Kellerism

Losing their minds while losing their friends: Jews struggle with horrors on multiple levels

Losing their minds while losing their friends: Jews struggle with horrors on multiple levels

Antisemitism is at the dark heart of the 20th century. Mao’s killing of 65 million of his fellow Chinese and Stalin’s responsibility for the deaths of at least 20 million of his countrymen notwithstanding, no other religious group was targeted simply for its beliefs to the same degree as the Jews. One-third of the world’s Jewish population died during World War II.

What’s been the shock in it all — at least to some of us non-Jews who thought antisemitism faded after World War II and who observed Germans spending decades repenting for the Holocaust —  is that the real thing is back, deadlier than ever. Jews tell us this horror never went away, and Oct. 7 showed the non-Jewish world the truth of that in living color.

What are Jews here in America saying at this point? Is it time to flee to the hills? Was this a sort of Kristallnacht, the famous “night of broken glass” on Nov. 9-10, 1938, when Nazi troops plundered German synagogues, Jewish businesses and homes so badly that the streets were littered with glass?

All of this pain is forcing questions that lead to valid news stories. In a way, many Jews, in different parts of the world, are asking — right now — if it is time for them to flee their own versions of 1938 Germany.

Many Jews are saying that they are realizing who their friends are — and aren’t. Has this made it into headlines?

Here is an article from The Tablet, in which Katya Kazakina laments to silence of the art community in America’s post powerful city. This was reprinted from Artnet Newspro:

In New York, the home of the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, not a single major museum has so far expressed its official support for the Jewish state and, by extension, the Jewish people. Not one major gallery chose to send a message of empathy and take a public stand against the slaughter of Jewish civilians despite, by now, the widely reported grim toll: the estimated 1,400 Israelis killed, including babieswomen, and the elderly. …

As a Jewish woman, who’s been writing about art, artists, galleries, museums, auction houses, foundations, fairs, lawsuits for more than 17 years, I feel a mix of pain, disappointment, rage, and fear. Why are the Jews being slaughtered and the art world turns a blind eye — and goes on shopping at Frieze London as if nothing happened?

I have reached out to museums including the Met, the MoMA, the Guggenheim, and the Whitney; galleries including Gagosian, Pace, Hauser & Wirth, and David Zwirner; auction houses Christie’s, Sotheby’s, and Phillips. It’s been radio silence.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

When journalism historians write about the Hamas terror raid on Israel, and the Gaza war that followed, they will need to parse the early headlines about the explosion in the parking lot next to the Ahli Arab Hospital.

I am assuming that something called “journalism” will survive the rise of AI and the fall of an advertising-based, broad audience model of the press. I am an old guy with old dreams. Thus, we dug into this subject during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

What did the mainstream press report? Click here for a “conservative” collection of tweets, headlines and URLs to basic reports from the likes of BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. At this point in time, it’s “conservative” to care about old-liberal standards of journalism ethics.

What matters the most, of course is the New York Times headline that guided the digital rockets, so to speak, fired by elite journalists around the world.

Let’s work through that headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”

My first question, of many (and I tweeted this one out): “In this tech age, could some satellite imagery tell us the origin of the rocket?”

Whoever wrote that Times headline, or the editor supervising that process, had to know that someone — Elon Musk even — was going to share images and data from space or nearby radar, drones, smartphones, etc., that showed where the rocket was launched and in which direction it was headed.

That information would, of course, come from the United States (one way or the other) or Israel. Thus, the basic question an editor had to ask: Do we produce a banner headline based on information from Hamas, alone? The editor or editors answered, “YES.” The rest is history.

Next question: What part of that headline is accurate, in terms of the evidence now? Israeli attack? No. Was the hospital hit? No. It was a parking lot full of refugees. Did “hundreds” — 500 in one reference — die? It appears the number was much lower than that. Did anyone “strike” or target the hospital? No. It appears that an Islamist rocket malfunctioned, on its way to Israel, and fell in Gaza.

We are left with, “Palestinians say.” Sorry about that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

It’s been a little more than a week since Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israeli civilians, killing more than 1,300 people. Many of those killed were children, some even babies, on the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

Since then, the situation in that part of the world has become a full-blown war. Israel has responded by attacking Gaza, with Hamas leaders (and even hostages) mixed among civilians who, in some cases, have been prevented from evacuating by Hamas.

Palestinians now face a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

Not surprisingly, many in the elite media have gotten — and continue to get — this story wrong. For too many years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was treated like a political story. It was a story about land. It was about colonization. It was about human rights.

It may be about all those things, depending on whom you ask, but it’s also a story about about Jews. It’s about Muslims. It’s about sacred sites in the Holy Lands.

In other words, it’s a religion story.

As someone who covered the 9/11 attacks and the years that followed, I am well versed and experienced when it comes to news about terrorism. I know what terrorism looks like when I see it. So do most reporters and editors.

However, not everyone seems to have open eyes these days.

Let’s start with the BBC, one of the biggest and most influential news organizations in the world. The British state broadcaster came under pressure last week when its leaders refused to call Hamas terrorists. In an explanation posted to the BBC website on Oct. 11, John Simpson, who serves as World Affairs editor, defended the decision this way:

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people — they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.

The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Eastern Orthodox converts, Russian spies, the FBI and the Bible Belt (#horrors)

Podcast: Eastern Orthodox converts, Russian spies, the FBI and the Bible Belt (#horrors)

Yes, yes. I will confess my (possible) sin.

Several years ago some friends of mine in Bible Belt Orthodox churches said that there were times when they wished America could be ruled by the late Queen Elizabeth II, as opposed to the last couple of guys who have occupied the White House. We were discussing our frustration with America’s two-party binary political system.

I laughed and agreed.

Does this mean that I am a potential Russian spy and enemy of the state? That was one of the topics discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). We were discussing two mainstream news stories that seem to be connected in the minds of some mainstream journalists.

First, consider this Religion News Service feature: “Riding a wave of converts, one group aims to fuse Orthodoxy with Southern values.” Then read this Newsweek story: “Russia's Trying to Recruit Spies From U.S.” It may also help to check out this earlier GetReligion post: “Concerning the new converts to Eastern Orthodoxy — Are they MAGA clones or worse?

But back to Queen Elizabeth II. We will get to the FBI in a moment or two.

The RNS feature focuses on a meeting of the small group of Orthodox converts — the Philip Ludwell III Orthodox Fellowship — down in the countercultural Bible Belt. I confess that I have never heard of this group, primarily since my East Tennessee parish is part of the Orthodox Church in America (which does have historic missionary ties to Russia), as opposed to the smaller Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (which formed in response to the birth of the Soviet Union).

The RNS feature notes: “Orthodox Christianity in the United States is a kaleidoscope of languages and cultures as diverse as Russia, Greece, Ethiopia, Syria, Bulgaria and, increasingly, the American South.”

That’s accurate. It’s hard to describe how complex Eastern Orthodoxy is in this country and that includes the growing number of Americans (like me) who have converted to the faith during the past four decades (a trend that began long before Orange Man Bad).

Now, concerning the inspiration for this small Orthodox network:

Philip Ludwell III, the fellowship’s namesake, became one of America’s earliest converts to Orthodoxy in 1738 and then translated Russian Orthodox texts into English. His family held government positions in the Carolinas and Virginia and shared ancestry with Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, born nearly a century later.

Obviously, we are talking about folks who are fundamentalist Confederate clones or worse:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Synod on Synodality secrets: Are elite journalists concerned about zipped lips?

Synod on Synodality secrets: Are elite journalists concerned about zipped lips?

As a rule, journalists are not fond of secrecy and powerful leaders telling their followers to avoid the press.

This is especially true during high-profile meetings that could end up affecting the lives of a billion or so believers and institutions — parishes, schools, hospitals, you name it — affecting millions more.

Thus, I have been waiting to see what the mainstream press, especially in its most elite forms, would do with the decision by Pope Francis to ask participants in the global Synod on Synodality to, well, zip their lips when it comes to talking to the press. At the very least, I expected in-depth coverage of this angle and a hint of muted outrage.

Nope. Once again, we seem to have an interesting and highly symbolic Catholic story that is, apparently, only “news” to religion-market publications and the “conservative” press. Perhaps it is crucial whether journalists identify more with the views of the leader calling for secrecy than they do with the newsmakers who are anxious see an event proceed “on the record”?

Just asking. I, for one, remember how reporters (including me) pushed hard to open (or even invade) closed-door Catholic proceedings when they focused on clergy sexual abuse and earlier Vatican efforts to discipline adventurous (shall we say) American theologians and even bishops. Journalists were certainly convinced that “Reform Dies in Darkness,” or words to that effect.

Anyway, the Associated Press did include the following way down in a “news you can use” round-up at the start of the synod: “Things to know about the Vatican’s big meeting on the future of the Catholic Church.

The two-year preparatory phase of the synod was marked by a radical transparency in keeping with the goals of the process for participants to listen to each other and learn from one another. So it has come as something of a surprise that Francis has essentially imposed a media blackout on the synod itself.

While originally livestreams were planned, and several extra communications officers were hired, organizers have made clear this is a closed-door meeting and participants have been told to not speak to journalists. 

Paolo Ruffini, in charge of communications for the meeting, denied the debate had been put under the pontifical secret, one of the highest forms of confidentiality in the church.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Pope Francis tips his white hat on (location, location, location) same-sex blessing rites

Podcast: Pope Francis tips his white hat on (location, location, location) same-sex blessing rites

If you have ever bought a home, or looked for property for a business (or a church), you may have heard a realtor say this: “Location, location, location.” The Urban Dictionary defines this term as follows: “Phrase to remind people that the most determining factor in the price of a house is the location.”

Money isn’t the only thing that matters, of course.

Back in the 1980s, I began to realize that this location-times-three mantra was affecting many major religion-beat stories that I was covering, especially in Christian flocks that include folks called “bishops.” In so many cases, what happened in churches — even what was taught from pulpits — was shaped by what that congregation’s bishop encouraged, discouraged or even punished.

This basic equation loomed in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on the stunning responses that Pope Francis offered to “dubia” (Latin for “doubts”) documents from five doctrinally conservative cardinals.

Did he or did he not signal his support for same-sex blessing rites (or sort-of rites) in Catholic parishes around the world? Well, this pope is a Jesuit, which means that he declined to give a “yes” or “no” answer. But what he seemed to say was this: There are Catholic clergy who can find ways to show “pastoral charity” to LGBTQ+ Catholics and, if this is OK with their local bishops, they can proceed with blessing gay couples (since that is what many of them are already doing).

Now, this is long and quite Jesuit (the adjective form of the word). But readers need to see all of this to understand what may or may not be showing up in the news that they read. Francis proclaimed:

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.“

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalists need to ask: Are emerging Catholic synod fights about 'ideology' or 'doctrine'?

Journalists need to ask: Are emerging Catholic synod fights about 'ideology' or 'doctrine'?

The Synod on Synodality is here and there are many, many angles for journalists to pursue.

Let’s put it this way (with much, much more to come), I don’t think Clemente Lisi will have lots of time for soccer (he is an internationally known reporter on all things futbol) in the days ahead. For starters, readers can dig into these Lisi features at Religion Unplugged, where he is editor: “Everything You Need To Know About The Synod On Synodality” and “Pope Francis Open To Church Blessing Of Same-Sex Unions.”

The same-sex blessing story is huge and, frankly, leaders in some mainstream newsrooms (scan this Google News search file) seem to be waiting for a clear signal from their usual Catholic sources on the degree to which it is appropriate to celebrate.

I would like to back off and examine an important word in recent statements by Pope Francis and, thus, the elite press. That word is “ideology.” You can see what is going on in the Associated Press report with this headline: “Ideological rifts among U.S. bishops are in the spotlight ahead of momentous Vatican meeting.”

The subject, of course, is the Synod on Synodality. Read this carefully:

The synod is intended to be a collegial, collaborative event, though the agenda includes divisive issues such as the role of women in the church and the inclusion of LGBTQ Catholics.

If there’s Exhibit A for how elusive consensus might be, it’s the United States’ participation. In effect, there are two high-level U.S. delegations widely viewed as ideological rivals — six clerics appointed by Pope Francis who support his aspirations for a more inclusive, welcoming church; five clerics chosen by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who reflect a more conservative outlook and more skepticism of Francis’ priorities.

The assumption, of course, is that the divisions among U.S. representatives and, one can assume others around the world, are essentially political.

As always: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

Let’s keep reading, before we return to that loaded word — “ideological.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

How the Rupnik scandal and elite news coverage are shaping the legacy of Pope Francis

How the Rupnik scandal and elite news coverage are shaping the legacy of Pope Francis

The more I read about Pope Francis and President Joe Biden, the more I realize that they are similar.

I mean, both are Catholic, and that’s where the similarities end, right?

That may be the case for most, but they are quite similar in how they are covered by the mainstream press.

Let me explain.

Without getting too much into the weeds here, Biden has been dogged by multiple scandals involving his troubled son Hunter. You wouldn’t know that, however, from much of the mainstream press coverage of this presidency. Journalists remain too concerned with former President Donald Trump — how could they not? — and the recently-averted government shutdown.

Conservative media have covered Hunter Biden’s alleged wrongdoings and shady business practices since the 2020 presidential election. That was when the public was were told by the mainstream press that Hunter’s woes were based on Russian misinformation. Here we are nearly three years later and, yes, it turns out that there is a there there.

This brings us to Pope Francis and scandals swirling around him.

Wait! What scandals, you ask? Hold that thought.

The mainstream press has been fond of this pope and media consumers can see that whenever he says something that matches progressive left-wing political ideology. When it comes to scandal, however, there’s little to no coverage. Case in point: The Rupnik case.

Like Hunter Biden’s laptop, you may not have heard of the Rupnik case. Most mainstream news organizations chose not to cover the latest developments to come out of Rome just last month.

Thus, here’s a recap: Marko Rupnik, a Jesuit priest, became the focus of an investigation late last year when multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against him were reported in the Italian press. They mostly concerned sexual abuse of nuns who were part of Rupnik’s religious community and artistic studio in Rome.

When the extent of the allegations, over a period of many years, became evident, suspicions were raised that one of the most famous Jesuit priest in the world might have been given lenient treatment from the three most powerful Jesuits in the church.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pope Francis vs. Bishop Strickland feud highlights the good and bad of journalism today

Pope Francis vs. Bishop Strickland feud highlights the good and bad of journalism today

Another week and yet another headline about Pope Francis feuding with a doctrinally conservative American prelate.

It’s become an all-too-common story and one that the legacy media often can’t resist.

It was late last month that the pope lamented what he called a “reactionary” Catholic church in the United States, where he said political ideology had replaced faith. Pope Francis had made the comments on August 5 in a private meeting in Lisbon — published three weeks later by the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica — with members of the Jesuit order, of which he is a member, during his trip for World Youth Day.

The pope’s comments, and the expected fallout, were widely covered by both the secular and Catholic press in the United States and abroad.

The latest salvo in this transatlantic war-of-words took place last week, on Sept. 11, when The Pillar reported that the pope had “discussed with Vatican officials the prospect of requesting the resignation of Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas.”

This is what The Pillar reported:

The pope met Sept. 9 with Archbishop Robert Prevost, OSA, head of the Dicastery for Bishops, and Archbishop Christophe Pierre, apostolic nuncio to the United States — both cardinals-elect.

Several sources close to the dicastery told The Pillar ahead of the meeting that the prelates would present the pope with the results of an apostolic visitation of Stickland’s diocese, conducted earlier this year, as well as subsequent public actions by the bishop, who has emerged as an outspoken critic of the Holy Father.

“The situation of Bishop Strickland is the agenda,” one senior official close to the dicastery told The Pillar, “and the expectation is that the Holy Father will be requesting his resignation — that will certainly be the recommendation put to him.”

While noting that the papal audience did not exclusively concern the Bishop of Tyler, who has previously accused the pope of having a “program [for] undermining the Deposit of Faith,” the official said that Strickland’s case was set to be the “primary point of discussion.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy