Not to be lost in the pomp and circumstance of Pope Francis’ first visit to Washington is the reality that the Catholic Church he oversees has become one of the largest recipients of federal largesse in America.
The Church and related Catholic charities and schools have collected more than $1.6 billion since 2012 in U.S. contracts and grants in a far-reaching relationship that spans from school lunches for grammar school students to contracts across the globe to care for the poor and needy at the expense of Uncle Sam, a Washington Times review of federal spending records shows.
Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once famously noted in 1980 that the government funded 50 percent of Catholic Charities‘ budget, commenting “private institutions really aren’t private anymore.” Today, those estimates remain about the same, according to Leslie Lenkowsky, who served as the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service under George W. Bush.
Catholic Charities USA, the largest charitable organization run by the church, receives about 65 percent of its annual budget from state and federal governments, making it an arm of the federal welfare state, said Brian Anderson, a researcher with the Manhattan Institute.
The federal government came to increasingly rely on the church to help it with Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” and the charities “imbued with their new faith in the government’s potential to solve social problems, eagerly accepted government money,” Mr. Anderson wrote in an essay for the Manhattan Institute.
Catholic Charities received nearly a quarter of its funding from government by the end of the 1960s, more than half by the late 1970s and more than 60 percent by the mid-1980s, the level where it has remained ever since, Mr. Anderson said.
Today, Catholic charity work is a large part of this nation’s social safety net, according to Mr. Lenkowsky, now a professor of practice in public affairs and philanthropy at Indiana University.
“A lot of the charity is distributing food, running homeless shelters, most things considered charitable,” said Mr. Lenkowsky. “So what we’re not talking about is federal money being paid for priests and religious activities.”
Fifty-seven government agencies are now contracting with the Catholic Church. If the church were a state, its $1.6 billion in funding would rank it about 43rd out of the 50 states in total federal funding, according to analysis by Adam Andrzejewski, founder of OpenTheBooks.com. The majority of those funds are dedicated to refugee services and rehabilitation.
“Churches have generally looked to find common cause with secular goals, adapting their activities to the secular philanthropic model, if only to benefit from grants from the U.S. government,” Olivier Zunz, a social historian, wrote in his book “Philanthropy in America.” “Catholic Relief Services and federated Protestant charities have acted not as missions but as humanitarian institutions combining taxpayer money with their own for carrying out modernizing projects in many theaters around the world.”
However, Mr. Anderson argues, because the Catholic Church and its charities are so ingrained in the U.S. government’s welfare system, it’s hard to reform and better it. For example, in 1996 Catholic Charitieslobbied heavily against welfare-reform law and met with then-President Clinton to help derail it. At the time, a Jesuit priest, the Rev. Fred Kammer, who is now the director of the Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola University, said the welfare-reform law would be “a national social catastrophe. No one will be spared the consequences.”
There’s also friction between state and church, with Catholic charitiestaking on such a prominent role in the government’s welfare system.
Conservative Christians, unlike Catholics and some other religious charities such as those run by Lutherans, have resisted taking federal money to do charitable work, insisting proselytism and good works go hand in hand and can’t be separated from one another — which most federal and state grants require.
“If a religious institution is required to do something that is in conflict of its religious views, it may opt out from receiving federal funding or make the pragmatic decision to stay in to get the funding,” said Mr. Lenkowsky.
For example, most of the Catholic charities in Illinois have decided to close down their adoption programs rather than comply with a state requirement that says they can no longer receive state funding if they turn away same-sex couples for adoptive services or foster care.
“On one hand the government can’t make any laws infringing on someone’s civil liberties, but it also has to protect free expression of religion, and those are in tension in the age of the welfare state, where you are contracting with a religious organization to deliver secular social services,” Mr. Lenkowsky said. In many of these cases, it will be up to the courts to decide, he added.
Georgetown University, the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit University, broke with church doctrine in order to accommodate for civil rights.
When faced with the decision to officially recognize a student homosexual group on its campus, it decided to formally recognize it for fear it would be in violation of Washington, D.C.’s civil rights law and anti-discrimination protections. The school wanted to build a new dormitory at the time and needed municipal bonds to secure it.
For Catholic Charities USA, the priority of helping those in need trumps all, and they can’t fulfill that mission without financial assistance from the government.
“While Catholic Charities agencies, and many other faith-based non-profits, will continue to work with families and individuals on the brink, we know that in order for our nation to truly make a significant change in the numbers of those in poverty, we need support and commitment from the for-profit sector and from government. We cannot do this alone,” the group said in a statement to The Times.
The nation is better off having Catholic charities participate in the federal welfare system than the alternative of having only secular organization and the government do it, Mr. Lenkowsky said.
“Not only would Catholic charities be hurt, but our society would be much worse off because these services would be provided by government employees and secular service agencies run by social workers,” Mr. Lenkowsky said. “There’s certain things Catholic charities can do that social workers can’t do, like pastoral counseling — a minister trained to give counseling to people facing critical issues like substance abuse.”
If Catholic charities were cut out of the federal system, secular social workers may determine that pastors may not be qualified to give counseling, eliminating a helpful avenue for some in need, he said.
Full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/catholic-church-collects-16-billion-in-us-contract/
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2015-09-27 02:48:552015-09-27 02:48:55Kelly Riddell, Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion in U.S. contracts, grants since 2012, Washington Post
In a case that sparked a nationwide uproar, a female county clerk in Texas last month defied a court order to issue a marriage license in circumstances that violated her religious beliefs. Her refusal to comply landed her in jail. A recent case in Portland, Oregon tested the moral courage of two kollel wives in a different conflict of conscience: Disclose confidential information sought in a divorce case? Or cite religious convictions against breaching confidences and slandering people — and risk the consequences?
Is a rebbetzin a religious leader? Or is the term an honorary title denoting nothing more than “wife of a rabbi?”
The question lay at the heart of an unprecedented court case in Portland, Oregon, in which Mrs. Esther Fischer and Mrs. Sarah Goldblatt, two kollel wives employed with their husbands by the Portland Community Kollel, were subpoenaed in a divorce trial. The women were asked to disclose personal and confidential information they had received from the wife in the divorce case, which might have bearing on child custody issues coming before the court.
The women responded that such information, including confidences shared in person, by letter, over the phone and through emails and texts, was protected by the statute governing clergy privilege, similar to the law granting attorney-client privilege.
As rebbetzins in the Portland community, they said, their conversations with community members fell under the rubric of a state law protecting the confidentiality of information entrusted to clergymen. As advised by rabbonim, the women said they were not permitted to share personal information they had received from a woman they had taught or counseled.
CAN ORTHODOX JEWISH WOMEN CLAIM CLERGY PRIVILEGE?
The opposing counsel rejected that argument, noting that the kollel wives were Orthodox Jews. As Orthodox Judaism does not ordain female rabbis, the husband’s attorney argued in a scathing 20-page rebuttal, “rebbetzin” was nothing more than an honorary title and Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Goldblatt could not rightfully present themselves as members of the clergy.
In contrast to rabbis who are certified to carry out rabbinic duties, the brief argued, the kollel rebbetzins were simply friends of the wife in question, and their communications were thus unprotected by the clergy-privilege statute.
“From the very outset, we felt this case had potentially explosive repercussions not only for Portland, but for kollelim, rebbetzins and rabbonim everywhere,” noted Rabbi Tzvi Fischer, rosh kollel of the Portland Community Kollel, in an interview with Yated. Rabbi Fischer’s wife was one of the kollel wives under subpoena.
“Rebbetzins do a lot of unofficial counseling. Some women feel more comfortable reaching out to a rebbetzin for guidance about marital issues and other sensitive matters best handled by a woman,” Rabbi Fischer elaborated. “If the court ruled that a rebbetzin had no clergy-protected function and that information entrusted to her in confidence could be circulated, people would no longer feel safe confiding in either her or the rav. That could do severe damage to a community’s relationship with its religious leaders.”
Recognizing the broader implications of the case, the Kollel, on behalf of Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Goldblatt sought advice from their posek, Rav Hillel David of Brooklyn, as to whether it was consistent with halacha and the spirit of the law to claim clergy-privilege in court.
“We were told there was no problem from a halachic standpoint. But we knew we’d have a stronger case if we could find some kind of legal precedent in civil law. We wrote to many frum organizations including the OU, RCA and Agudath Israel, asking them to point us to prior case law addressing the issue of whether a rebbetzin was considered clergy,” related Rabbi Fischer. “In each case, the response was basically, ‘Fascinating question, but to our knowledge, it’s never been raised in a court of law. Sorry we can’t be of help.’”
REBBETZINS AS RELIGIOUS GUIDES?
Then a friend of the kollel put Rabbi Fisher in touch with Shaul Stampfer, a leading professor of Jewish History at Hebrew University in Israel, whose field of expertise included the evolving role of the rabbinate from the European period through contemporary times. Professor Stampfer’s research had also followed closely the active role rebbetzins play in contemporary American Jewish communities.
In an unusual twist, the scholar happened to have lived for many years in Portland and had taught in Portland State University before moving to Israel. He wrote a 5-page letter of support testifying that even without rabbinic ordination, a rebbetzin today often “ministered” to female members of her community, especially in sensitive areas pertaining to Jewish laws governing married and family life. The affidavit stressed the critical component of confidentiality in these interactions.
“Many rebbetzins today have taken on pastoral responsibilities commensurate with those of rabbis,” the Stampfer document noted. “Women turn to rebbetzins for advice not simply out of personal friendship but because of their roles as recognized spiritual advisors. Just as one would consult with a doctor or discuss a medical issue, so women turn to a rebbetzin for reliable guidance with regard to the many elements of Jewish law and tradition that affect the life a Jewish woman.”
“The rebbetzin’s function as a religious guide is dependent on her holding in confidence whatever information she was given in a counseling or similar session,” the letter of support stressed.
KOLLEL WIVES’ CREDENTIALS ASSAILED
Professor Stampfer’s authoritative letter to the court encouraged the kollel wives. But the opposing counsel immediately challenged the “religious guide” argument, insisting that “counseling and other pastoral functions” in no way equate rabbinic ordination — the sina qua non of Orthodox Jewish clergy. To claim so was to distort the historic and traditional understanding of a rebbetzin’s function, the opposing brief said.
“Esther Fischer, as a rabbi’s wife or rebbetzin, does not take on, nor can she assume, roles associated with a rabbi in Jewish Orthodoxy,” the opposing counsel asserted.
The brief assailed Mrs. Fischer from another angle, implying her portrayal of herself as a spiritual guide was not authentic. The brief noted that the kollel bio of Mrs. Esther Fischer listed her capacity as the Head Teacher of pre-school in the Maayan Torah Day School and the Director of the Portland Camp SEED.
“The bio of Esther Fischer refers to her as Mrs. Fischer, not even as rebbetzin. It focuses on her background in special education and her role as a pre-school teacher. There is no information suggesting she is qualified as a marriage counselor or a clergy member, and no information that she provides counseling of any kind to anyone.”
The brief went on to attack Mrs. Goldblatt’s qualifications in a similar manner, noting that “no information is presented in her resume or bio to suggest she is trained in counseling or counsels and receives confidence in a professional counseling capacity.”
“Any confidences that Petitioner (the wife in the divorce case) shared with either Esther Fischer and Sarah Goldblatt were based on a friend-friend relationship between the women, not a clergy-penitent relationship,” the brief concluded.
KOLLEL WIVES ORDERED TO APPEAR IN COURT
The husband in the divorce case pressed his advantage by calling for oral arguments before the judge to resolve the dispute over whether the kollel wives, without rabbinic ordination, could legitimately claim the privileges of clergy. He then upped the ante, requesting the right to have his attorney question Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Goldblatt in person at the oral hearing.
Judge Beth Allen of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon granted the request, scheduling an oral hearing at which Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Goldblatt were expected to testify.
“The date of the hearing fell out a week before Pesach… a very intense time. The kollel wives all work in the community in addition to running a busy home with young children. On top of this, we had a court case with potentially serious consequences. It was nerve-wracking,” recalled Rabbi Tzvi Fischer.
“After discussing all the angles with our rov and with our attorneys, my wife and Mrs. Goldblatt came to a decision. Even if the judge ruled against them after the oral hearing, they were prepared to state that their religious convictions and communal duties still prevented them from sharing information about the wife in the divorce case. They understood they might be putting themselves in jeopardy.”
“The opposition was relentless,” Mrs. Greenblatt told Yated. “Imagine combing the country for an Orthodox beis din to support your demand that two kollel wives reveal the confidences of a woman in a divorce case. This wasn’t about investigating criminal activity, mind you. The information being sought seemed to have no purpose other than harassment.”
DEFENDING CLERGY-PRIVILEGE FOR REBBETZINS
At the recommendation of senior officials of Agudath Israel of America, the Kollel reached out to attorney Mark Kurzmann, a former Department of Justice senior trial lawyer and a founding board member of Agudath Israel’s Legal Services, an organization of volunteer lawyers.
“Although it was erev Pesach and an extremely pressured time for him, Mr. Kurzman poured hours of legal work into the case pro bono,” recalled Rabbi Fischer. “He had not only researched case law exhaustively and worked with Professor Stampfer in creating a hard-hitting legal affidavit from the Stampfer letter, he now spent many hours analyzing the legal parameters of the case with us and counseling Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Goldblatt ahead of their court appearance.”
“This was a challenging case,” remarked Mr. Kurzmann in an interview with Yated. “We were seeking to defend the rebbetzins’ right to claim clergy privilege without redefining the term “rebbetzin” or misrepresenting the mesorah.”
Mr. Kurzmann agreed with Rabbi Fischer that it was reasonable to argue that despite Orthodoxy’s position that women cannot be ordained rabbis, the kollel wives were in fact officially hired by the Kollel to “minister” to the community in crucial ways that overlapped with the duties of clergy.
“Ordainment – semicha – is about halacha, applicable to men exclusively. While women have no authority in that area, we were determined to prove that they do have the authority under Orthodox Judaism to educate, guide and inspire, especially regarding family and marriage issues.” Kurzmann said.
“Even more important, we wanted to demonstrate that in contemporary times, a rebbetzin can be so defined even if the woman is not the wife of a rabbi. There are several examples of renowned rebbetzins whose husbands are fine upstanding Jews but not rabbis.”
STANDING THEIR GROUND
On the day of the hearing, Mrs. Fischer was grilled on the stand for almost an hour about her qualifications and training, the venue for her counseling activities and why her interactions with the wife in the divorce case qualified as anything more than friendship. Mrs. Goldblatt was interrogated similarly by phone.
“When did you go from not being a rebbetzin to becoming one?” the opposing attorney challenged Mrs. Fischer.
“When my husband and I were hired by the kollel, that’s when my role began,” Mrs. Fischer answered.
In response to questions posed, she cited her training under the renowned Tehilla Abramov in Jewish marriage education and her certificate from Ner L’elef in Jerusalem that coaches Orthodox Jewish men and women for out-of-town teaching and outreach positions. She testified to being hired by the Kollel to teach and reach out to women in the community and to bring them closer to their Jewish roots. Holding confidences in trust, she says, was a crucial part of her job.
“How do you separate out when someone talking just as a friend and when it’s private?”
“I see it as a sacred duty to keep all personal information confidential. Unless the comments are made in a social setting before a lot of people.”
“Why ‘sacred’?” the attorney probed.
“According to Torah law, whatever one trusts you with must be kept confidential.”
“Is that because you’re a wife of rabbi?”
“Rebbetzin can also mean a religious woman leader. I’ve had rebbetzins whose husbands were not rabbis.”
“Why do you assume someone is sharing with you because you’re a rebbetzin?”
“I assume that to be on the safe side,” Mrs. Fischer responded. “I’m held to a certain standard in the community because of my role. People recognize that. That goes with being a role model.”
Mrs. Goldblatt, who testified by phone, cited her years of running a girls’ orphanage in Byelorussia and her earlier training in Jerusalem as qualifying her for her present position working for the Portland Community Kollel as teacher and religious guide.
“Mrs. Goldblatt, do you consider all your conversations with people to be confidential?’ the attorney asked.
“In my role as a rebbetzin, yes. Women speak to me about what’s going on in their lives. They’re often looking for a spiritual view of feminine issues and don’t want to speak to a man.”
“Come now. Aren’t some of your relationships based simply on friendship?”
“There’s certainly an element of friendship, but it’s very clear that it’s primarily my role as a rebbetzin that’s at play.”
“Who brings up the issue of confidentiality when people speak to you? Assuming that it is even mentioned?”
“That’s a clear understanding due to my role in the community. It doesn’t have to be spelled out. It’s only right and fair to the women who trust me that whatever they discuss is kept private.”
• • • • • • •
As the testimony and deposition continued, the atmosphere in the room seemed to change. The questioning came to an end and Judge Beth Allen, in an unusual departure from protocol, issued her ruling on the spot.
“It seems pretty clear,” she said, “that the issue here is not about official ordainment as a means of identifying Orthodox Jewish clergy. The state is not in a position to dictate to religious organizations how to define their clergy. The key seems to be how the movement itself identifies its religious leaders.”
“In Orthodox Judaism, where only men can be rabbis, men can have their confidences protected by the law when they talk to the rabbi. But what about the women who prefer not to talk to male clergymen about deeply personal matters and turn to women religious leaders for guidance? Is it reasonable that women who prefer to open their hearts to other women should be deprived of the law’s protection?
“I don’t believe that is what the statute governing clergy privilege intended,” the judge concluded, granting the kollel wives in this precedent-setting case their motion to void the subpoena.
Pesach this year was celebrated in Portland, Oregon — and in homes across the country where people were monitoring this case — with an added measure of jubilation and gratitude.
The Portland Community Kollel was founded in 2006 by Rabbi Avrohom David of the Seattle Kollel and Rabbi Chaim Noson Segal of Torah Umesorah, under the guidance of Rabbi Hillel David.
Since its inception, the Kollel has witnessed remarkable growth. Eight kollel members deliver a wide array of classes and programs to all sectors of the Portland community, including classes in daf yomi, dirshu, mishna berura, and nightly classes on topics of halacha and hashkafa.
The kollel wives have created multi-faceted programming for women, children and teens, along with a summer youth camp and a Campus Outreach project at the University of Oregon.
In their ten years of working with the community, the kollel has strengthened the infrastructure of the traditional Jewish community. It has built the membership of the main shul from a Shabbos morning minyan to daily minyanim for all tefillos, becoming a growing source of Jewish education and community for Jews from across the spectrum.
The community has founded a new Torah Day School and this year opened a girls’ high school, with a beginning class of eight students. An eruv enclosing 5 miles squared services the community.
Portland is beginning to attract an influx of families who are drawn to its growing Torah presence.
THE ultra-Orthodox Adass Israel School is facing a significant financial blow with the prospect of multiple major damages payouts over alleged sexual abuse by a former principal.
Adass could be up for the payments to former students after news that a second civil trial by an alleged victim of Malka Leifer might be on the cards.
The Supreme Court of Victoria last week awarded more than $1.2 million in damages to a former student who was sexually assaulted by Leifer on numerous occasions between 2003 and 2006.
Nick Mazzeo from legal firm Lennon Mazzeo, which represented the plaintiff, has told media he has been hired by another alleged victim of Leifer who was a former student and former teacher at Adass.
Meanwhile, lawyers for Leifer, who has been under house arrest in Israel since August 2014, are battling attempts to have her extradited to Victoria to face 74 counts relating to her sexual abuse of Adass pupils.
Extradition hearings in Israel have been delayed, with Leifer’s lawyers citing their client’s ill health. A new hearing has been scheduled for the end of October.
A committee of the school organised Leifer’s departure to Israel in 2008, within hours of her sexual misconduct becoming public, earning the condemnation of Justice Jack Rush in handing down his judgment.
The Supreme Court judge lamented “the destructive and evil nature of [Leifer’s] sexual abuse of the plaintiff over a period of years” and said the Adass school showed “disgraceful, contumelious behaviour demonstrating a complete disregard of Leifer’s victims, of which the plaintiff was one. The conduct demonstrates a disdain for due process of criminal investigation in this state.”
Justice Rush ordered the Adass school to pay the victim $1,024,428 in compensation for her past and ongoing suffering. He awarded exemplary damages to deter future offenders; $150,000 was awarded against Leifer, and $100,000 against the school, bringing the total damages payout to more than $1,274,000.
An exact final figure was still being worked on between the parties last week and there is a legal question as to whether the Adass school, as Leifer’s employer, is vicariously liable for the $150,000 in damages the Supreme Court has ordered Leifer to pay, if the fugitive former headmistress does not comply with the court’s orders.
The AJN understands the compensatory damages are covered by the school’s insurance policy, but the exemplary damages might not be. However, if the school has to pay the exemplary damages, it would not place its continued operations in danger. Financial supporters of Adass might be asked to help out.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Robert Goot said the judgment “paints a damning picture of deplorable conduct by the school, and those responsible for running it”.
Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) president Jennifer Huppert stated: “Although the Adass Israel School is not affiliated with the JCCV, events at Adass concern all members of the community. The JCCV believes very strongly that Malka Leifer must be brought back to Australia to face justice.”
Full article: http://www.jewishnews.net.au/second-student-suing-adass/49891
The historic U.S. visit of Pope Francis has refocused attention on the Catholic Church’s sex-abuse scandal. Although the pontiff has vowed to root out child sex predators from the Church, which has cost billions in legal expenses, victims of clergy sexual abuse want the pope to do more.
In New York, Michael Mack, 58, who says he was abused by a priest when he was 11, hopes to bring more attention to the issue this week. He has written a one-man play, “Conversations with My Molester.”
“I truly believe that his intention is to heal around this process,” Mack said. “And since this play of mine really is all about healing – about my own personal healing journey, but also the journeys that it reflects for so many survivors – that it seemed like the timing was a natural.”
Mack, who began practicing Catholicism again about seven years ago, said reform efforts such as a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would give church sexual-abuse victims a true chance to heal. Mack’s play opened in New York City on Thursday, the same day Pope Francis arrived in the city.
Some have noted that the pope’s strong stance on this issue contrasts sharply with efforts by some Catholic bishops, who are fighting legislation in New York and other states that would give child sex-abuse victims more time to sue their abusers. Marci Hamilton, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, said she thinks bishops and their lobbying groups are standing in the way of justice.
“They are not only blocking the cases involving their own victims, but they’re also blocking the incest cases and the school cases,” she said. “So that, I think, is something that the pope needs to address.”
The Church argues that extending the statute of limitations on these cases would allow other cases based on weak evidence to further drain its finances. Up to 100,000 U.S. children may have been victims, according to insurance experts named in a paper presented to the Vatican in 2012.
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2015-09-27 02:30:522015-09-27 02:30:52Pope's Historic Visit Reignites Church Sex Scandal Debate, Public Service News
In a sweeping address to the United Nations on Friday, Pope Francis presented himself as a champion of the poor and dispossessed, urging world leaders to adopt concrete solutions to combat widespread poverty and environmental destruction.
Francis, who is in New York as part of a weeklong visit to the United States, is the fifth pope to address the United Nations, and his speech followed a familiar papal formula.
First, the Pope laid out his moral vision for a more just world, arguing for a series of “sacred rights,” including labor, land and lodging.
Adopting the urgent tone of a disappointed prophet, he then listed the most pressing problems facing humanity — from drug trafficking to the nuclear arms race and the rise of an “all-powerful elite” that hoards wealth and resources.
“In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged,” Francis said.
Lastly, the Pope offered ideas for world leaders to consider.
Here’s exactly what the Pope thinks is wrong with the world, followed by his suggestions for fixing them:
Poor countries don’t have a real presence in the United Nations, and poor people don’t have a voice in international aid programs and projects, the Pope said.
“To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty,” he said, “we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny.”
Talk, talk, talk
World leaders seem not to realize that while they hedge, real people suffer, Francis said. When they finally do find a solution, it is often imposed without thought to local realities.
“In wars and conflicts, there are individual persons, our brothers and sisters, men and women, young and old, boys and girls who weep, suffer and die,” he said, “human beings who are easily discarded when our only response is to draw up lists of problems, strategies and disagreements.”
What Pope has said about key issues facing the church
While praising the U.N. as an important instrument for good, the Pope also noted that certain countries have been able to manipulate the international body to block urgent action.
Noting the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Sudan, Francis said some world leaders have used the U.N. not to solve problems, but “as a means of masking spurious intentions.”
“These realities should serve as a grave summons to an examination of conscience on the part of those charged with the conduct of international affairs.”
‘United by fear and distrust’
Nuclear weapons are poor instruments of peace, the Pope said, frankly dismissing the idea that no one will use bombs if everybody has them.
“An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction — and possibly the destruction of all mankind,” he said, “are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as nations united by fear and distrust.”
No checks, no balances
World leaders can draw up all the treaties and programs they want, the Pope said. But if there are no ways of enforcing decisions, they remain useless white papers.
“The number and complexity of the problems require that we possess technical instruments of verification,” Francis said.
But even those “instruments” can become bureaucratic mazes in which real solutions recede into a hazy horizon, he said.
“We cannot permit ourselves to postpone ‘certain agendas’ for the future,” the Pope said.
“The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of worldwide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.”
The Pope’s solutions
Popes don’t often offer concrete solutions global problems. But Francis is no ordinary pope. On Friday, he proposed three specific paths to a more “sustainable development of countries.”
• An international justice league: In previous speeches, the Pope has lamented that poor countries are plundered for their natural resources, with no legal means to fight back.
On Friday, he proposed the creation of a “juridical system” for regulating claims and limiting power.
• Mother Earth has rights: This summer, Pope Francis traveled to Bolivia and Ecuador, two of the few countries that grant “rights of nature” — protecting the air, trees and water.
On Friday, he backed the idea of “right of the environment,” for two reasons.
1. Any harm to the Earth also harms humanity.
2. Every living creature has intrinsic value, beauty and is interdependent with other forms of life.
• Beyond the dotted lines: As Francis noted, the U.N. began its summit for sustainable development Friday, and in December, world leaders will gather for a summit on climate change.
The Pope’s speech on Friday, as well as his eco-encyclical, aimed to influence those agreements, Francis has said.
“Solemn commitments, however, are not enough, even though they are a necessary step toward solutions,” he said.
What the world needs, Francis argued, is a renewed sense of sacrifice for the common good and solidarity between the rich and poor, races and religions, the powerful and powerless.
http://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpg00SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2015-09-27 01:59:252015-09-27 01:59:25Daniel Burke, Pope at the UN: 5 things Francis thinks are wrong with the world, CNN
Conversations with My Molester: A Journey of Faith.
This
prize-winning solo play is now running in New York City (Columbus Circle) thru October 11 — a “powerful” (Washington Post) true story that “received a standing ovation” (The New York Times) for its chronicle of betrayal and healing.
With sexual assault and sexual abuse part of the national conversation, this play offers a “deeply inspiring” and “profound” (Times Square Chronicles) look at sexual trauma and recovery.
Kelly Riddell, Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion in U.S. contracts, grants since 2012, Washington Post
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformNot to be lost in the pomp and circumstance of Pope Francis’ first visit to Washington is the reality that the Catholic Church he oversees has become one of the largest recipients of federal largesse in America.
The Church and related Catholic charities and schools have collected more than $1.6 billion since 2012 in U.S. contracts and grants in a far-reaching relationship that spans from school lunches for grammar school students to contracts across the globe to care for the poor and needy at the expense of Uncle Sam, a Washington Times review of federal spending records shows.
Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once famously noted in 1980 that the government funded 50 percent of Catholic Charities‘ budget, commenting “private institutions really aren’t private anymore.” Today, those estimates remain about the same, according to Leslie Lenkowsky, who served as the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service under George W. Bush.
Catholic Charities USA, the largest charitable organization run by the church, receives about 65 percent of its annual budget from state and federal governments, making it an arm of the federal welfare state, said Brian Anderson, a researcher with the Manhattan Institute.
The federal government came to increasingly rely on the church to help it with Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” and the charities “imbued with their new faith in the government’s potential to solve social problems, eagerly accepted government money,” Mr. Anderson wrote in an essay for the Manhattan Institute.
Catholic Charities received nearly a quarter of its funding from government by the end of the 1960s, more than half by the late 1970s and more than 60 percent by the mid-1980s, the level where it has remained ever since, Mr. Anderson said.
Today, Catholic charity work is a large part of this nation’s social safety net, according to Mr. Lenkowsky, now a professor of practice in public affairs and philanthropy at Indiana University.
“A lot of the charity is distributing food, running homeless shelters, most things considered charitable,” said Mr. Lenkowsky. “So what we’re not talking about is federal money being paid for priests and religious activities.”
Fifty-seven government agencies are now contracting with the Catholic Church. If the church were a state, its $1.6 billion in funding would rank it about 43rd out of the 50 states in total federal funding, according to analysis by Adam Andrzejewski, founder of OpenTheBooks.com. The majority of those funds are dedicated to refugee services and rehabilitation.
“Churches have generally looked to find common cause with secular goals, adapting their activities to the secular philanthropic model, if only to benefit from grants from the U.S. government,” Olivier Zunz, a social historian, wrote in his book “Philanthropy in America.” “Catholic Relief Services and federated Protestant charities have acted not as missions but as humanitarian institutions combining taxpayer money with their own for carrying out modernizing projects in many theaters around the world.”
However, Mr. Anderson argues, because the Catholic Church and its charities are so ingrained in the U.S. government’s welfare system, it’s hard to reform and better it. For example, in 1996 Catholic Charitieslobbied heavily against welfare-reform law and met with then-President Clinton to help derail it. At the time, a Jesuit priest, the Rev. Fred Kammer, who is now the director of the Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola University, said the welfare-reform law would be “a national social catastrophe. No one will be spared the consequences.”
There’s also friction between state and church, with Catholic charitiestaking on such a prominent role in the government’s welfare system.
Conservative Christians, unlike Catholics and some other religious charities such as those run by Lutherans, have resisted taking federal money to do charitable work, insisting proselytism and good works go hand in hand and can’t be separated from one another — which most federal and state grants require.
“If a religious institution is required to do something that is in conflict of its religious views, it may opt out from receiving federal funding or make the pragmatic decision to stay in to get the funding,” said Mr. Lenkowsky.
For example, most of the Catholic charities in Illinois have decided to close down their adoption programs rather than comply with a state requirement that says they can no longer receive state funding if they turn away same-sex couples for adoptive services or foster care.
“On one hand the government can’t make any laws infringing on someone’s civil liberties, but it also has to protect free expression of religion, and those are in tension in the age of the welfare state, where you are contracting with a religious organization to deliver secular social services,” Mr. Lenkowsky said. In many of these cases, it will be up to the courts to decide, he added.
Georgetown University, the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit University, broke with church doctrine in order to accommodate for civil rights.
When faced with the decision to officially recognize a student homosexual group on its campus, it decided to formally recognize it for fear it would be in violation of Washington, D.C.’s civil rights law and anti-discrimination protections. The school wanted to build a new dormitory at the time and needed municipal bonds to secure it.
For Catholic Charities USA, the priority of helping those in need trumps all, and they can’t fulfill that mission without financial assistance from the government.
“While Catholic Charities agencies, and many other faith-based non-profits, will continue to work with families and individuals on the brink, we know that in order for our nation to truly make a significant change in the numbers of those in poverty, we need support and commitment from the for-profit sector and from government. We cannot do this alone,” the group said in a statement to The Times.
The nation is better off having Catholic charities participate in the federal welfare system than the alternative of having only secular organization and the government do it, Mr. Lenkowsky said.
“Not only would Catholic charities be hurt, but our society would be much worse off because these services would be provided by government employees and secular service agencies run by social workers,” Mr. Lenkowsky said. “There’s certain things Catholic charities can do that social workers can’t do, like pastoral counseling — a minister trained to give counseling to people facing critical issues like substance abuse.”
If Catholic charities were cut out of the federal system, secular social workers may determine that pastors may not be qualified to give counseling, eliminating a helpful avenue for some in need, he said.
Full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/catholic-church-collects-16-billion-in-us-contract/
Debbie Maimon, Oregon Court Scrutinizes Rebbetzin’s Role In Trailblazing Case, Yated
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformIn a case that sparked a nationwide uproar, a female county clerk in Texas last month defied a court order to issue a marriage license in circumstances that violated her religious beliefs. Her refusal to comply landed her in jail. A recent case in Portland, Oregon tested the moral courage of two kollel wives in a different conflict of conscience: Disclose confidential information sought in a divorce case? Or cite religious convictions against breaching confidences and slandering people — and risk the consequences?
Is a rebbetzin a religious leader? Or is the term an honorary title denoting nothing more than “wife of a rabbi?”
The question lay at the heart of an unprecedented court case in Portland, Oregon, in which Mrs. Esther Fischer and Mrs. Sarah Goldblatt, two kollel wives employed with their husbands by the Portland Community Kollel, were subpoenaed in a divorce trial. The women were asked to disclose personal and confidential information they had received from the wife in the divorce case, which might have bearing on child custody issues coming before the court.
The women responded that such information, including confidences shared in person, by letter, over the phone and through emails and texts, was protected by the statute governing clergy privilege, similar to the law granting attorney-client privilege.
As rebbetzins in the Portland community, they said, their conversations with community members fell under the rubric of a state law protecting the confidentiality of information entrusted to clergymen. As advised by rabbonim, the women said they were not permitted to share personal information they had received from a woman they had taught or counseled.
CAN ORTHODOX JEWISH WOMEN CLAIM CLERGY PRIVILEGE?
The opposing counsel rejected that argument, noting that the kollel wives were Orthodox Jews. As Orthodox Judaism does not ordain female rabbis, the husband’s attorney argued in a scathing 20-page rebuttal, “rebbetzin” was nothing more than an honorary title and Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Goldblatt could not rightfully present themselves as members of the clergy.
In contrast to rabbis who are certified to carry out rabbinic duties, the brief argued, the kollel rebbetzins were simply friends of the wife in question, and their communications were thus unprotected by the clergy-privilege statute.
“From the very outset, we felt this case had potentially explosive repercussions not only for Portland, but for kollelim, rebbetzins and rabbonim everywhere,” noted Rabbi Tzvi Fischer, rosh kollel of the Portland Community Kollel, in an interview with Yated. Rabbi Fischer’s wife was one of the kollel wives under subpoena.
“Rebbetzins do a lot of unofficial counseling. Some women feel more comfortable reaching out to a rebbetzin for guidance about marital issues and other sensitive matters best handled by a woman,” Rabbi Fischer elaborated. “If the court ruled that a rebbetzin had no clergy-protected function and that information entrusted to her in confidence could be circulated, people would no longer feel safe confiding in either her or the rav. That could do severe damage to a community’s relationship with its religious leaders.”
Recognizing the broader implications of the case, the Kollel, on behalf of Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Goldblatt sought advice from their posek, Rav Hillel David of Brooklyn, as to whether it was consistent with halacha and the spirit of the law to claim clergy-privilege in court.
“We were told there was no problem from a halachic standpoint. But we knew we’d have a stronger case if we could find some kind of legal precedent in civil law. We wrote to many frum organizations including the OU, RCA and Agudath Israel, asking them to point us to prior case law addressing the issue of whether a rebbetzin was considered clergy,” related Rabbi Fischer. “In each case, the response was basically, ‘Fascinating question, but to our knowledge, it’s never been raised in a court of law. Sorry we can’t be of help.’”
REBBETZINS AS RELIGIOUS GUIDES?
Then a friend of the kollel put Rabbi Fisher in touch with Shaul Stampfer, a leading professor of Jewish History at Hebrew University in Israel, whose field of expertise included the evolving role of the rabbinate from the European period through contemporary times. Professor Stampfer’s research had also followed closely the active role rebbetzins play in contemporary American Jewish communities.
In an unusual twist, the scholar happened to have lived for many years in Portland and had taught in Portland State University before moving to Israel. He wrote a 5-page letter of support testifying that even without rabbinic ordination, a rebbetzin today often “ministered” to female members of her community, especially in sensitive areas pertaining to Jewish laws governing married and family life. The affidavit stressed the critical component of confidentiality in these interactions.
“Many rebbetzins today have taken on pastoral responsibilities commensurate with those of rabbis,” the Stampfer document noted. “Women turn to rebbetzins for advice not simply out of personal friendship but because of their roles as recognized spiritual advisors. Just as one would consult with a doctor or discuss a medical issue, so women turn to a rebbetzin for reliable guidance with regard to the many elements of Jewish law and tradition that affect the life a Jewish woman.”
“The rebbetzin’s function as a religious guide is dependent on her holding in confidence whatever information she was given in a counseling or similar session,” the letter of support stressed.
KOLLEL WIVES’ CREDENTIALS ASSAILED
Professor Stampfer’s authoritative letter to the court encouraged the kollel wives. But the opposing counsel immediately challenged the “religious guide” argument, insisting that “counseling and other pastoral functions” in no way equate rabbinic ordination — the sina qua non of Orthodox Jewish clergy. To claim so was to distort the historic and traditional understanding of a rebbetzin’s function, the opposing brief said.
“Esther Fischer, as a rabbi’s wife or rebbetzin, does not take on, nor can she assume, roles associated with a rabbi in Jewish Orthodoxy,” the opposing counsel asserted.
The brief assailed Mrs. Fischer from another angle, implying her portrayal of herself as a spiritual guide was not authentic. The brief noted that the kollel bio of Mrs. Esther Fischer listed her capacity as the Head Teacher of pre-school in the Maayan Torah Day School and the Director of the Portland Camp SEED.
“The bio of Esther Fischer refers to her as Mrs. Fischer, not even as rebbetzin. It focuses on her background in special education and her role as a pre-school teacher. There is no information suggesting she is qualified as a marriage counselor or a clergy member, and no information that she provides counseling of any kind to anyone.”
The brief went on to attack Mrs. Goldblatt’s qualifications in a similar manner, noting that “no information is presented in her resume or bio to suggest she is trained in counseling or counsels and receives confidence in a professional counseling capacity.”
“Any confidences that Petitioner (the wife in the divorce case) shared with either Esther Fischer and Sarah Goldblatt were based on a friend-friend relationship between the women, not a clergy-penitent relationship,” the brief concluded.
KOLLEL WIVES ORDERED TO APPEAR IN COURT
The husband in the divorce case pressed his advantage by calling for oral arguments before the judge to resolve the dispute over whether the kollel wives, without rabbinic ordination, could legitimately claim the privileges of clergy. He then upped the ante, requesting the right to have his attorney question Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Goldblatt in person at the oral hearing.
Judge Beth Allen of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon granted the request, scheduling an oral hearing at which Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Goldblatt were expected to testify.
“The date of the hearing fell out a week before Pesach… a very intense time. The kollel wives all work in the community in addition to running a busy home with young children. On top of this, we had a court case with potentially serious consequences. It was nerve-wracking,” recalled Rabbi Tzvi Fischer.
“After discussing all the angles with our rov and with our attorneys, my wife and Mrs. Goldblatt came to a decision. Even if the judge ruled against them after the oral hearing, they were prepared to state that their religious convictions and communal duties still prevented them from sharing information about the wife in the divorce case. They understood they might be putting themselves in jeopardy.”
“The opposition was relentless,” Mrs. Greenblatt told Yated. “Imagine combing the country for an Orthodox beis din to support your demand that two kollel wives reveal the confidences of a woman in a divorce case. This wasn’t about investigating criminal activity, mind you. The information being sought seemed to have no purpose other than harassment.”
DEFENDING CLERGY-PRIVILEGE FOR REBBETZINS
At the recommendation of senior officials of Agudath Israel of America, the Kollel reached out to attorney Mark Kurzmann, a former Department of Justice senior trial lawyer and a founding board member of Agudath Israel’s Legal Services, an organization of volunteer lawyers.
“Although it was erev Pesach and an extremely pressured time for him, Mr. Kurzman poured hours of legal work into the case pro bono,” recalled Rabbi Fischer. “He had not only researched case law exhaustively and worked with Professor Stampfer in creating a hard-hitting legal affidavit from the Stampfer letter, he now spent many hours analyzing the legal parameters of the case with us and counseling Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Goldblatt ahead of their court appearance.”
“This was a challenging case,” remarked Mr. Kurzmann in an interview with Yated. “We were seeking to defend the rebbetzins’ right to claim clergy privilege without redefining the term “rebbetzin” or misrepresenting the mesorah.”
Mr. Kurzmann agreed with Rabbi Fischer that it was reasonable to argue that despite Orthodoxy’s position that women cannot be ordained rabbis, the kollel wives were in fact officially hired by the Kollel to “minister” to the community in crucial ways that overlapped with the duties of clergy.
“Ordainment – semicha – is about halacha, applicable to men exclusively. While women have no authority in that area, we were determined to prove that they do have the authority under Orthodox Judaism to educate, guide and inspire, especially regarding family and marriage issues.” Kurzmann said.
“Even more important, we wanted to demonstrate that in contemporary times, a rebbetzin can be so defined even if the woman is not the wife of a rabbi. There are several examples of renowned rebbetzins whose husbands are fine upstanding Jews but not rabbis.”
STANDING THEIR GROUND
On the day of the hearing, Mrs. Fischer was grilled on the stand for almost an hour about her qualifications and training, the venue for her counseling activities and why her interactions with the wife in the divorce case qualified as anything more than friendship. Mrs. Goldblatt was interrogated similarly by phone.
“When did you go from not being a rebbetzin to becoming one?” the opposing attorney challenged Mrs. Fischer.
“When my husband and I were hired by the kollel, that’s when my role began,” Mrs. Fischer answered.
In response to questions posed, she cited her training under the renowned Tehilla Abramov in Jewish marriage education and her certificate from Ner L’elef in Jerusalem that coaches Orthodox Jewish men and women for out-of-town teaching and outreach positions. She testified to being hired by the Kollel to teach and reach out to women in the community and to bring them closer to their Jewish roots. Holding confidences in trust, she says, was a crucial part of her job.
“How do you separate out when someone talking just as a friend and when it’s private?”
“I see it as a sacred duty to keep all personal information confidential. Unless the comments are made in a social setting before a lot of people.”
“Why ‘sacred’?” the attorney probed.
“According to Torah law, whatever one trusts you with must be kept confidential.”
“Is that because you’re a wife of rabbi?”
“Rebbetzin can also mean a religious woman leader. I’ve had rebbetzins whose husbands were not rabbis.”
“Why do you assume someone is sharing with you because you’re a rebbetzin?”
“I assume that to be on the safe side,” Mrs. Fischer responded. “I’m held to a certain standard in the community because of my role. People recognize that. That goes with being a role model.”
Mrs. Goldblatt, who testified by phone, cited her years of running a girls’ orphanage in Byelorussia and her earlier training in Jerusalem as qualifying her for her present position working for the Portland Community Kollel as teacher and religious guide.
“Mrs. Goldblatt, do you consider all your conversations with people to be confidential?’ the attorney asked.
“In my role as a rebbetzin, yes. Women speak to me about what’s going on in their lives. They’re often looking for a spiritual view of feminine issues and don’t want to speak to a man.”
“Come now. Aren’t some of your relationships based simply on friendship?”
“There’s certainly an element of friendship, but it’s very clear that it’s primarily my role as a rebbetzin that’s at play.”
“Who brings up the issue of confidentiality when people speak to you? Assuming that it is even mentioned?”
“That’s a clear understanding due to my role in the community. It doesn’t have to be spelled out. It’s only right and fair to the women who trust me that whatever they discuss is kept private.”
• • • • • • •
As the testimony and deposition continued, the atmosphere in the room seemed to change. The questioning came to an end and Judge Beth Allen, in an unusual departure from protocol, issued her ruling on the spot.
“It seems pretty clear,” she said, “that the issue here is not about official ordainment as a means of identifying Orthodox Jewish clergy. The state is not in a position to dictate to religious organizations how to define their clergy. The key seems to be how the movement itself identifies its religious leaders.”
“In Orthodox Judaism, where only men can be rabbis, men can have their confidences protected by the law when they talk to the rabbi. But what about the women who prefer not to talk to male clergymen about deeply personal matters and turn to women religious leaders for guidance? Is it reasonable that women who prefer to open their hearts to other women should be deprived of the law’s protection?
“I don’t believe that is what the statute governing clergy privilege intended,” the judge concluded, granting the kollel wives in this precedent-setting case their motion to void the subpoena.
Pesach this year was celebrated in Portland, Oregon — and in homes across the country where people were monitoring this case — with an added measure of jubilation and gratitude.
The Portland Community Kollel was founded in 2006 by Rabbi Avrohom David of the Seattle Kollel and Rabbi Chaim Noson Segal of Torah Umesorah, under the guidance of Rabbi Hillel David.
Since its inception, the Kollel has witnessed remarkable growth. Eight kollel members deliver a wide array of classes and programs to all sectors of the Portland community, including classes in daf yomi, dirshu, mishna berura, and nightly classes on topics of halacha and hashkafa.
The kollel wives have created multi-faceted programming for women, children and teens, along with a summer youth camp and a Campus Outreach project at the University of Oregon.
In their ten years of working with the community, the kollel has strengthened the infrastructure of the traditional Jewish community. It has built the membership of the main shul from a Shabbos morning minyan to daily minyanim for all tefillos, becoming a growing source of Jewish education and community for Jews from across the spectrum.
The community has founded a new Torah Day School and this year opened a girls’ high school, with a beginning class of eight students. An eruv enclosing 5 miles squared services the community.
Portland is beginning to attract an influx of families who are drawn to its growing Torah presence.
Yated Newspaper – Oregon Court Scrutinizes Rebbetzin’s Role In Trailblazing Case
Peter Kohn, Second student suing Adass, Jewish News
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformFull article: http://www.jewishnews.net.au/second-student-suing-adass/49891
Pope’s Historic Visit Reignites Church Sex Scandal Debate, Public Service News
/in New Jersey, New York /by SOL ReformDaniel Burke, Pope at the UN: 5 things Francis thinks are wrong with the world, CNN
/in Uncategorized /by SOL ReformIn a sweeping address to the United Nations on Friday, Pope Francis presented himself as a champion of the poor and dispossessed, urging world leaders to adopt concrete solutions to combat widespread poverty and environmental destruction.
Francis, who is in New York as part of a weeklong visit to the United States, is the fifth pope to address the United Nations, and his speech followed a familiar papal formula.
First, the Pope laid out his moral vision for a more just world, arguing for a series of “sacred rights,” including labor, land and lodging.
Adopting the urgent tone of a disappointed prophet, he then listed the most pressing problems facing humanity — from drug trafficking to the nuclear arms race and the rise of an “all-powerful elite” that hoards wealth and resources.
“In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged,” Francis said.
Lastly, the Pope offered ideas for world leaders to consider.
Here’s exactly what the Pope thinks is wrong with the world, followed by his suggestions for fixing them:
Poor countries don’t have a real presence in the United Nations, and poor people don’t have a voice in international aid programs and projects, the Pope said.
“To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty,” he said, “we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny.”
Talk, talk, talk
World leaders seem not to realize that while they hedge, real people suffer, Francis said. When they finally do find a solution, it is often imposed without thought to local realities.
“In wars and conflicts, there are individual persons, our brothers and sisters, men and women, young and old, boys and girls who weep, suffer and die,” he said, “human beings who are easily discarded when our only response is to draw up lists of problems, strategies and disagreements.”
What Pope has said about key issues facing the church
While praising the U.N. as an important instrument for good, the Pope also noted that certain countries have been able to manipulate the international body to block urgent action.
Noting the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Sudan, Francis said some world leaders have used the U.N. not to solve problems, but “as a means of masking spurious intentions.”
“These realities should serve as a grave summons to an examination of conscience on the part of those charged with the conduct of international affairs.”
‘United by fear and distrust’
Nuclear weapons are poor instruments of peace, the Pope said, frankly dismissing the idea that no one will use bombs if everybody has them.
“An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction — and possibly the destruction of all mankind,” he said, “are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as nations united by fear and distrust.”
No checks, no balances
World leaders can draw up all the treaties and programs they want, the Pope said. But if there are no ways of enforcing decisions, they remain useless white papers.
“The number and complexity of the problems require that we possess technical instruments of verification,” Francis said.
But even those “instruments” can become bureaucratic mazes in which real solutions recede into a hazy horizon, he said.
“We cannot permit ourselves to postpone ‘certain agendas’ for the future,” the Pope said.
“The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of worldwide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.”
The Pope’s solutions
Popes don’t often offer concrete solutions global problems. But Francis is no ordinary pope. On Friday, he proposed three specific paths to a more “sustainable development of countries.”
• An international justice league: In previous speeches, the Pope has lamented that poor countries are plundered for their natural resources, with no legal means to fight back.
On Friday, he proposed the creation of a “juridical system” for regulating claims and limiting power.
• Mother Earth has rights: This summer, Pope Francis traveled to Bolivia and Ecuador, two of the few countries that grant “rights of nature” — protecting the air, trees and water.
On Friday, he backed the idea of “right of the environment,” for two reasons.
1. Any harm to the Earth also harms humanity.
2. Every living creature has intrinsic value, beauty and is interdependent with other forms of life.
• Beyond the dotted lines: As Francis noted, the U.N. began its summit for sustainable development Friday, and in December, world leaders will gather for a summit on climate change.
The Pope’s speech on Friday, as well as his eco-encyclical, aimed to influence those agreements, Francis has said.
“Solemn commitments, however, are not enough, even though they are a necessary step toward solutions,” he said.
What the world needs, Francis argued, is a renewed sense of sacrifice for the common good and solidarity between the rich and poor, races and religions, the powerful and powerless.
Pope Francis speaks at the U.N. – CNN
NY Event
/in Civil Extension Testimony, New York /by SOL Reform