New pope confronts modern Europe

Let's face it: it has become common knowledge these days that the Catholic Church in Europe is struggling to survive. This generation of Europeans are simply not in step with the traditionalist doctrine of the Church, favoring an approach to life that relies much more on reason and self-interest than faith. And now with the appointment of Pope Benedict XVI (aka Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), many are wondering what role, if any, he will have in revitalizing the Church in Europe and making it the relevant institution it once was.

The New York Times' International section featured an interesting article today that opens up with an inside look into the thoughts and feelings of students attending Belgium's centuries-old Catholic University of Louvain. Many of the students that were interviewed expressed doubt about the new pope's willingness to listen to them, referring back to their experiences with his predecessor, John Paul II.

For Pavils Jarans, a 24-year-old Latvian student, it is hard to believe that the reserved, intellectual Pope Benedict XVI can succeed in wooing back the faithful to church practice and dogma given that John Paul II - a onetime amateur actor who knew how to work a crowd - failed.

"The image that I have of Pope Benedict is that he's the guard dog of the church, very rigid, very intellectual," he said. "I don't really see how he's going to solve the problems of the church."

It is this image of the "rotweiler of the Church" (as I've heard one imaginative NPR reporter put it) that Benedict will have to shake somehow if he plans on making serious progress. Although he shouldn't completely compromise his traditional beliefs, he has to convince the world that he is willing to think outside of the box by breaking free from his current 12th Century mindset.

However, as the article goes on, we find that some of the things that he has been outspoken on are a bit shocking.

Arguing in an interview with Le Figaro Magazine last summer that it was a "mistake" to omit Europe's Christian roots in the European Union Constitution, he called Europe a "cultural continent, not a geographical one" whose roots are Christian.

He used the same argument to explain why Turkey, with its mostly Muslim population, should not be a member of the European Union.

Europe's rising Islamic population only makes the problem more complex. Pope Benedict has criticized "multiculturalism" as "an abandonment and disavowal of what is our own." At the same time, however, he also has noted the success of Islam in inspiring Muslims, and has said it offers a "valid spiritual foundation for people's lives" that "seems to have escaped from the hands of old Europe," meaning Christian Europe.

Okay, so on the one hand he calls non-Catholic churches "deficient" ecumenical communities, but he still has enough PC-ness left in him to call Islam a "valid spiritual foundation." A bit of inconsistency here? Also, I don't think I like all of this talk against multiculturalism. I'm going to try to find out where this quote came from. In any case, to be the leader of the most multicultural religion on the planet and be against that very ideal is a bit frightening.

One of the final persons of interest that was mentioned in this article was the Rev. Willigis Jäger, described as an "80- year-old German Benedictine monk and Zen master" (a religious combination I have yet to come across up until this point). After being ordered in 2001 by the former Cardinal Ratzinger to cease his "mystical" activities, he had this to offer about the new pope.

Benedict will be incapable of a meaningful dialogue on issues ranging from ecumenism to women's rights in the church, he said in a written response to questions. Because of that, he said, "Europe will search for a spirituality that does not consist of outdated, traditional theological beliefs."

And what will Europe find? Islam, secularism? How about Zen?

Tragic.

Pope Benedict XVI

Was anyone really surprised that the white smoke would work out for Ratzinger?

Professor Stephen Bainbridge at the UCLA School of Law says only liberals were surprised (more like disappointed) that a "Vatican insider" would be chosen over a more open-minded candidate from, say, the Third World. Clearly the Vatican is more worried about sexual promiscuity in Europe than in Africa, which is too bad for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, it is a clear sign that most cardinals would rather stick with someone who will uphold the conservative legacy of John Paul II for the time being (the term "transitional papacy" is key here).

Meanwhile, the boys at Reuters have a nice little newsbrief up and running. Some of these excerpts seem pretty biased in my opinion, however, the allegations are worth taking a look at.

Ratzinger's stern leadership of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor to the Inquisition, delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates and other Christians whose churches he described as deficient.

Ratzinger disciplined Latin American "liberation theology" theologians, denounced homosexuality and gay marriage and pressured Asian priests who saw non-Christian religions as part of God's plan for humanity.

In a document in 2000, he branded other Christian churches as deficient -- shocking Anglicans, Lutherans and other Protestants in ecumenical dialogue with Rome for years.

Great way to get other Christians to like you...call their churches "deficient." That's not exactly what I would call "diplomatic." In any case, many are looking at his choice of name as a sign that he is willing to stray a bit from his orthodox positions.

His choice of name seemed intriguing because the last Pope Benedict, who reigned from 1914 to 1922, subtly repudiated the strict Vatican orthodoxy practiced under his predecessor Pius X, said former Vatican diplomat John-Peter Pham.

Interesting. We'll see if he surprises us with some major policy shift further down the road.

John Bolton: The Right Stuff?

The Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on Bush's recent nomination of John Bolton as the US's new ambassador to the United Nations. The only problem with this nomination is: John Bolton doesn't even believe in the organization that he would be representing us at.

The White House has been pushing hard for Bolton, launching a campaign of promotion in an attempt to silence outcry by Democrats.

Bolton's nomination has pitted Democrats, who say his appointment would damage U.S. national interests, against Republicans, who call him a foreign policy realist who will help push U.S. calls for overhauling the United Nations.

One way or the other, it is alarming that such a man actually said things like, "If the UN Secretariat building lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference." (Not to mention a lot of other government officials are saying things about him saying those things as well.)

Perhaps the most apt critique of his nomination to this post was offered by Sen. Joseph Biden who said, "I have always voted against nominees who oppose the avowed purpose of the position for which they have been nominated."

Okay, so this guy isn't a big fan of the UN. But still, is that the same as saying he is against what the UN stands for? True, if he gets chosen to represent us at the UN, he will probably try to tow the "go-it-alone" stance that we have all come to know and love from the Bush administration, however, many conservatives like Condoleeza Rice believe that he will be the best advocate for reform in the UN that we have seen yet.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who...defended John Bolton as President Bush's nominee to become ambassador to the world body, pointed to numerous corruption scandals as proof the organization's growing paralysis, the BBC said Saturday.

This is a tough call. There has already been a letter drafted by sixty-two former American diplomats begging with the Senate not to appoint Bolton to the position.

The former American diplomats said the candidate has an "exceptional record", but stressed he is wrong the man for the job.

"John Bolton's insistence that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United States, and that the most effective Security Council would be one where the U.S. is the only permanent member, will not help him to negotiate with representatives of the remaining 96 percent of humanity," the letter read.

Although I do believe the UN itself has slowly become weak, dysfunctional organization, I still don't trust a man with such clear animosity towards the actual purpose of the UN. That is, to foster cooperation, trust, and collective security among the nations of the world. In the end, to think that Bolton will somehow single-handedly put a stop to corruption and stagnancy is not realistic. Also, we don't need someone that will merely advocate US policy over international policy. We need someone that is willing to say to the other represented nations, "the US is tired of seeing this organization fail to live up to its potential." And I think Bill Clinton is just the man to do it; from the Office of the Secretariat, that is.

Another Osirak?

Apparently Palestinians weren't the only thing Sharon and Bush talked about at the latter's ranch in Crawford, Texas. General Yoav Gallan of the Israeli military presented Bush with some aerial photos of Iranian nuclear installations, which undoubtedly causes many to wonder whether Iran will become the next victim (I use that word lightly) of Israel's top-notch air force, much like Saddam's Iraq was in the 1981 Osirak raid.

Despite all of this speculation, Sharon denies that Israel has plans to attack Iran. I'm not quite convinced.

In an MSNBC interview in January, [Vice President] Cheney expressed concern that Israel might act unilaterally against the Iranian nuclear program.

"If, in fact, the Israelis become convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," he said.

In a scary way, this sort of makes sense. Diplomatically speaking, Israel has seemingly never been a favorite among countries that aren't the US (put bluntly). Just as well, they are fully aware that Iran's clerics would have a field day (that is, destroying Israel) if they got their hands on a nuclear weapon. Israel is also fully aware that it has the means to stop the Iranians from getting to that point, via the best air force in the world. Lights, camera, action.

Roadmappin' it

The Jerusalem Post has the latest on Bush's meeting with Sharon at his Crawford ranch.

Some things that stood out for me:

On another issue, he [Sharon] said that while he talked with Bush about the upcoming Palestinian Authority elections, it was done in a general manner without talking about whether the US should push the PA to postpone the Palestinian legislative elections until after disengagement so that Hamas does not gain strength.

Good call on Sharon's part. Maybe the Palestinian zealots will have a chance to cool down a bit after they see Israeli troops leaving some of their territory. But then again, a delay may only lead to further resentment against the US for interference with the political process. Not to mention that some of these groups like Hamas may try to use the disengagement as a way to better convey to their constituents the message that "Israel is not invincible and we can still drive them out of the Middle East altogether." Of course, this is all "glass is half empty" stuff, but you know how it is with this region. Or maybe you don't.

In any case:

Bush said that the US would cooperate with Israel in developing the Negev and Galilee, a clear indication that there will be some US financial aid as a result of the disengagement plan.

How thoughtful. As if Israel doesn't get enough aid from the US, but who's keeping track anyway?

Prior to the meeting, NBC aired an interview conducted with Sharon last week in Jerusalem in which he warned of civil war. During the press conference with Bush, Sharon said that he hoped disengagement would be carried out quietly and peacefully. During the NBC interview, Sharon said, "The tension here, the atmosphere here, looks like the eve of civil war. All my life I was defending the lives of Jews. Now for the first time security steps are being taken to protect me from Jews."

In a way, I feel for the guy. He had enough heart and common sense to deviate (somewhat) from his hawkish ways in order to get this roadmap going, and now he is worried he will get stepped on for doing the "right" thing. Civil war seems a bit drastic...I don't see how a state like Israel, with so many deeply rooted feelings of national unity and patriotism embedded in its citizens, could end up in such a condition. But then again, I'm not Prime Minister either. Let's just hope we can later dismiss Sharon's comments as pure paranoia, because a civil war in gun-toting, nuclear-armed Israel is not something I would look forward to.

Sadistic whackos on the Web

NBC Nightly News ran a shocking (although still rather amusing) story this evening about a cute little, however ill-fated, bunny rabbit named Toby. The operators of his website claim that if they do not receive $50,000 by June 30th, they are going to eat him.

Of course, my first inclination was that this is a hoax. However, the segment on NBC featured a phone interview with one of the "owners" of this "foundation," in which the man clearly stated, "as a matter of fact, this is dead serious" or something to that extent.

Unfortunately, the tone of the website does not serve to convince me of their "seriousness."

On June 30th, 2005, Toby will die. I am going to eat him. I am going to take Toby to a butcher to have him slaughter this cute bunny. I will then prepare Toby for a midsummer feast. I have several recipes under consideration, which can be seen, with some pretty graphic images, under the recipe section.

I don’t want to eat Toby, he is my friend, and he has always been the most loving, adorable pet. However, God as my witness, I will devour this little guy unless I receive 50,000$ USD into my account from donations or purchase of merchandise. You can help this poor, helpless bunny’s cause by making donations through my verified PayPal account by clicking on any of the Donate buttons on this site, or by purchasing merchandise at the Savetoby.com online store.

"I will...prepare Toby for a midsummer feast"? No one talks like that when they are serious. How about "I don't want to eat Toby, he is my friend"? It's as if some demon is forcing the guy to eat him and there's nothing he can do to stop it. Rubbish.

Meanwhile, animal rights activists the world over are reacting to the site with appal. Here's what the UK Telegraph News had to say.

At least one good thing has come out of this debacle in recent days. Even though from a legal standpoint, one's First Amendment right would have to apply, that doesn't mean that privately-owned services can't decide to pull the plug on SaveToby.

SaveToby.com's money-making days may be at an end however. After receiving a flood of complaints from animal-lovers, PayPal, the on-line payment service the website was using to get donations, decided last month that the site violated its "offensive-materials" standards.

"I get a little sick to my stomach every time I look at that site," admitted Amanda Pires, a PayPal spokesman.

But I mean, really, can't a man just enjoy a nice rabbit for dinner and make a few bucks on the side? Isn't that what the free world is all about? Of course it is.

Funerals make for strange occurrences

The Pope's recent funeral witnessed an impressive gathering of world leaders, but I don't think anyone quite expected this.

For the presidents of countries [Syria and Iran] so outspoken against the existence of Israel to shake hands with President Moshe Katsav is pretty unbelievable.

Fahed al-Fanek, an analyst and columnist for the Jordanian daily Al-Rai, told The Jerusalem Post that the act was a means of communicating a desire for back-channel talks with both Syria and Iran.

"It was an unconditional invitation," said Fanek. "It is a message to say, 'We are ready to talk, so send your people and start the connections.'"

Interesting. Either this guy al-Fanek really knows what he's talking about, or he completely missed the obscenities muttered under the presidents' breaths and the slowly-tightening-grip-before-finally-releasing-the-handshake manuever.

But in all seriousness, how should outside observers perceive this seemingly meaningful gesture?

Syria has said numerous times it wants to return to the negotiating table where the talks between the two countries left off in 2000. Israel has said it wants no preconditions. Iran has stated in the past its support for the destruction of Israel.

But, the internationally renowned Syria expert, Patrick Seale, told the Post that he "wouldn't put any meaning into [the handshakes]." According to Seale, the only reason the elder Assad did not shake an Israeli leader's hand was "because there was no opportunity." Both Zisser and Seale said that without a context for a change in the relationship between Damascus and Jerusalem the handshakes would change nothing.

How many times have we seen Arafat, Mubarak, and others shake hands with Israeli officials and heads of state over the years? And what exactly did they accomplish, other than good shots for the press? Pretty much nothing.

So please, let's not kid ourselves: the context for any real change in Middle East relationships has not yet been established in the least bit. Even if there were good intentions behind the handshakes, as long as Syria and Iran continue to maintain links to terrorist groups, I don't see how we can expect anything to change.

Friedman goes global

Thomas Friedman, one of my favorite editorialists at the New York Times, has just written a new article in the New York Times Magazine that talks about the rapid shrinking of our world and the rise of globalization. Check out this great lead:

In 1492 Christopher Columbus set sail for India, going west. He had the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria. He never did find India, but he called the people he met ''Indians'' and came home and reported to his king and queen: ''The world is round.'' I set off for India 512 years later. I knew just which direction I was going. I went east. I had Lufthansa business class, and I came home and reported only to my wife and only in a whisper: ''The world is flat.''

You may notice next to the article is a multimedia section. The clip titled "The Other Side of Outsourcing" gives you a pretty good idea of what Friedman has been up to lately. That is, trying to prove that all of this hubba hubba in the media about outsourcing American jobs fails to give the public the full spectrum of what is going on. To make a long story short, both skilled and unskilled workers in places like India and other poorer nations are benefitting greatly from the recent technology boom, which gives them access to jobs that were once held only by Westerners in developed countries. I happen to agree with the concept of globalization because I believe in free trade and the idea that the wealth of the world is slowly being more evenly distributed through this process.

No country accidentally benefited more from the Netscape moment than India. ''India had no resources and no infrastructure,'' said Dinakar Singh, one of the most respected hedge-fund managers on Wall Street, whose parents earned doctoral degrees in biochemistry from the University of Delhi before emigrating to America. ''It produced people with quality and by quantity. But many of them rotted on the docks of India like vegetables. Only a relative few could get on ships and get out. Not anymore, because we built this ocean crosser, called fiber-optic cable. For decades you had to leave India to be a professional. Now you can plug into the world from India. You don't have to go to Yale and go to work for Goldman Sachs.'' India could never have afforded to pay for the bandwidth to connect brainy India with high-tech America, so American shareholders paid for it. Yes, crazy overinvestment can be good. The overinvestment in railroads turned out to be a great boon for the American economy. ''But the railroad overinvestment was confined to your own country and so, too, were the benefits,'' Singh said. In the case of the digital railroads, ''it was the foreigners who benefited.'' India got a free ride.

So in essence, what Friedman is trying to prove is that it is in fact in our interest to be supporting the occupational development of people in places like India. Because, as we were all hopefully taught, what goes around comes around. Mindboggling stuff indeed.

A Church in transition

In the wake of Pope John Paul II's passing, the most pertinent question on many peoples' mind is: who will the cardinals elect to replace him?

Reuters UK has published an article outlining possible successors to John Paul II.

Although the appointment of a new pontiff really doesn't have any direct effect on my life, considering I'm not Catholic, these are a couple of my favorites (just in terms of ideology and credentials):

FRANCIS ARINZE (NIGERIAN), BORN NOV. 1, 1932

Cardinal Francis Arinze was for nearly 20 years the Vatican's point man for relations with Islam, a key element cardinals choosing the next pope may take into consideration.

This has fueled speculation he could become the first African pope in more than 1,500 years.

A very spiritual man, he is sometimes seen walking to his office near the Vatican clutching rosary beads while praying, smiling all the time.

A theological conservative, he was born into an animist family in the village of Eziowelle. He was not baptized until the age of nine, when he converted to Catholicism.

He now heads the Vatican department for divine worship.

Aside from the fact that I think it would be cool to have an African pope, I also like how he is familiar with Islam (very important in today's world) and is described as generally pious and happy.

GODFRIED DANNEELS (BELGIAN), BORN JUNE 4, 1933

Danneels, the archbishop of Brussels, is a gifted preacher ranked as the main liberal contender for the papacy. He has taken a leading role in a drive to revive the Catholic faith in European cities.

He made waves by urging the Vatican to allow women to hold top posts normally taken by cardinals, by saying condoms could be used in the fight against AIDS and by arguing that Islam in Europe has to reform in order to integrate there. He also wants local bishops to have more say in running the Church.

Danneels, a jovial man who gives lively interviews in his native Dutch as well as English, French and Italian, has been a key player at Vatican synods in the past decade.

Although clearly a liberal, in some ways I think he has just what the Church needs right now. He is clearly someone who is unafraid to confront the challenges of the modern world. Secularism, AIDS, women's rights, and the rise of Islam are very important issues that must be addressed, and this guy seems to have the experience and the energy to do so.

MDC's next move is uncertain

Zimbabwe's opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, is contesting the results of Thursday's elections, but leader Morgan Tsvangirai is not making it clear what he plans to do about it. There is no doubt that fear of Mugabe's brutality is pressuring him to keep quiet, but his supporters seem to be ready to do whatever is necessary to keep the ZANU-PF from maintaining its 2/3 majority in parliament, which gives it the authority to rewrite the constitution, thereby crushing any hope of reform.

In the streets, his [Tsvangirai] supporters were listening to results trickle in and waiting for a sign. Shepherd Matetsi, a 26-year-old mechanic, could not believe that ZANU-PF won his riding, and he was asking in the streets all day yesterday for news.

"We're waiting for word from Tsvangirai. If he gives the word, we will go to the streets," he said in the early evening. "But up to now he hasn't said anything. If he calls us, we will go — although there is some risk [to] life. But he hasn't called."

The above quote really gets to me emotionally. This is a sign of the desperation of this people. They are fully prepared to risk their lives to let the world know that they will no longer tolerate violence and repression from Mugabe. Whether or not the situation will play out in a Ghandi-esque manner is up for debate.

Mr. Tsvangirai said the opposition had a plan, although he refused to say what it was.

But by fumbling through the day, they appeared to be squandering a prime moment to move, with a rare group of international observers and journalists ready to record their moves.

The MDC leader is in a difficult position. He has already once been charged with treason, and faced the death penalty had he been convicted; the government would be delighted with another such opportunity to try him, should he speak urgently of revolution.

It all seems to hinge on whether or not the world community would be willing to speak its outrage at any move Mugabe would possibly make against protest by the opposition. Tsvangirai is in a tight spot to be sure, but so were all the other great peaceful protestors throughout history. If the people are on his side, I say Godspeed. Were South Africa to change its position and voice the concerns of the West, it may just give the opposition the edge it needs in this current standoff. Yet, the fact that Zimbabwe's neighbor to the south had already made up its mind about the "fairness" of the elections even before they were carried out is anything but comforting...

PLO assimilates Hamas and Islamic Jihad

Okay, this has definitely caught my attention...

Over the past week, Abbas has increased efforts to convince Hamas and Islamic Jihad to officially join the PLO in order to deflect pressure to dismantle the groups.

Under the terms of the Oslo Accords and Road Map peace plans, the PLO/PA is obligated to disarm and dismantle all terrorist organizations operating out of territories under its control.

Despite Hamas’s failure to participate in Sunday’s meeting, the group’s Damascus-based leader, Khaled Mashal, said Wednesday he had come to an understanding with Abbas.

In an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Al Aram , Mashal said he and Abbas had struck a deal on the future control of the Gaza Strip following Israel’s planned withdrawal, Israel Radio reported.

PA officials Tuesday confirmed a report that Abbas had agreed to consult Hamas on the fate of abandoned Jewish settlements in Gaza.

Later that day, Hamas announced its tentative decision to officially join the PLO, pending the resolution of differences with Abbas’s Fatah faction.

From what I gather, this could be interpreted in a number of ways. Abbas may be trying to buy some time in his quest to gain control over these groups and dismantle them by guiding them into his organization. On the other hand, he could very well be showing his true colors. That is, he may actually be more in line with the goal(s) of these groups (the destruction of Israel being the overarching theme here) than people had originally thought. In that case, this is indeed a scary development for the Middle East.

Experts say the question is whether Hamas and Islamic Jihad have moderated their strategy and ideology to adapt to the PLO stance; or if the PLO, headed by Abbas, is moving closer to the terror groups' destruction-of-Israel goals.

Dr. Ely Karmon, of the International Policy Institute on Counter Terrorism near Tel Aviv, said that there are two possibilities why Hamas in particular would agree to join the PLO.

The more "optimistic" view is that Hamas is beginning to understand reality and adapt its goals, Karmon said. Hamas has agreed to participate in upcoming PA parliamentary elections, and it will have to decide whether it will negotiate with Israel or not.

But the other view is that the PLO is accepting the extremist views of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, something that will put pressure on the PLO -- and, in turn, on the governing PA. In that case, the PA will be even more "uncompromising with Israel," Karmon said.

To sum up, we are going to have to watch Abbas very carefully here. He may just be trying to be a smooth operator (the "optimistic" view) and get these extremist groups to realize that they'd be better off modifying their stances (and practices hopefully) and enjoy life under the umbrella of the PLO. However, if Abbas is making a radical policy change in his government by aligning it with the goals of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, we are looking at a very serious problem. I hope to see further developments and analysis as this development definitely carries some major implications for the region.