who only held cabinet meetings twice a year? One reason for all this letter-writing and all this leaking is that there are not normal channels of communication." The pope has traveled much less than his predecessor and focused on writing and publishing books.
Many of the documents that have been leaked are direct appeals to the pope from high-level figures within the Church and attempts to buck the authority of Bertone, who began traveling widely overseas, acting almost like a surrogate for the pope. The secretary of state was generally someone who stayed in Rome and made the machinery of the Vatican administration run. So when things went badly, many in the Church would blame Bertone. Nor did Bertone endear himself to other Italian cardinals when he arrogated for himself the lead role in managing the Vatican's relationship with Italian politics, something that has traditionally been handled by the Italian Conference of Bishops.
Bertone is particularly close to Gianni Letta, the right-hand man of Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister from 2008 until last November and for much of the past 18 years.
The Church's close association with Berlusconi became a source of increasing tension as details began to emerge about his private life: his separation from his (second) wife in 2009, stories of bunga bunga orgies involving professional escorts and teenage girls, and, finally, a criminal prosecution for frequenting an alleged underage prostitute. He denies any wrongdoing, and the trial is pending.
The Church has been in a tricky position. On the one hand, Berlusconi could hardly seem a less suitable partner: a twice-divorced self-described playboy who has promoted through his private television stations a culture of pure materialism and erotic titillation -- the antithesis of everything the Church stands for. And yet, as the leader of a center-right government, Berlusconi has given the Church almost everything it has asked for on a legislative level: increased support for private religious schools even as public school budgets are cut, continued tax breaks on the Church's non-religious property, some of the most restrictive legislation in Europe on issues like artificial insemination, adoption and stem cell research, fierce opposition to living wills, end-of-life procedures and gay marriage.
As long as Berlusconi kept his private life private, the Church was prepared to close its eyes and hold its nose. But when the lurid details spilled out into the public arena, it became increasingly difficult to ignore. A split appeared to develop between the Conference of Bishops, who are closer to parishioners, and the leaders walled off in the Vatican, who were reluctant to abandon a political ally who had delivered so much in recent years.
The editor of the Conference of Bishop's daily newspaper, L'Avvenire, a man named Dino Boffo, became one of the few voices in the Church to speak out, criticizing Berlusconi's unbecoming conduct in a series of stinging editorials. Shortly afterward, Boffo found himself the object of a vicious attack by the Berlusconi family newspaper, Il Giornale, which outed him as gay and reported that he had been forced to plead guilty in a sexual harassment suit. Under the pressure of a massive press campaign, Boffo resigned.
This story would have simply been another chapter in the sleazy history of the Berlusconi media. But what came out demonstrates how tangled relations have become between the Vatican and Italian media. One of the two documents that Il Giornale published -- the supposed police file about Boffo's sexual orientation -- turned out to be a fake. And Boffo disputes the charge. In defending his decision to publish, the editor of the paper, Vittorio Feltri, insisted that he had received the dossier from high-level sources inside the Church itself. And that he had consulted with "a personality in the Church whom one must trust because of his institutional role."
In the documents published in Nuzzi's book, Boffo makes clear in a series of letters to the pope's secretary that he blames Bertone and the editor in chief of the Vatican daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano for the leak of the false documents. Boffo quotes Berlusconi's chief spokesman telling journalists off-the-record, "We did Bertone a favor." The idea, according to the letters, was a desire on Bertone's part to weaken the position of the Conference of Italian Bishops, reassert his own control over the Vatican's management of Italian politics, and punish the Conference for daring to criticize Berlusconi in their newspaper.
Along with a full telling of the Boffo affair, His Holiness documents a furious power struggle over the management and finances of the Vatican City itself.
The Vati-leaks crisis in fact began last January, when an Italian TV program called The Untouchables revealed the contents of a set of letters written by a powerful Vatican official, Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò, denouncing corruption in the affairs of the Vatican itself. In 2009, Viganò took over the job of overseeing the expenses and income of the small Vatican state, known in Italian as the governatorato, with a budget of over $300 million a year, which involves everything from the considerable income of the Vatican Museums to maintaining the enormous physical plant of the Vatican palace and gardens to dealing with suppliers and contractors.
Viganò, who has a reputation as a rigorous manager, inherited a Vatican administration operating at a loss. By cutting costs and eliminating what he called "obvious situations of corruption," he produced a surplus within a year.
Despite -- or perhaps because of -- his successful cost-cutting measures, Viganò was called to a meeting with Bertone, who informed Viganò that he was being removed from his post and sent as papal envoy to Washington. Viganò then took the quite exceptional step of trying to go around the secretary of state and directly to the pope himself, trying to reverse the decision of his own order of transfer. "Holy Father, my transfer right now would provoke much disorientation and discouragement in those who have believed it was possible to clean up so many situations of corruption and abuse of power that have been rooted in the management of so many departments," Viganò wrote to the pope on March 27, 2011.
One of the things that set him off was a press campaign, again appearing in the Berlusconi family newspaper, Il Giornale, which preceded his defenestration. As resistance to his management grew inside the Vatican, a series of unsigned articles began to appear in the paper, clearly written, in Viganò's view, by someone with intimate knowledge of the Vatican. Viganò suspected that it was someone close to Bertone. Whatever the case, someone inside the Vatican was feeding stories to ll Giornale to grease Viganò's fall from power, just as they had in the Boffo affair.
What is common to these episodes is that Vatican leaking did not start or end with the Vati-leaks scandal. The furious letter-writing activity of both Boffo and Viganò was stimulated by what they perceived to be well-placed leaks from within the Vatican leadership itself. Leaking has become the weapon of choice in contemporary Vatican warfare.
* * *
Anonymous letters, damaging dossiers, and poison penmanship are old staples of Vatican intrigue. The big difference is that all this material was once kept rigorously private -- its power derived from its mere existence and the potential threat of being made public. In the 1930s, for example, the Vatican was trying to restrict the activities of Padre Pio, a monk from Puglia who claimed to have received the stigmata and who was developing a cult following, all of which Church authorities viewed with extreme suspicion. After the Vatican ruled that Padre Pio could no longer perform mass in public and ordered that he be transferred to a distant mountain retreat, followers of the Pugliese monk cooked up a meaty dossier that contained the alleged sexual and moral peccadillos of the region's clergy. A member of Pio's inner circle printed up copies of the dossier and brought them to a meeting at the Vatican. The result of the encounter was the Vatican bought up all copies of the dossier and lightened the restrictions on the suspect friar with the stigmata, who is now one of the Church's leading saints.
That was an example of the old way of doings things at the Vatican: avoiding scandal at all cost and keeping everything under the cloak of silence. Silence suited the Church perfectly. In the case of Padre Pio, it allowed the Church maximum flexibility. The Vatican could continue to assemble evidence against him should they later need to eliminate him while leaving open the option -- because the battle had remained private -- of later embracing Pio as a revered saint, as the Church ultimately decided to do. The contemporary world doesn't permit this. The scabrous details of the struggle between the Vatican and Pio would probably have been all over the Internet in no time.
The traditional aversion to scandal at all cost was notoriously -- and disastrously -- at work throughout the decades in which the pedophile priest scandal built and built. Starting in the 1980s, the reaction of Church officials was uniformly and appallingly similar in every corner of the planet -- whether in Louisiana, Ireland, Belgium, Australia, Austria, Malta, Phoenix, Boston or Los Angeles: deny there was a problem, blame the victims, transfer the perpetrators, and try to keep everyone quiet. When the victims sued, or the perpetrators threatened to make trouble, the strategy was pay them off and seal the court records. I remember a friend of mine who worked at the Vatican telling me in the early 1990's: "You wouldn't believe the amounts of money the Church is spending to settle these cases!" If that was well known to my friend, a middle-level functionary, it was well known to anyone in the Vatican hierarchy who cared to know. In the U.S., the costs were reaching the hundreds of millions and would eventually surpass $2 billion. Of course, if the Church had dealt honestly with the problem then, it might have limited the impact of the scandal and the cost of litigation -- not to mention the seemingly overlooked goal of protecting children left at risk and healing those already harmed.
The lesson of both the pedophilia scandal and Vati-leaks is that the Church can no longer control information about itself. In the past, when police arrested priests who were acting out, they generally took the matter to the local bishop, and newspapers often chose, out of deference, not to write about it. Changes in public opinion -- anger and outrage over wrongdoing in the Church -- and in information technology make it impossible to keep the lid on scandal.
There is much the Church can and has begun to do in this direction: adopting international banking standards; providing more information about internal finances; instituting better procedures for investigating and punishing wrongdoing among priests and nuns.
But transparency is not as easy a matter for the Catholic Church as it might be for secular organizations. A corporation or branch of government can actually gain in public legitimacy and consensus through greater transparency, issuing detailed data about their operations and finances, publishing the minutes of their meetings, and instituting freedom of information laws. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant," Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said of corruption. But there is a limited amount of sunshine the Vatican can allow into its walls without violating its very nature. Absolute monarchies are willfully opaque and mysterious; they are an archaic and charismatic form of leadership that derive much of their power from their mystery, unapproachability, and unknowability. In democracies, we expect national leaders to issue exhaustive medical and financial records. In Thailand -- one of the last monarchies with genuine power -- anyone can be prosecuted for criticizing the king or disclosing information about his health or finances.
The pope -- with his golden mitre and ermine-lined robes sitting upon a throne -- is part and parcel of this tradition. Although human, the pope is thought to have been filled with the Holy Spirit on his election and to become infallible (at least in some things). The Catholic tradition rests heavily on the appeal of mystery. The priest was traditionally a special, higher being, celibate and richly dressed in ancient garb. He celebrated mass with his back to the congregation, swinging urns of incense and repeating the liturgy in an ancient, incomprehensible tongue, Latin, which served as a kind of magic incantation. The holy communion that ends each mass is itself a kind miracle -- it is not a symbolic reenactment of the last supper but the wafer and wine that the priest serves to his humble parishioners is supposed to be, quite literally, the body and the blood of Christ. Too much transparency -- the equivalent of placing a Webcam on the Pope and his cardinals -- would strip away layers of mystery. It would be like pulling away the curtain at the end of The Wizard of Oz, revealing that the awe-inspiring figure we first see in Oz's throne room is nothing but a frail and highly fallible old man.
"The problem is that journalists only pay attention to the tiny part of the Church that is in the Vatican and ignore the tens of thousands of priests and nuns out in the world doing good work," the pope's spokesman, Father Lombardi, said with a resigned air. And it is quite true. Over the years, I have met extraordinary men and women who have sincerely given their lives to help others: feeding the poor and healing the sick. Just before coming to Rome, I visited a parish on the periphery of Florence, a neglected poor part of the city with bleak public housing projects, few services, and a largely immigrant population. But it has an extremely vital church -- an inexpensive prefab structure that looks like a warehouse building or an airplane hangar built in the hot and dusty empty lot between two high-rise public-housing buildings.
The priest, Alessandro Santoro, is trying to translate the life of Christ into contemporary terms: he lives in a small apartment in public housing like his parishioners, and he has a job doing manual labor (like his parishioners) on top of his priestly duties. Yet he has created an extremely dynamic parish church that hums with activity, a preschool and Sunday school, language classes for immigrants, a shop for products made by his parishioners and even a small publishing house. Santoro has created a significant microfinance project for his community, gathering some 160,000 euros in charitable contributions that can then be used as interest-free loans to people in the community. The lenders can withdraw their money when they need or want it but in the meanwhile the money is made available to others in the community. "So far we have a perfect record of 190 loans repaid on time for a total of 400,000 euros," Santoro explained. The visit was a refreshing contrast with the world of power and money conjured up by Vati-leaks: an example of someone trying (apparently with success) to put Christian principles to work in life.
But it is impossible to ignore the Vatican hierarchy, just as Father Alessandro has been unable to ignore it. In 2009, he was removed from his position in Florence when he celebrated the marriage of two parishioners, one of whom was a transsexual. "This person was born a man but had a sex change operation 30 years earlier in England years before it was possible in Italy," Santoro told me. "She was registered as a woman according to Italian law, and the couple had been legally married in Italy. They were good members of our congregation, and when they asked to be married in the Church, I didn't see how, in good conscience, I could say no." Almost immediately, Santoro was sent off for several months of reflection and penitence. In the meanwhile, the congregation rebelled and refused to cooperate with Santoro's replacement. After a standoff lasting nearly a year, Santoro refused to repudiate his actions but the bishop restored him to his post amid admonitions not to repeat his error. Santoro is delighted to be back with his old parish but lives a bit on edge in tension with his bishop.
"The Church has a single model of family that it considers acceptable: husband, wife and children. But 80 percent of my parishioners live in violation of Church doctrine," Santoro explains. "They are divorced, unmarried couples that live together, gay couples, children with different fathers. But they are my people, my family. I love them and I have no intention of treating them any differently from the rest of the congregation ... There is a terrible distance between what the Church preaches and the real lives of people. The Church has to reduce this distance or die."
The call for transparency goes hand in hand with a desire for greater dialogue between the community of believers and the Church hierarchy. The Internet world is a world of fragmented authority, of transparency, and one in which 3 billion users expect to participate and have their say. The Catholic Church is a top-down organization run from Rome with an unquestioned authority at its head. "Roma locuta, causa finita," "Rome has spoken, the case is closed," is a phrase often attributed to Saint Augustine, indicating that the word from Saint Peter's settles every argument.
The Vatican leadership is aware of this problem, but also very much believes that a Church that compromises too much to suit public opinion will weaken its own foundations. In a recent interview explaining the need to crack down on the main association of American nuns, The Leadership Conference of Women Religious [LCWR], Cardinal William Levada (Ratzinger's successor as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), said: "Too many people crossing the LCWR screen, who are supposedly representing the Catholic Church, aren't representing the church with any reasonable sense of product identity."
But holding the line on strict orthodoxy, as John Paul II and Benedict XVI have tried to do, has not reversed the negative trends for the Church: the dwindling number of aging priests and nuns, lower attendance at mass, and a growing majority of believers in the U.S. and Europe who are not convinced by the Church's teachings on contraception, divorce, premarital sex, the ordination of women, married priests, and gay marriage. A recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that lapsed Catholics are now the third-largest denomination in the U.S. after practicing Catholics and Baptists. (Overall numbers are up because of immigration from Latin America, and in the rest of world because of population growth in the developing world. But numbers and enthusiasm in the U.S. and Europe are low.) "Don't you think the leadership knows that its doctrines on birth control, divorce, homosexuality are out of step with the life that hundreds of millions of Catholics lead?" one Bertone supporter I spoke with told me. "The pope is trying to change things, but he has to move slowly. The times for an ancient institution like the Church are necessarily slow."
On the one hand, Pope Benedict has reinforced forms of traditional liturgy: relaxing the prohibitions on performing Latin masses, and reviving the papal vestments and pageantry that had fallen out of use. At the same time, he shows signs of flexibility and gentleness that belie his old nickname as "God's Rottweiler." In fact, he quietly undid one of Pope John Paul II's strictest -- and cruelest -- initiatives: refusing to let priests who have decided to marry be released of their priestly vows and remain members of the Church in good standing. Benedict allowed the use of condoms by male prostitutes in Africa in order to limit the spread of AIDS -- 30 years after the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, yes, but a big concession for a pope known for his orthodoxy. On a visit to Milan this summer, shortly after the Vati-leaks scandal hit its peak, Benedict went out of his way to reach out to divorced Catholics, calling their condition "one of the great causes of suffering for the Church today, and we do not have simple solutions." He insisted, however, that the Church "must do everything possible so that such people feel loved and accepted, that they are not 'outsiders' even if they cannot receive absolution and the Eucharist."
What does appear to be the case is that, paradoxically, the Vati-leaks scandal appears to have energized the pope and the Vatican leadership. The pope has broken out of his solitude, and appears to be taking a more active role in important Vatican business. He has reached out to cardinals from other parts of the world in a clear sign that he does not intend to remain prisoner of the Roman curia. The very fact of a public trial on such a delicate matter -- quite apart from what its proceedings may reveal -- reflects a newfound commitment at the Vatican to transparency.
There are two ways that the Catholic Church can interpret its mandate to become more open. One is a more limited form of transparency, seeing it essentially as a matter of better communication: providing information more quickly and readily so as to better shape the way the Church's story is told. A second and more radical way of thinking of transparency would be to embrace the bottom-up nature of the Internet world, to encourage greater internal democracy and engage in dialogue with the community of believers.
While the Vatican has clearly begun to adopt the first course, it is very unlikely to embrace the second and more expansive view of transparency, disappointing its liberal critics and followers. The retired Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who died in late August, left an interview from his deathbed as a kind of last testament to the Church. It was a surprisingly frank call for radical change. "We need to ask ourselves whether people are listening to the Church's teachings on sexual matters. Is the Church an authority in this or only a kind of media caricature? ...The Church is 200 years behind. Why doesn't it shake itself off? Are we afraid? Why fear instead of courage?"
And yet. The fact that Martini found the courage to speak so candidly only posthumously demonstrates that substantive dialogue within the Church is still a difficult, slow-moving proposition. As the current trial illustrates, the Church's traditional pace of change does not suit it to the age of the Internet.



Bangladesh: Muslims Attack Buddhist Temples, Homes Over Quran Facebook Photo


By (AP, September 30, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38205/


Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh - Thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims set fire to at least 10 Buddhist temples and 40 homes in anger over a Facebook photo of a burned Quran before authorities restored order.
The situation was under control Sunday afternoon after extra security officers were deployed and the government banned public gatherings in the troubled areas near the southern border with Myanmar, said Nojibul Islam, a police chief in the coastal district of Cox's Bazar.
He said at least 20 people were injured in the attacks that started late Saturday after a photo of a burned copy of the Muslim holy book was posted on Facebook. The rioters blamed the photo on a local Buddhist boy, though it was not immediately clear if he actually posted the photo.
Bangladesh's popular English-language Daily Star newspaper quoted the boy as saying that the photo was mistakenly tagged on his Facebook profile. The newspaper reported that soon after the violence started, the boy's Facebook account was closed and police escorted him and his mother to safety.
Joinul Bari, chief government administrator in Cox's Bazar district, said authorities detained the boy's parents and were investigating.
Buddhists make up less than 1 percent of Muslim-majority Bangladesh's 150 million people.
The Bangladeshi violence follows protests that erupted in Muslim countries over the past month after a low-budget film, "Innocence of Muslims," produced by a U.S. citizen denigrated the Prophet Muhammad by portraying Islam's holiest figure as a fraud, womanizer and child molester.
Some two dozen demonstrators have been killed in protests that attacked symbols of U.S. and the West, including diplomatic compounds.



Six Supreme Court justices attend Red Mass


By Dan Merica ("CNN," September 30, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38202/


Washington, USA - Six of the nine Supreme Court justices attended the annual Red Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington on Sunday. The event’s speakers spoke about using faith in decision-making but largely stayed away from the controversial issues the court will face in the coming months.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Elena Kagan all attended the 60th annual Mass. This was Kagan’s first Red Mass.
Having six justices in attendance ties a record set in 2009. The only justices to not attend this year were Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito, both of whom are Catholic, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is Jewish. Kagan and Breyer, both of whom were in attendance, are also Jewish.
The annual Mass is an event put on by the Archdiocese of Washington and the John Carroll Society and aims to bring people together to pray for the members of the judiciary before the court begins hearing cases each year. It’s called the Red Mass because of the color of the garment worn by clergy.
In the past, presidents, vice presidents and many members of Congress and the judiciary have attended the event.
Timothy P. Broglio, archbishop for members of the U.S. military, delivered this year’s homily, expressing a commitment to the poor and to education while also strongly emphasizing the idea that people should strive to live their faith and become "instruments of a new evangelization."
"The faith we hold in our hearts must motivate the decisions, the words and the commitment of our everyday existence," said Broglio. "Our society must also rest on stable, clear foundations. Otherwise, we run the risk of sinking into the mire of one popular soundbite after another."
Speaking about the need to shed clearer light on the "joy and renewed enthusiasm" of the church, Broglio stressed the idea of living one’s faith outside of church and in everyday life.
"We are instruments in the hands of the Lord, and so we pray to be ever open to his presence," said Broglio. "The message is filled with hope: not only for eternal life, but also for the graces necessary so that our lives are truly noble of God and of the vocation he has given us."
While the Red Mass follows the traditional structure of a Catholic service, it also includes a few additions. In particular, the congregants sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” and “America the Beautiful” at the start and end of the Mass.
Others attending the event included Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood; Virginia attorney general and gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli; and U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Dan Rooney.
The court’s current religious makeup - six Catholics and three Jews -– marks the first time there has been no Protestant justice on the highest court in the land. In 2010, Kagan replaced Justice John Paul Stevens, who was the lone Protestant at the time of his retirement. This is unique for a country in which every president has been Protestant except for John F. Kennedy, a Catholic.
The mix of religion and government at the Red Mass has raised some eyebrows in the past.
Ginsburg no longer attends the Mass because she said she grew tired of being lectured by Catholic officials.
“I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion,” Ginsburg said in the book “Star of David: Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish.” “Even the Scalias - although they’re much of that persuasion –- were embarrassed for me.”
Critics of the service find the attendance of leading decision-makers to be inappropriate.
“There is one purpose to have this. It is to make clear … just what the church hierarchy feels about some of the very issues that are to come before the court,” said Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “That is just wrong. And it is wrong for members to go -– not illegal –- but wrong for the archdiocese to promote and encourage this event.”
While previous Masses have included political references –- in 2009, American Cardinal Daniel DiNardo made an unspecified reference to the rights of the unborn –- this year’s Mass was largely void of any hot-button political issues that the court might be addressing, like affirmative action, same-sex marriage, voting rights or abortion laws.
The origins of the Red Mass date back to early Catholic times in cities like Rome, Paris and London. In Paris, La Sainte Chappelle was built and designated as a chapel specifically for Red Mass. In the United States, the tradition began in New York City in 1928, when a group of Catholic lawyers gathered in St. Andrew’s Cathedral.



Saturday, September 29, 2012

Pew Forum Report Details Controversies Surrounding Mosques And Islamic Centers In The U.S.


By Dominique Mosbergen ("Huffington Post," September 27, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38195/


In 2010, a fierce national debate erupted after plans to erect an Islamic community center two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center were announced.
While the plans provoked protests from those who said it would be "a slap in the face" to build a Muslim institution so close to where thousands were killed by Islamic radicals, others rallied around the community center's development, citing freedom of religion.
The community center's development in lower Manhattan has been one of the most publicly debated controversies regarding religious space in recent memory. However, a new report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals that the Manhattan community center is neither the first nor the last case of such a controversy.
On Thursday, Mother Jones published an article entitled "Americans Really Don't Like Mosques," in which the new Pew Forum report is cited. The independent news organization writes:
The Pew Forum...has a great new interactive feature up today on the boom in mosque construction in the United States since 2000 -- and the corresponding boomlet in organized backlash to mosque construction. It's not just lower Manhattan -- Pew found 53 different projects that faced resistance from their respective communities.
Regarding the 53 controversial cases cited in the report, the research center notes:
In many cases, the opposition has centered on neighbors’ concerns about traffic, noise, parking and property values -- the same objections that often greet churches and other houses of worship as well as commercial construction projects. In some communities, however, opponents of mosques also have cited fears about Islam, sharia law and terrorism.
Examples include the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley in California (which is now open) and the Masjid Muhammad Islamic Center in Michigan (whose proposal was unanimously rejected by a city planning commission).
It's important to note that the research center also pointed out that "while the map shows only projects that have met resistance, many mosques and Islamic centers have been built in recent years with little or no opposition."



Reform Rabbi Gilad Kariv on the privatization of Jewish identity and the tycoons of religion


By Ayelet Shani ("Haaretz," September 27, 2012)

Extracted from http://wwrn.org/articles/38194/


Talking to: Rabbi Gilad Kariv, 39, attorney and executive director of the Movement for Progressive Judaism. Married and father of three. Lives in Ramat Gan. When: Monday, 11 A.M. Where: In his office at Beit Daniel, Tel Aviv.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz had a harsh saying about you Reform Jews. He said: “It’s very nice and all, but it’s not religion.”
Leibowitz is my teacher and mentor, and I respect his views in many areas, but certainly not in the area of religion. In Leibowitz’s Judaism, God is in the center and then − and this is something he said explicitly − there is no question of moral judgment. The human being does something not because it is the right thing to do from a humane point of view, but because it is the right thing in terms of God’s will. Now Leibowitz can say what he likes, but the Torah is filled with commands to kill the other because of his otherness. That’s it. In every other sense, Leibowitz was a prophet for us all, and it’s a shame that, as is always the way with prophets, his prophecy remained a voice crying in the wilderness, certainly in regard to the occupation. There’s a marvelous essay by Ahad Ha’am called ‘Priest and Prophet.’ We are a society that produces priests, not prophets. We as a society move between falling in love and being heartbroken, between falling in love and betrayal. We crown kings and then pull the chair out from under them.
Kind of like a soap opera.
Yes. There’s a collapse of spirit, there aren’t enough prophets. To me, Judaism is not some magic solution. I believe in the importance of Reform Judaism, because in Israel there is a camp that is raping Judaism. And there’s no point in using the prettified language of reconciliation here. There is a direct connection between the book “Torah Hamelech” and the recent lynch in Jerusalem. To get a group of youths to carry out such an attack on an Arab youth, it takes a good few years of dehumanization of the Arab. We started the month of Elul with a Molotov cocktail that burned an Arab family in the territories, and with an Arab young man lying in intensive care as a result of a pogrom.
The threshold is going up. All the time.
And here there is a planned, orchestrated, ideological effort that relies entirely on the distorted structuring of relations between religion and state in Israel, which gives these rabbis immunity, and budgets, and public positions and status. There is a grand project of dehumanization of whoever is not a Jew.
And of the other in general.
The Arab is number one, although now he has competition for that ranking − from the migrant worker. While we’re sitting here in this air-conditioned office, refugees and their little children are in tents in Ketziot.
Like the concentration camps Leibowitz prophesied.
Yes. There is also a detention facility where dozens of African youths have been sitting for many months because no framework was found for them. We’ve negated their humanity, we’ve removed them from the circle of human beings whom we must treat with dignity. And then this fellow − You know, I don’t want to use such words in talking about Eli Yishai ...
Feel free.
So this immoral man, on the day of the first expulsion flight to South Sudan, goes to Ben-Gurion Airport, takes the hands of refugees and waves them in a victory sign. And I said to myself − you know, there’s a custom at the Seder, that when you recite the 10 plagues you dip your finger in wine and take out some drops.
And Abrabanel, who personally experienced the expulsion from Spain, and went from the heights of being an advisor to the king to the low of being a refugee, said that we do this to show that the cup of happiness is not full. That your redemption came at the cost of their troubles. This is also why on the seventh day of Passover we don’t say the full Hallel prayer, because the Egyptians drowned in the sea on that day. And then this is what this representative of Judaism does.
Instead of sitting in sackcloth and fasting on the day of the expulsion and saying, “I think, as a leader, as a politician, that this is the right thing to do, but I also understand the moral cost and therefore I am fasting on this day.” And he’s fond of fast days, this minister is.
Maybe he doesn’t understand the moral cost.
We let him become Interior Minister and we cannot disavow all responsibility. How do you train your soul so that you do not become cruel? You have to understand that there is a price that you pay for this decision. Now the question is, what do you do with this price? Do you give it a place so that the next time you don’t act like an automaton? Within a few months, Israeli society, this society of refugees, whose entire DNA should be sensitive to this story, became uncaring and indifferent. A consequence of years of dehumanization of the other. Years of giving preference to every Jewish Israeli who speaks a chauvinistic and aggressive language, of “You ‏(God‏) chose us,” without anything about man having been created in God’s image. Where were Jerusalem’s Orthodox rabbis after the lynch? The ones that think we need to remain in the territories. They should be going out to Zion Square, sitting there on the ground and tearing their clothes.
The secular, too, fit the bill here as “the other.”
Of course. Look what Ovadia Yosef said, about how judges are evil and unfit to serve as witnesses. And on Sukkot, a parade of Israeli officials, including the president and the prime minister, will go to wish this man a happy holiday. And don’t let anyone tell me that it’s just a matter of political interests. This parade of groveling to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is a deep cultural matter, and one result is the parade of tycoons to the X-ray Rabbi and to Rabbi Pinto and all of those. Anyone who thinks this is just a political dance before Shas’ 11 Knesset seats is mistaken.
So what it is about?
It’s about the self-negation of Israeli secularism, or Israeli liberalism, before what they perceive as something more authentic, something deeper. And in this sense a terrible process has occurred in the State of Israel.
Because of the identification of the state with religion? We feel guilty about our secularism?
Because we’ve privatized Jewish identity and put it in the hands of the tycoons of religion, such as Ovadia Yosef. There’s the famous story about the meeting between Ben-Gurion and the Chazon Ish, where the Chazon Ish said: ‘It is known that when there is a narrow bridge, and on one side there is a full wagon and on the other side an empty wagon, the empty wagon will let the full wagon pass.’ I’ve always thought that this was a somewhat problematic allegory, because chances are that if the bridge is going to collapse it will collapse with the full wagon on it. These visits to Ovadia Yosef reflect an adoption of the allegory of the full wagon and empty wagon by Israeli secularism, which deep down feels that it is an empty wagon. To me, any politician who makes a pilgrimage this Sukkot to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is committing an act that disqualifies him from leading the public.
You think that Shimon Peres, say, doesn’t get this? And yet he goes.
There’s something deeper here. Because of this collapse of spirit in the democratic and liberal camp, with our almost built-in difficulty in producing prophets, in producing philosophers, in producing ideologues, I think that there is self-negation. Just look at the superlatives that were heaped upon Rabbi Elyashiv after his death. A person who throughout his leadership showed a fierce hatred and deep scorn for all that you represent. What was this unbelievable fawning all about, as if he represents some ancient truth, some great source of wisdom? A person who preached hatred his entire life.
I wonder how much the alienation of post-modern life plays a part in this.
It certainly plays a part. Israeli secularism gazes with admiration upon this human stream of 100,000 people marching after the coffin of Rabbi Elyashiv. But this is 100,000 men. They won’t follow a woman’s coffin this way. So remember that this option is an oppressive option.
How did we get to the point where our wagon is empty?
The wagon is empty because it threw things off, not because it is empty by its very nature. The non-Orthodox side of the Zionist enterprise was a wagon filled with pioneering and with Jewish creativity and sharp Hebrew, and a full wagon in terms of vision and a sense of mission to establish a model society here.
So what is the process? Is the dilution and weakening because of divisiveness, or did it happen on its own?
If you’re an Orthodox believer, then what sustains this framework is the obligation that you follow. But if you live in a democratic, liberal world whose motto is: “Make choices and manage your choices according to what is good for you,” then there is a built-in tension between that which connects and that which divides. Between the material and the intellectual or ethical. Materialism is not a dirty word, but in this tension between the individual and the material on the one hand, and the communal and the ethical on the other, we are at the end of an age in which the material and the individual are triumphing.
Over everything.
The tragedy of Israeli Judaism is the Orthodox monopoly. But it can’t be blamed for everything. The sacrifice of a deep bond with Jewish culture is one that we make. And this causes two very serious things, in my view. One is that it makes our wagon less full. I am the first to think that it’s better to drive a wagon that has in it values of wisdom, critical thinking, equality. Our wagon is filled first of all with 52 percent of the Israeli public, which sits in the front seats and not in the back. Why are there mehadrin bus lines? Because 50 percent of ultra-Orthodox women go out to work. And so the ultra-Orthodox establishment tells them − okay, go to work, because someone has to earn a living, but on the way we’ll remind you where you really stand. Because, God forbid, as a result of your contact with secular people, the hierarchy that’s been imprinted in you might be upset. So there’s an attempt here to prevent a reaction. We non-Orthodox Israelis have to invest in loading up our wagon. Not only with Judaism but with other things. Look at our schools. What does the graduate of the state education system look like? Is this a renaissance man? Someone who has broad cultural knowledge?
Of course not.
So in the state-education system and the ultra-Orthodox education system, I don’t like what they fill the bookbag with, but the focus on values there is much more dramatic. If we don’t wake up, we’ll lose the battle.
You don’t think we’ve lost it already?
No.
You really are an optimistic Jew.
Yes. Yes, because I truly believe that wisdom and critical thinking and education and freedom of choice and self-fulfillment − that these are stronger forces in the end. I once talked about this with Amos Oz. The ultra-Orthodox world’s success is the secret of its collapse. The demographic growth, the political standing − these are what will make it impossible for the old ultra-Orthodox world to survive.
That’s the opposite of what is generally thought. Can you explain what you mean?
This thing is too big for the ultra-Orthodox control mechanisms, which kept the ultra-Orthodox behind the walls of the ghetto, to succeed.
Because too many mines have already been buried there.
Yes. The larger the population gets, the stronger and more sophisticated the control mechanisms need to be, even if they’re not governmental, even if they’re just psychological. This story is steadily crumbling. Much of the extremism that we’re seeing is a reaction, just as has always happened. No argument is as untrue and easy to refute than the one that says that until the modern age Judaism was monolithic and maintained a united front. Contrary to the Orthodox myth, it wasn’t Judaism’s stagnation that preserved it. Just the opposite − Judaism survived because this people had the ability to preserve a deep and vital and authentic connection to what we inherited from previous generations. In prayers, language, customs, lifestyle, beliefs, folklore, and at the same time to always be in a process of movement, of renewal, of change.
The wandering Jew.
Yes. The wandering Jew isn’t just someone who wandered from one land to another, but someone who knew how to move. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi wrote the Kuzari in Arabic. Maimonides wrote the Guide to the Perplexed in Arabic. [Martin] Buber, Rosenzweig − the most important books in Jewish philosophy in the modern age were not written only in Hebrew. Also Herzl’s “State of the Jews” and “Altneueland.” So this whole idea that something there is more authentic, more worthy, is our disaster, because we don’t see that our wagon is not filling up. The loss of prayer, for example, is a very sad thing. Leah Goldberg prayed, Yehuda Amichai prayed. I’m not blaming the secular parents − when the kid comes and says, they taught us about the siddur in school, then all the antennae that are on guard against missionaries and religious coercion suddenly shoot up. And rightly so, because this is what is happening in Israel. There is religious coercion, there is corruption of the religion.
The ones you say are corrupting religion would say that you are the one doing that.
True. But you know what we have to our credit? That we do not try to impose our way on others by force of law. We don’t claim that we have the truth and that others are sinners. We are ready to subject ourselves to critical thinking and to self-examination. Despite everything, I am optimistic because I think that what’s happening on the other side cannot endure.
I’d never thought about it that way.
Now the question is what do we do with this? Do we let the reactionary forces lead? There’s a lack of action. Gideon Sa’ar is considered to be a reasonably good Education Minister, right? But consider how throughout his whole tenure nothing has genuinely been done about the matter of the core curriculum. Last Sunday, 50,000 ultra-Orthodox pupils entered exempted schools that receive half their funding from the state and yet do not teach the core subjects at all. And because they receive half a budget, they sit in dilapidated and dangerous buildings, in conditions that none of us would want to see our children studying in. What have we done? We’ve put them in a trap of ignorance and poverty. And because there is no state-Haredi education today, the state-religious education system is becoming more extreme. Why aren’t the exempted schools being shut down? In the past three years, we’ve nearly doubled our number of communities. We’re not a large movement, but more and more Israelis are realizing that if we don’t become proactive, if we don’t retake command − in our egalitarian, open and critical-thinking way, then our wagon will not be full enough and the wagon coming from the opposite direction will just run us off the road.
How did a boy from north Tel Aviv grow up to be a rabbi?
I grew up in a secular family that voted Labor. My first political phase was sort of rightist, Orthodox. As a 12th-grader I used to correspond with Yosef Burg. There was a debate over who would be the right’s candidate for president. And I wrote to the Mafdal leader telling him to run for president.
Where did that come from?
Hard to say. For as long as I can remember, I’ve been very attracted to the traditional thing. For me, to go see my great-grandmother, who was ultra-Orthodox, in Jerusalem, was incredible. My grandfather and grandmother lived in Tzahala and we were with them every weekend. They were secular. I started going to synagogue alone, as early as second grade. I was the kid of the Orthodox synagogue in Tzahala, and I was happy there. Intellectually, emotionally, as part of the community.
Did you have social problems?
No, not at all. I did the whole popular thing − head of student council in elementary school and high school, young coordinator in the Scouts and head of the leadership council.
It’s like a mutant gene.
Yes. I grew up in a super-secular environment, a home that was never anti-religious, but where there was bread every Passover. My parents − until I started going − had never set foot in a synagogue. I started going to synagogue on my own, I started studying intensively. I remember going with my mother when I was in fourth grade and picking out Jewish books and then sitting and studying alone at home. I started eating kosher.
A double life.
Yes, that’s one of the arguments, that Reform Judaism is a Judaism of convenience. And I don’t understand where this bizarre idea comes from that religion has to equal suffering. What in our education about religion makes us think that religion has to be filled with agony and suffering?
That’s not exactly the question. The question is what is the essence of religion. What are we here for? Are we here to serve some lofty purpose, or is the lofty purpose supposed to serve us? Is this a kind of buffet Judaism where I can just pick and choose what pleases me?
I’m through apologizing. Whoever wants to call it buffet Judaism, be my guest. So yes, I do continually make a choice as to what I take on my plate. I dearly hope that my choice to be a member of a community, to be a man of faith; someone who studies and observes mitzvoth is not related only to what’s pleasant for me and serves needs that are very focused on the here and now, but to what I should do. To what the society around me should do.
Where does faith fit in to the story?
At the synagogue here upstairs, one of the walls is decorated with the verse from Micha − “Do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your Lord” ... In other words, the most meaningful outward expression of our Jewish life should be in
doing justice and acts of kindness. In these challenging times we live in, faith is something that is personal and intimate, and also something that involves questioning. I have a very hard time with people whose faith is followed by an exclamation mark. For me, faith is first of all the foundation upon which rests the recognition of man’s free will, of his obligation to be a moral person, to see the other.
How far does it go? Does God exist?
I’m a believing person. I believe that behind the word God there is something real. I can’t give you a whole neat two-hour lecture here about what God is. It is truly beyond my comprehension. But I feel God’s presence in the imperative for morality, for justice, for seeing the other, for acknowledging the equal value of every person.
Are you ready to acknowledge the possibility that God may not exist? What if I said to you − I want to join your community but I want you to know that I don’t think God exists. Would you be ready to accept me?
Yes. Absolutely. I have no problem praying in a community in which there are people who believe and people who don’t. People who believe with an exclamation point scare me more than people who say in a gentle way − I don’t believe.
Is there any red line for acceptance into this community?
The conditions for entry into this club is first of all the desire or the commitment to the Jewish people and to the future of Judaism. But there are other conditions, too. A racist person has no place in our community. You won’t find a Reform community that will decide to restore the mehitza ‏(divider‏) between men and women, or prohibit women from being called up to the Torah. It’s not that everything is permitted, just come on in.
Perhaps you’re an imaginary community, in certain ways?
No. We just believe in a communal life that, by choice, is less stringent than the traditional models. I’m telling you just the opposite − I want to be in a community where one person drives on Shabbat and another doesn’t. I think strength based on homogeneity is rotten to the core. Either it collapses in on itself or it constantly needs to swallow up more victims in order to justify itself.
How liberal are you? Would it be fine with you to officiate at your daughter’s wedding to another woman?
Yes. I marry same-sex couples.
Your daughter.
My daughter?
Yes.
Yes, yes.
Totally fine with it?
If I think it’s good for her, then yes. Strange as it may sound, the more challenging question as far as I’m concerned is what would happen if my daughter came to me and said that her true love was a non-Jew. That would be a more challenging question in terms of my liberalism.
And what would you do?
First of all, I would respect her choice. It would make me sad, because I am very dedicated to the continuity of the Jewish people, but I would do everything to see that, despite her choice, Judaism would play a very significant role in her life and in the lives of my grandchildren. But yes, it would be hard for me.
This may be a little simplistic, but try to explain to me a particular choice. For example, why do you drive on Shabbat?
Because driving on Shabbat helps me very much to fulfill and achieve things that, without them, Shabbat wouldn’t be Shabbat for me. For example − to get to the Shabbat meal with my family, or to our synagogue. I could walk to the Orthodox synagogue near my house, but there’s nothing for me there with my daughters and my wife. These are essential layers of my religious Shabbat. For me, not driving on Shabbat doesn’t add anything to the holiness of the day. My approach is to ask what are the values, what are the ideas, what are the reasons for keeping this thing called Shabbat, and what is the right way to do it. And I go to the tradition.
And what do you conclude?
I am humbled by 4,000 years of Jewish creativity. I think that despite major mishaps along the way, humanity is progressing morally. The whole Orthodox theory is the opposite. A famous Haredi saying is “If our forefathers were angels, then we are as human beings. And if they were as human beings, then we are as donkeys. And if they were as donkeys, we are as grasshoppers.” A theory of decline over the generations. And we say − if despite the experience that our forefathers bequeathed to us, and the ability of one generation to learn from another, we are still declining, then something in this whole story of human civilization isn’t working. I think that even though technology today gives man much more extreme tools for wreaking destruction, from a moral perspective, humanity is progressing. Too slowly, very slowly, but progressing. Look, I am willing to attest to many big challenges for Reform Judaism. For example, the question of boundaries. If everyone chooses, then what is the boundary? The question of commitment. Let’s be honest, too many of our people don’t take commitment, and knowledgeable choice, to the fullest.
It’s just very easy to board this wagon, and for all the wrong reasons. You take a lot and give a little.
It’s easy to be a free-rider, I admit. But this exists in Orthodoxy too.
In Orthodoxy the price is higher. Even if it’s just for show.
There’s always a trade-off. As the head of the Reform Movement, my greatest concern is the attempt to make the Reform community in Israel more meaningful, deeper, more involved in society − for a Reform rabbi to be able to preside over weddings in Israel, for our conversions to be accepted, and for the ultra-Orthodox to learn a core curriculum. You’re asking me if I prefer the existing reality, with all its drawbacks, or to choose between these two extremes of all or nothing. My problem with the Orthodox Shabbat is not that it’s forbidden to squeeze out a rag. It’s something else entirely. It’s the fact that the halakha says that you [violate Shabbat] to save a Jew’s life, but not a non-Jew’s life. The thought that I’m a Reform Jew rather than an Orthodox Jew because I find some of the mitzvoth inconvenient is bullshit. I’m not willing to accept that a woman cannot be a rabbi, I’m not willing to accept the concept of “You chose us” in its Orthodox sense. Anyone who thinks that there aren’t plenty of sources in Judaism that say God commanded us to hate the non-Jew is mistaken. In Judaism there are peaks of humanity and abysses of hate. The question is what you choose.