Connect with us

Uncategorized

Pope Benedict XVI, who went from Hitler Youth to advancing Catholic-Jewish relations, dies at 95

(JTA) — Jewish groups are among those marking the death of Benedict XVI, the Catholic pontiff who died Saturday at 95, a decade after shocking the world by becoming the first pope since the Middle Ages to resign.

“It is with great sadness that I learned today that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has passed away,” Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said in a statement issued Saturday. “He was a towering figure of the Roman Catholic Church, both as pope and before that as the cardinal who gave the Catholic-Jewish relationship solid theological underpinning and enhanced understanding.”

During his eight years as pope, Benedict took many steps to advance Catholic-Jewish relations. visiting synagogues and Israel and condemning antisemitism on multiple occasions.

But he also reintroduced liturgy praying for the conversion of Jews, accepted back into the church an excommunicated priest who denied the Holocaust and never completely satisfied some who wished to see him more fully denounce his own Nazi past.

Born Joseph Ratzinger in Germany in 1927, Benedict spent a portion of his teenage years in the Hitler Youth organization, something that was mandatory for boys in Germany at the time and that he explained as necessary to obtain a tuition discount at his seminary. Those who knew him at the time attested after his election as pope in 2005 that his participation was reluctant, and Jewish groups who worked with him after the war said he had long worked to rectify the association.

“Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement after his election as pope.

As priest and professor of theology in the 1960s, Ratzinger took part in the Second Vatican Council, a policy meeting of church leaders, as a theological advisor. It was at that council that the church’s leadership rejected centuries of Catholic dogma and declared that the Jewish people should not be blamed for the death of Jesus. Their 1965 declaration, known as Nostra Aetate, recast the church’s relations with the Jewish community.

Benedict’s predecessor, Pope John Paul II, is remembered as the first pope to visit a  synagogue and, upon his ascension to the papacy, Benedict continued that tradition, making a habit of visiting with local Jewish communities on several of his international trips.

Pope Benedict XVI greets guests beside Rabbi Arthur Schneier (R) during a visit to the Park East Synagogue, April 18, 2008, in New York City. (Vincenzo Pinto/AFP via Getty Images)

In 2008, on a papal visit to the United States, Benedict visited New York’s Park East Synagogue on the eve of Passover, in the first visit by a pope to an American synagogue.

“Shalom! It is with joy that I come here, just a few hours before the celebration of your Pesach, to express my respect and esteem for the Jewish community in New York City,” the pope said to the congregation, according to the church’s records. “I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this.”

The next year, Benedict visited Israel, in a trip that was largely focused around the common roots of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Related: Timeline of Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews (2013)

Upon Benedict’s resignation in 2013, he was praised by Israel’s Ashkenazi chief rabbi. “During his period there were the best relations ever between the church and the chief rabbinate, and we hope that this trend will continue,” said the rabbi, Yona Metzger. “I think he deserves a lot of credit for advancing inter-religious links the world.”

Despite the praise, Benedict’s papacy ignited multiple episodes of criticism from Jews alarmed by the effects of his religious conservatism.

Early in his papacy, Benedict allowed for the expanded use of the Tridentine Mass — the pre-Vatican II Catholic liturgy also known as the Latin Mass — which includes a Good Friday prayer that many view as antisemitic because it prays for the conversion of Jews to Christianity. (Benedict’s successor, Pope Francis, has curtailed the use of the Latin Mass, though not specifically because of its language about Jews.)

The ADL’s then-leader, Abraham Foxman, was among many Jewish leaders to condemn Benedict’s move.

‘We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted,’ Foxman said. “’It is the wrong decision at the wrong time. It appears the Vatican has chosen to satisfy a right-wing faction in the church that rejects change and reconciliation.”

In response to the criticism, Benedict altered the Good Friday liturgy to drop a reference to the “blindness” of the Jews, but he maintained language praying for Jews to convert to Christianity.

Benedict also drew criticism for his refusal to acknowledge the Catholic church’s role in the Holocaust, and in particular, the role of the pope at the time, Pius XII — whose path to sainthood Benedict approved in 2009.

Pope Benedict XVI talks to Italian Chief Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni in Rome’s main synagogue, Jan. 17, 2010. In his remarks there, Benedict said the Roman Catholic Church provided “often hidden and discreet” support for Jews during the Holocaust. (Filippo Monteforte/AFP via Getty Images)

Pius has long been accused by Jewish groups of at best remaining silent, and at worst, being “Hitler’s pope” as the Holocaust raged across Europe. While Catholics were involved in many cases of rescue across the continent, initiatives coming from the Vatican itself often applied only to practicing Catholics of Jewish descent, or required Jews to convert to Catholicism.

After the war, Pius’ Vatican sheltered Ante Pavelic, the exiled leader of the Ustaše regime in the former Independent State of Croatia, a Catholic supremacist movement and Nazi puppet state that implemented the Holocaust in Western Yugoslavia. Jasenovac, the third-largest concentration camp in Europe, was built under the Ustaše rule and was the site of death for at least 100,000 people, including between 12,000 and 20,000 Jews.

The Vatican has long maintained that Pius worked to save Jews. Pius, Benedict said in 2008, “acted in a secret and silent way because, given the realities of that complex historical moment, he realized that it was only in this way that he could avoid the worst and save the greatest possible number of Jews.”

Benedict faced the decision of whether to declare Pius “venerable,” a crucial step in the path to sainthood. After initially deferring, he made the declaration in 2009. Now, the decision about whether Pius will be beatified, or declared a saint, could hinge on the contents of an archive that the Vatican is in the process of opening that includes materials about Pius’ handling of the Holocaust.

“The Pope at War,” a recent book by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Kertzer, the son of a rabbi, draws on these new archives to make the case that Pius largely ignored pleas from Jews (while keeping a secret back channel to Hitler); Pius’ advisor used antisemitic language in urging him not to act on behalf of the Jews and the pope personally intervened to prevent Jewish children and their parents from being reunited, Kertzer concluded.

Benedict, who had access to the archive, worked to heal friction with the International Society of Saint Pius XII, a conservative faction within the Vatican that named itself after the wartime pope and added the “Saint” even though he lacked the title.

In early 2009, Benedict removed the excommunication of four priests from the society. Among them was Holocaust denier Richard Williamson, who claimed the Nazis’ use of gas chambers to be a lie.

German Jewish leaders called Benedict’s decision “a slap in the face for the Jewish community.”

“The result of this move is very simple: to give credence to a man who is a Holocaust denier, which means that the sensitivity to us as Jews is not what it should be,” Elie Wiesel said at the time. 

“The Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican-Jewish relations,” the scholar (and current U.S. antisemitism monitor) Deborah Lipstadt wrote at the time. “It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages.”

Benedict said he had not known about Williamson’s views and pressed him to recant them, but Williamson did not; the pope later said he had mishandled the situation.

Months later, during his visit to Israel, Benedict spoke outside of Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial and museum. Though he denounced antisemitism in his remarks, he did not mention the words Germany or Nazi, nor did he reference any church involvement or his own experience in the Hitler Youth, or refer to the deaths of Europe’s Jews as murder.

Benedict ultimately refused to enter the museum, due to its negative depiction of Pope Pius XII.


The post Pope Benedict XVI, who went from Hitler Youth to advancing Catholic-Jewish relations, dies at 95 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Was Deni Avdija an unwitting victim of the NBA betting scandal?

In a generally grim 2024-25 season for the Portland Trail Blazers, fifth-year Israeli swingman Deni Avdija was a bright spot, achieving career-high numbers in points, rebounds and assists.

But the arrest of Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups has people pointing to a suspicious pattern in Avdija’s playing time — and wondering whether the fix was in.

Billups, 49, was one of 30 people arrested Thursday in what the FBI says was a multimillion-dollar, Mafia-run illegal gambling and sports betting conspiracy. Also arrested was NBA player Terry Rozier, whom the FBI alleged faked an injury to make sure coordinated bets against his individual stats — that he wouldn’t reach points or rebounds totals, for example — would pay out.

Billups, who was inducted to the NBA Hall of Fame as a player in 2024, is accused in a conspiracy that took place off the court, in which he allegedly participated in rigged poker games, serving as a celebrity “face” who would lure high-stakes bettors into the trap. Billups and the other players would know what cards were coming and eventually split the take, which could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single game.

Unlike Rozier, Billups is not accused in any basketball-related schemes, and the FBI says the poker games involving the retired NBA star occurred in 2019, when he was no longer playing and not yet coaching. (He became Blazers head coach in 2021.)

Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups during a game in March. Photo by Alika Jenner/Getty Images

But after his arrest, an old social media post resurfaced which pointed out Billups’ strange coaching decisions relating to Avdija, the league’s longest-tenured active Jewish player. The tweet dated to January, when the NBA announced it was investigating Rozier for suspicious betting patterns. The account @FtblRocco, which posts regularly about sports betting, posted Jan. 30 that “If Terry Rozier is being investigated Chauncey Billups needs to be as well.”

The alleged proof: In five of Avdija’s six previous games, Avdija had played 35, 39, 34, 38 and 38 minutes. In the other, on Jan. 23 against the Orlando Magic, he played only 26 — without any injury or foul trouble. The same thing happened against the Magic a week later: He played only 25 minutes. “Billups clearly deciding to bet the under on him v Orlando,” the account posted Jan. 30 on X.

The evidence is hardly ironclad: Avdija also played only 22 minutes the next game, against Phoenix. But @FtblRocco wasn’t the only account posting its suspicions about Billups.

Following the arrest, another account said it had noticed “large liquidity spikes” in bets related to Avdija, Donovan Clingan, and other Blazers players. A liquidity spike is a sign of increased action — more money being placed — on a particular betting line.

If the FBI was investigating Billups for this, it didn’t find enough to charge him. But one has to wonder whether Avdija’s career year might have been even better without these odd fluctuations.

The Trail Blazers put Billups on leave Thursday and said the franchise was cooperating with the investigation. Meanwhile, in the Blazers’ opening game of the 2025-26 season on Wednesday — a loss to Minnesota — Avdija picked up where he left off: 20 points and 7 rebounds in 33 minutes.

The post Was Deni Avdija an unwitting victim of the NBA betting scandal? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be

As New York City’s mayoral election moves ahead, there appear to be three major issues that trouble many of my friends within the Jewish community about Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate and frontrunner.

Will Mamdani take pains to appropriately protect the city’s Jewish community during this period of heightened antisemitism, they ask? Should his views on the Middle East disqualify him from the support of Jewish voters? And is he sufficiently experienced to serve as Mayor of the largest and most complex city in the nation?

As a one-time city official deeply involved in the city’s Jewish community, I think each of those questions is valid — and each easily answerable, in Mamdani’s favor.

Concerns about antisemitism

There are understandable fears within the Jewish community about our safety at a time of rising antisemitism. To that, I say: It’s hard to imagine a stronger program of protection against hate than that which Mamdani has outlined.

Mamdani has proposed a 800% increase for funding hate crime prevention — a comprehensive investment that should reassure those of us who are most alarmed. Antisemitism “is a real crisis that we have to tackle, and one that I’m committed to doing so through increased funding for actually preventing hate crimes across the city,” Mamdani told NPR this summer, adding “my commitment is to protect Jewish New Yorkers and that I will live up to that commitment through my actions.”

Compare that to the plans put forward by Mamdani’s opponents, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who is running as an Independent, after Mamdani defeated him in the Democratic Primary — and Curtis Sliwa, a Republican. Cuomo has promised to prioritize fighting antisemitism, but has focused on forms of antisemitism more associated with the political left, in a fashion that leaves open the question of whether he’s prepared to address the often more violent threats of right-wing antisemitism. And Sliwa, who has a record of offensive statements about Jews, appears to be less interested in having the city directly involved in Jewish safety. “I, unlike any of the candidates, have said Jews must protect themselves,” he said in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “If you depend strictly on Gentiles, history is replete with instances where you’re going to be horribly disappointed.”

Notably, Mamdani’s proposals appear to be resonating with Jewish voters: Despite concerns about his positions when it comes to the Middle East, a new poll suggests his support among Jewish New Yorkers is effectively equivalent to Cuomo’s.

The Middle East

Jewish New Yorkers are not single-issue voters living in fear. We are looking for a mayor who can build a coalition to improve our already great city.

As for the Middle East, it is true that Mamdani has been harshly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government. What’s also true: Most American Jews agree with him. According to a recent Washington Post poll, a majority of American Jews believe Netanyahu’s government has overseen war crimes in Gaza, and almost 40% believe Israel has committed genocide.

In that context, Mamdani seems like a candidate much more aligned with Jewish perspectives on Israel than Cuomo, who joined one of Netanyahu’s legal defense teams pro bono. In the weeks leading up to the current ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, Cuomo expressed some concern about the shocking events in Gaza — but continued to broadly align himself with Netanyahu’s talking points. While his position might be reassuring to the majority of American Jews who feel a close attachment to Israel, it doesn’t suggest that he’s ready or able to handle the nuances of today’s changing environment — and changing Jewish perspectives.

I am a founding member of J Street, a Zionist, pro-peace organization that supports a two-state solution and opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I differ with some of Mamdani’s views about the future for Israelis and Palestinians, including his failure to vocally support a two-state solution.

But one doesn’t have to agree with all of his views about the Middle East to conclude that he is the best candidate for mayor. As Mamdani himself said in a recent appearance, “We’re not looking for a litmus test that we feel the same way we do on every single issue, and that includes Israel and Palestine.

“There may be a Jewish New Yorker who will not see themselves in me because of a disagreement we have on that question,” he added, “but I want to make sure they still see themselves in the city.”

The issue of experience

I served as Corporation Counsel, the city’s chief legal officer, under former Mayor David N. Dinkins, which means I have some experience with the challenges facing any new administration. Upon taking office, I found that with the assistance of experienced managers in the City’s civil service, I could bring myself up to date quickly. That leads me to believe that if Mamdanis is elected as mayor, he will find that, with the right help, learning the ins and outs of the city’s many agencies will be strenuous but doable.

Mamdani has been taking significant steps toward crafting a transition team that should comfort any New Yorkers concerned about his youth and relative inexperience. (It’s worth remembering that Mamdani is already well acquainted with how complicated it can be to work within a government, with his six years’ experience as a New York Assemblyman from Queens.) According to public reports, the transition efforts have already included meetings with plenty of experienced public servants, including Dan Doctoroff, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s former deputy mayor for economic development; Janette Sadik-Kahn, Bloomberg’s former commissioner of transportation; and Alicia Glen, who served as deputy mayor for housing and economic development under former Mayor Bill De Blasio. Doctoroff, for example, has been quoted saying “I will help him in any way possible.”

What this shows me: Mamdani knows he’s going to need a crack team to be a successful mayor. True leadership isn’t about being personally able to take on every challenge: It’s about knowing how to assemble and run a team that has that ability.

Notably, Bloomberg — to my view the most successful mayor we have had in this century — had no governmental experience and little familiarity with the complexity of the city’s public administration before taking office.

Yet through the selection of an outstanding group of municipal leaders and public servants, he was able to assemble a first-rate administration. He led the city’s amazing and effective efforts to recover quickly from 9/11, in part by attracting outstanding and often non-political experts to serve as senior members of his administration.

In contrast, De Blasio, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current Mayor Eric Adams each came into the role with many years of governmental experience. Yet the record of each was, shall we say, unsuccessful. The Adams administration is known for serious allegations of corruption at the highest levels. The De Blasio administration, after a promising start, deteriorated, as the mayor was too often distracted by other political ambitions, and proved prone to confusion and dispiriting inefficiency. The Giuliani administration was marred by racial insensitivity and defense of unacceptable police misconduct.

Why should we have less hope for Mamdani than we did for Bloomberg? And why should we expect that, in light of the ineffective recent mayoralties, a more traditional candidate would be more effective?

Mamdani has told those with whom he is consulting that he admired many of the accomplishments of the Bloomberg administration — a strong sign that he’s noticed the most important lesson of Bloomberg’s mayoralty. With the aid of experienced and well-qualified city officials, such as former Comptroller Brad Lander, and with the active support of experienced public officials like Rep. Jerry Nadler, Assemblyman Micah Lasher and Gov. Kathy Hochul, there is every reason to hope his administration will be thoughtful about hiring experienced managers, and crafting a new generation of dedicated New Yorkers to lead us into the future.

The post Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Why I don’t trust Zohran Mamdani to fight left-wing antisemitism

Zohran Mamdani wants New York City’s Jews to believe he can protect them from antisemitism.

It’s easy to take Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor and current frontrunner in the race, at his word when it comes to right-wing antisemitism. Progressives like him tend to have little difficulty calling out white supremacy, Holocaust denial or far-right conspiracy theories.

But what will happen when New York’s Jews face antisemitism coming from the left?

Left-wing antisemitism — which is almost always entangled with anti-Zionism — can be more difficult to recognize than its right-wing counterpart. It often targets Jews or Jewish institutions under the guise of protesting Israel, including blacklisting Zionist therapists, banning Zionists from appearing at bookstores and accusing organizations like Hillel of supporting genocide.

Which raises the question: Given Mamdani’s lifelong pro-Palestinian activism, can Jews rely on him to recognize when anti-Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism?

Based on his record of double-talk when it comes to Israel, there are serious reasons to be skeptical. While Mamdani’s beliefs about Middle East foreign policy aren’t directly relevant to his suitability to be mayor of New York City, his beliefs about Israel will affect his readiness to identify left-wing antisemitism — and that will affect Jewish New Yorkers.

During a recent Fox News interview, when asked if Hamas should “lay down its arms,” Mamdan refused to answer. “I don’t really have opinions on Hamas and Israel beyond the question of justice and safety,” he responded.

At the mayoral debate days later, he backpedaled and said that “of course” Hamas should disarm.

Mamdani did not explain his initial refusal to call out Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization with genocidal aims against the Jewish state. He acted as if he was merely clarifying his position, not changing it.

During a June podcast interview, Mamdani was evasive when asked about the phrase “globalize the intifada,” a popular pro-Palestinian chant, which some see as calling for violence against Jews. He sidestepped a request to condemn it weeks later during a Meet the Press interview. In July, he finally said he would “discourage” the phrase’s use, a meek response to a bare-minimum ask — that language inciting antisemitic violence be outright rejected.

Both of these cases ought to have been easy wins for Mamdani. He could have shown his ability to discern when rhetoric and ideas related to Israel can come across as threatening to Jews.

Full-throatedly calling for Hamas’ disarmament, and condemning the phrase “globalize the intifada,” would not have compromised Mamdani’s commitment to the Palestinian cause, which is served neither by Hamas — which is notoriously brutal against Palestinian civilians — nor Western protesters who parrot its rhetoric. And it would have gone a long way toward reassuring Jews that their potential future mayor understands and empathizes with their concerns.

Other examples of Mamdani’s waffling reinforce his unreliability in this department.

Mamdani has decried those whom he describes as “progressive except for Palestine,” but also insists he will have Zionists in his administration. Which leaves Jewish voters wondering: Which of those apparently opposed positions should they believe represents his actual intention?

His campaign has reassured New York Jews that he will not defund the annual Israel Day Parade. However, if he already supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, why would he permit a parade celebrating a country he views as broadly violating human rights and, in Gaza, committing genocide? Yes, every politician adjusts their promises to resonate with the electorate they’re courting, but this degree of inconsistency in this one, focused area still provides reasons to be anxious.

Mamdani has made good-faith efforts to engage with Jews from across the spectrum, in Haredi communities and liberal ones alike. But he’s yet to show that he’s able to meaningfully grow in his views either on the Middle East, or on how its politics touch the lives of his potential future constituents. Zionism is closely intertwined with the identities of the vast majority of American Jews. And failing to respond to the threat that anti-Zionism can pose to Jewish lives could be a grave mistake.

After all, as the editorial board of The New York Times has noted, “the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left” on Israel “bears some responsibility” for deadly antisemitic attacks in Boulder, Co., and Washington, D.C. this past year.

However, recognizing when anti-Israel rhetoric becomes antisemitic can come at a cost for progressives.

Last year, the Democratic Socialists of America withdrew support from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for participating in a panel on antisemitism. Their rejection of the congresswoman for even acknowledging the rise in antisemitism following the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023 came despite the fact that she is among Israel’s fiercest critics.

As a proud progressive like Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani, who is aligned with DSA, could face serious backlash if he confronts left-wing versions of antisemitism — yet another reason to question his ability to do so.

All this is frightening for Jewish New Yorkers. In a moment of historic spikes in antisemitism, New York’s Jews need a mayor who understands their fears and will not hesitate to confront them. Without that, how can they be expected to feel safe in New York City?

The post Why I don’t trust Zohran Mamdani to fight left-wing antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News