« No new U.S. bishops today.. | Main | The letter »
April 10, 2007
The Pope and Iraq
In Sunday's Urbi et Orbi message, Pope Benedict said the following:
Likewise the population of East Timor stands in need of reconciliation and peace as it prepares to hold important elections. Elsewhere too, peace is sorely needed: in Sri Lanka only a negotiated solution can put an end to the conflict that causes so much bloodshed; Afghanistan is marked by growing unrest and instability; In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees. In Lebanon the paralysis of the country’s political institutions threatens the role that the country is called to play in the Middle East and puts its future seriously in jeopardy. Finally, I cannot forget the difficulties faced daily by the Christian communities and the exodus of Christians from that blessed Land which is the cradle of our faith. I affectionately renew to these populations the expression of my spiritual closeness.
The Pope's remark about the impact of violence in Iraq has raised hackles.
An editorial in the New York Sun:
If the pope wants to help Iraqis and the Americans and others who are risking their lives to help them, he could underscore this progress rather than denying it. Recent years have shown us that popes certainly have the capacity to play a constructive role in world affairs. We refer not only to John Paul II's heroic struggle against Soviet Communism, but even to the part that Benedict XVI himself apparently played in winning the safe release from Iran of the royal marines. The pope, in citing a list of trouble spots from Zimbabwe to Sri Lanka, avoided in his Easter message the error the American left makes of focusing on the carnage in Iraq to the exclusion of all the other woes.
It is possible, too, that the reference to Iraq was not intended as a criticism of America's intervention, which after all was four years ago, but on the failures since the invasion of the followers of Sunni and Shiite Islam to live together in peace. At least it can be observed that the pope's comment comes in from a prelate who has been speaking up for Christianity in Europe, where it is threatened not only by secularism but by an intolerant streak of Islam that also targets Jews.
The danger of Benedict's negativism about Iraq yesterday is that it will be interpreted in a way that will undermine the West in the war with the very extremist factions he seemed concerned about last year at Regensburg, where he sparked a controversy by quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II. Following the controversy the pontiff courageously made a trip to Turkey. Wouldn't it be something were he, in the wake of his remarks about Iraq, to make a trip to Baghdad and look for himself at the positive things that are happening in Iraq, at the civil population that has chosen to stay and build up the country, and give himself and his billion or more followers a chance to see the situation through eyes of hope.
Benedict XVI's Easter Sunday remarks in St Peter Square hit a low point, I would think. He said that "nothing positive comes from Iraq." This is a very skewed report on the realities on the ground. But it might mean that the message the Pope wanted to convey is that of the American Left: "Whatever the good or the bad achievements, it is time to get out." In other words, not an accurate description, but a prescription for the near future.
When I was invited to the Vatican in 2003, just before the war began, I told the Foreign Minister of the Vatican, Archbishop Tauran, that articles appearing under a Vatican imprint in Civilta Cattolica were blaming the US for seeking oil in Iraq (a hypothetical), while ignoring the real and existing contracts of the French, Germans and Russians for Iraqi oil. This double standard seemed to me hypocritical. The Archbishop winced, and said that perhaps I was being too uncritical of the Americans, and that I needed to factor in the fact that most such Vatican editorials were, after all, written by Europeans from a European point of view. I replied that I expected the Vatican to proceed in a more catholic manner than that.
Those words came back to me when I saw what Benedict XVI had said in his Urbi et Orbi remarks in the Piazza of St Peter's. They sounded like a standard European view of reality — at least of those Europeans who have always disagreed with the American war aims, and now that things have become difficult and costly want to stick it to the Americans.
I was disappointed in Benedict XVI for being uncritical about this.
Even as he was speaking, an immense protest meeting among Iraqi Shiites was taking shape in the holy city of Najaf. Here were TWO positive things taking place in Iraq on account of the deposing of Saddam Hussein. First, the Shiite holy cities are free and open for feast days, festivals, and pilgrimages from all over, as they were not under Saddam. Second, this particular protest, against the Americans and in favor of Iraqi nationalism, was also free, peaceful, and not only unopposed by Coalition forces but protected and assisted by them.
In addition, there are 200 or so free newspapers and magazines in Iraq now that did not used to be there in the time of Saddam. There are many hundreds of private, nongovernmental organizations and associations of all sorts. In short, civil society is coming back to life, slowly but surely.
Pope Benedict said that “nothing positive comes from Iraq.” The most plausible interpretation of those words is that he sees no improvement in the situation for the people of Iraq. He says the country is “torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.” He does not say who is responsible for the continual slaughter, the various factions in Iraq or the coalition forces trying to bring the slaughter to an end. His concern for the fleeing civil population is undoubtedly a reference to the rapidly declining Christian population there. The plight of Christians in the Middle East comes in for more extended treatment in his Easter Sunday address. I hope he is wrong about there being nothing positive in what is happening in Iraq. I am confident that he hopes he is wrong. It is inconceivable that he hopes there will be no positive developments in the months ahead.
While opponents of American policy are, quite understandably, capitalizing on the pope’s words, there is a dramatically different response from some other sources. The New York Sun, for instance, featured the pope on the front page and joined that with a long editorial deploring “Benedict’s negativism.” The editorial concludes: “Wouldn’t it be something were he, in the wake of his remarks about Iraq, to make a trip to Baghdad and look for himself at the positive things that are happening in Iraq, at the civil population that has chosen to stay and build up the country, and give himself and his billion or more followers a chance to see the situation through eyes of hope.”
Well yes, it would be something. Something like a very bad idea, I expect. There are many reasons why the pope should not, and almost certainly will not, insert his person and office into the religious and political rivalries in Iraq, or into the public debate about the merits and demerits of the strategy being pursued by coalition forces under General Petraeus. Among the many topics addressed on Easter Sunday, Benedict devoted a few words to his dour assessment of the situation in Iraq. Lost in this discussion are his extensive comments on conflicts in Africa, very notably on the situation in Zimbabwe, where the Catholic bishops have issued a powerful statement calling for an end to the tyrannical regime of Robert Mugabe.
As for what he said about Iraq, he may be right but I very respectfully hope he is wrong. As I have no doubt that he also hopes he is wrong. In the next several months, all of us will likely know more than we know now about whether there is anything positive about developments in Iraq.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Or it could be that Neuhaus and Novak are a bit blinded by their closeness to the Republican agenda in the US. Complaining about opportunists seems rather thin gruel in comparison to civilian suffering in Iraq and around the globe. People have taken opportunity to make and take profit from the American intervention in Iraq both economically and philosophically. Vultures we will always have with us. But there is nothing wrong with a principled critique of the Bush administration's handling of the war, independent of its successes or failures.
Posted by: Todd at Apr 10, 2007 1:48:47 PM
The Pope makes one passing remark -- an almost inarguably accurate remark -- about Iraq, and the neoconservatives jump all over him as if he were a member of International Answer.
Ridiculous. At a time of continuous intercommunal violence and a steady exodus of Iraqi Christians from their country, what was the Holy Father supposed to say? "Stay the course! The surge is working?" Or should he have called for peace in dozens of countries around the world but simply omitted any mention of Iraq?
Do Novak and the NY Sun have any clue how absurd they sound?
Posted by: Simon at Apr 10, 2007 1:48:59 PM
Even as he was speaking, an immense protest meeting among Iraqi Shiites was taking shape in the holy city of Najaf. Here were TWO positive things taking place in Iraq on account of the deposing of Saddam Hussein.
Is Novak serious?
An immense anti-American protest by Iraqi Shiites, purchased at the cost of some 3300 American lives and $415 billion to date, is to be seen as a positive?.
A resurgent Shiite Islam -- religion of the Iranian mullahcracy, relgion of Hezbollah, religion of the cleric Muqtada Sadr who has called for targetting US troops -- is also a positive?
The mind boggles.
Posted by: Rick at Apr 10, 2007 2:00:36 PM
Moreover Novak seems to take umbrage at the slighting of American altruism "Many Coalition forces willingly laid down their lives for the liberty and human rights of people who had earlier been strangers to them."
Really?
Where does that leave the assessment of out pre-war attitude toward the plight of the Iraqi people, which Novak himself characterized in this way in his speech to the Vatican, originally printed in NR (conveniently, all NR articles from 2003 and before are no longer available at their cite, thank goodness for Google Snapshot): "It is Hussein's obligation, as a condition for continuing in his presidency, to present evidence that he has disarmed. This he has so far disdained to do."
So if he had disarmed, the plight of the Iraqi's would have continued to be their problem?
Does anyone else detect anything a little disingenuous in Novak's acute indignation, then?
Posted by: al at Apr 10, 2007 2:53:08 PM
And just in case one were to argue that that is not Novak's implication--that we will leave the Iraqi's to his predations provided he complies and disarms of weapons threatening to us, here again are Novak's own words from 2003: "Let us hope that Saddam Hussein as a last resort decides to obey his solemn obligations under the negotiated peace of 1991, and thus at last meets the minimum requirement of international order. In that case, there will be no war. In that case, the policy of the United States will have succeeded without the need for war. "
Posted by: al at Apr 10, 2007 2:56:14 PM
What surprises me in Benedict's comment is the use of the word "Nothing." This is an incredibly smart man whose ability to understand small details and many levels of nuance, so his use of the blanket "nothing" strikes me as unusual. It's the kind of un-reflective overstatement I usually expect from someone like Ann Coulter, not the pontiff. Thus, I have to believe there's some other context happening in this address that I don't understand, some deeper way of understanding his Iraq comment than just a blanket criticism of absolutely everything taking place there, much of which is on its face very negative but some of which is positive.
Posted by: MarkAA at Apr 10, 2007 3:17:02 PM
People are so predictably myopic when it comes to these things. All the media reported on from Sarimentum Caritatis was women priests, sex, and homosexuals. Likewise, a mere handful of words from a message about uniting human suffering with the cross spread through the media like a virus, while the life-affirming nourishment is left to vanish in the air. Perhaps the following could be a lens we were meant to use to view the comments on global suffering:
Dear Brothers and sisters, through the wounds of the Risen Christ we can see the evils which afflict humanity with the eyes of hope. In fact, by his rising the Lord has not taken away suffering and evil from the world but has vanquished them at their roots by the superabundance of his grace. He has countered the arrogance of evil with the supremacy of his love. He has left us the love that does not fear death, as the way to peace and joy.
But who wants to hear that on Easter Sunday?
Posted by: caine at Apr 10, 2007 3:17:07 PM
Todd is right.
Posted by: jeffrey at Apr 10, 2007 3:25:58 PM
How sad that the usual suspects (Novak, Neuhaus) crawl out of the woodwork at a time like this to keep pushing their context-free view of the Middle East, defending a folly which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and a continuing brutal civil war. It's almost laughable that they blame the pope for echoing the views of the "American left" as if there is no opinion at all outside America (this narrowness is exactly the problem).
Those familiar with the region (the history, the culture, the politics) were fully aware that such a disatrous outcome was possible from the outset. The Vatican knew that. It knew full well that the world did not operate along the simple Manichean lines favored by the Bush administration. It realized the potential for horror that can emerge-- if the American right only had some appreciation for what it really means to say "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated". Hint: it's quite wide-ranging.
All efforts of man to remake the world in its own image have led to disaster, from the French Revolution onwards. The Bush view of the world is merely the latest version of this messianism, tinged with some dubious Calvinism. Benedict's assessment is, of course, correct.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Apr 10, 2007 3:26:55 PM
I have no problem agreeing with Benedict. It was an idiotic decision for the coalition to invade Iraq in the first place. I remember saying so in these very com boxes before the event. I have conceded that a serious attempt should be made to clean up the subsequent mess but after this long I'm doubtful that that attempt can succeed.
Yes Benedict is quite within his rights to say "there is nothing positive coming from Iraq" and I'm sure that if John Paul II was still alive he would have said the same thing. Why tiptoe around an issue when the facts are staring everyone in the face? Anyone read "The Emperor's New Clothes" lately?
Posted by: Stephen Sparrow at Apr 10, 2007 4:13:09 PM
MM,
Give me a frigging break. If anything, the left embraced the idea of remaking the world in its image long before the neocons. Internationalism and a remaking of humanity STILL motivates the left, in other ways (primarily seen in environmentalism, but also in other areas).
Read this post, and particularly the comments to it, and you'll see that the criticism of the anti-war left had nothing to do with being aware of the outcome from the outset, and more with the fact that their opposition exists PRIMARILY as a partisan weapon. A weapon that is now employed in the hope of Iraqis dying and that country failing. This is EXPLICITLY by the author: "How she must be gloating now. Reality has made sages of the most dire prophets. It's perfect: Iraq really has gone to hell, and the demon neocons are the ones that sent it." And also echoed by the leftist commentors: "I had always wanted America to be the world's policeman; sending in troops to depose dictators of all stripes, then a diplomatic corps to re-build government and infrastructure. To allow the people of sudanburmarhodesia wherever, a chance to determine their own fates.
Naive, yes. But it wasn't until Bush tried what I dreamed of that I realized it. The truth is, I did not want Bush to get the credit if it worked."
As for the Pope, he was wrong to say that "nothing" positive is happening. That's ridiculous on its face. And frankly, given that Easter is all about ressurection and hope being created from death, it was supremely ironic.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 10, 2007 4:24:36 PM
Almost forgot the link I was referring to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tish-durkin/iraq-a-place-of-ambivale_b_45145.html
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 10, 2007 4:28:33 PM
I don't think we should be over literal in interpreting the Pope's comments here. I'm sure you could find something positive coming out of even the most dire and dreadful situations in the world. Nevertheless, the news from Iraq over the last year has been overwhelmingly grim, and saying, as a brief aside, that nothing positive has come from Iraq, seems like an appropriate way of expressing this.
Posted by: Blackadder at Apr 10, 2007 5:04:53 PM
Sydney said "If anything, the left embraced the idea of remaking the world in its image long before the neocons." Yes, I believe I began with the French Revolution...
My point is simple: the Bush ideology derives from the notion of American exceptionalism that itself comes from Calivinism. As is often the case with deterministic ideologies (in a sense, Marxism is nothing more than secular Calvinism), they think they can write the future according to their own preconceptions.
William Pfaff stated the problem quite well:
"The Bush administration defends its pursuit of this unlikely goal by means of internationally illegal, unilateralist, and preemptive attacks on other countries, accompanied by arbitrary imprisonments and the practice of torture, and by making the claim that the United States possesses an exceptional status among nations that confers upon it special international responsibilities, and exceptional privileges in meeting those responsibilities."
This, of course, can be traced back to John Winthrop, "manifest destiny", Woodrow Wilson, and John Foster Dulles (the last two being serious Calvinists, of course). Wilson believed that God appointed to the US to show "the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." Sound familiar? Bush, of course, appropriated American exceptionalism on steroids, complete with its bad theology (the almost-Manichean division between good and evil) and its messianic belief in trying to remodel the world under the tutelage of the United States. By this ideology, history is moving inexorably in one direction; just wipe the mess out of the way, and the preordained plan will play out. (this is also how many evangelicals approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how Marxists view the world in general).
As Catholics, we know that this theology is deeply flawed. It just angers me so greatly that this realization comes on top of so much death and suffering, so much hatred and instability, all feuling the flames of more war, more terrorism....
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Apr 10, 2007 5:07:26 PM
MM should be careful throwing out the "hundreds of thousands" stat. It's a baseless claim that's bounced from leftist to leftist on the net and actually cheapens the reality of those that have lost their lives.
And folks like Charles Darnay should reconsider before pronouncing their esteemed and much-anticipated judgement on the Holy Father's comments. His words were directed toward hope as could be clearly understood in the context he provided at the end of his sermon. For people to take them out of that context is political cherry-picking.
But as long as we're talking politics, Colin Powell made it clear in 2003 that the US needed to fully-embrace a policy of "you break it, you fix it" in Iraq. The Cheney/Rumsfeld group didn't think much would need to be fixed - that all we had to do was topple Saddam and, PRESTO! You got yourself a Muslim-style Texas! Well that sure didn't happen, and now much of this country is losing a sense of ownership of the situation. That's an irresponsible trend that will only serve to exacerbate all that's wrong with the Middle East. There's "nothing positive" about that.
Posted by: caine at Apr 10, 2007 5:07:58 PM
MM,
Your criticism offers nothing in the way of the future. In fact, every practical plan could be criticized on the grounds that it's merely another "deterministic ideology." Want to institute welfare? It's just another "deterministic ideology." How about social security reform? A "deterministic ideology." What about free healthcare? Another "deterministic ideology."
"...American exceptionalism on steroids, complete with its bad theology (the almost-Manichean division between good and evil)..."
You sound like Saruman.
I have no complaint with the idea that American exceptionalism is not a prescription for the entire world, especially the Islamic world (which will never accept democracy, let alone tolerance with Jews). But I find distasteful this constant attempt to belittle a country, civilization, and culture that is flawed, but still essentially "good", and far better than the one we are up against. The objective of those who constantly attack America, either for its exceptionalism or for its culture, and by highlighting its flaws, is to confer on Islamic culture a morality it will never have, and to destroy all of the truths that make the differences between its evil and our goodness obvious. You are a relativist in sheep's clothing.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 10, 2007 5:27:43 PM
As much as this pains me--I agree with Todd.
I also, with much less pain, agree with his holiness.
If I recall my early learning aright, war should not unleash greater evils than it's undertaken to remove.
Hmmmmm---My reactionary, redneck, rightwing mind is experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Ignorant Redneck at Apr 10, 2007 5:29:22 PM
We should remember it was the Church in the person of Pope John Paul ll who pleaded alone among the world's leaders to abandon any war with Iraq.He was relentless in His attempt to quench the prevailing war fever and sadly was unsuccessful. At the time were the same neocon blusters about giving succor to the left.
Pope Benedict is absolutely correct. How it must pain Him to see one of the world's oldest Christian communities disintergrate into a frightened diaspora.
Too bad all these neocons missed their opportunity to enumerate all the good things coming out of Iraq, if as they maintain,there is such a thing.
Posted by: Joe Giardina at Apr 10, 2007 5:37:44 PM
MM,
Man, I loved that last post! I've always felt the source of so much trouble in US history is rooted in the inability to shake that "city on a hill" mythology. What's so odd about it are the irremovable roots it has in the wacky theology that infected the colonies via Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. Those ideals were then transmogrified by likes of Jefferson and his Deist stylings until we ended up with a confused national zeitgeist (if I can use that here) of non-denominational, rationalist, utopian-oriented Christianity. That identity mutated reluctantly during periods where the nation hosted an influx of Catholics, popular Evangelical revivals and rapid economic expansion. I think the Civil War killed parts of it, but enshrined others - and perhaps rightly so.
That backdrop is why I'd disagree with you on the judgement that the Bush world-view is primarily manichean or messianic. I think it merely draws on the imagery because that is what (especially for a Protestant Yale grad) speaks to the core of America's historic identity. As much as Wilson or Carter could be labeled "moralist" in their foreign policy, that subsisted mainly on the pronouncement level. There was still an undercurrent of pragmatism within the policy of even those Presidents that belied the more embarrasing nature of America's national identity: speak boldly, but always hedge your bets.
Posted by: caine at Apr 10, 2007 5:44:43 PM
I very much respect Fr. Neuhaus and Michael Novak...generally! On the issue of the Iraq war though, I am at a complete loss to understand how these brilliant men can be so completely wrong on the issue. Couldn't be that there's an element of "America first, Catholic second"....could there?
Cheers from Canada.
Tony
Posted by: Tony at Apr 10, 2007 6:27:44 PM
What Fr. Neuhaus said...
Posted by: Tom G. at Apr 10, 2007 6:29:44 PM
My own view is that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is due less to a deterministic ideology than to happenstance. We didn't go into Iraq primarily as a means of spreading democracy. We did it because of WMD. When they didn't materialize, of course, the nature and justification of the war had to change, but this wasn't part of any deliberate plan. Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld have been particularly big on the whole nation-building project in Iraq, and the fact that their hearts weren't in it may be one of the reasons why it's been done so poorly.
Other than Iraq and outside of some rhetoric, Bush's foreign policy doesn't strike me as particularly democracy-focused. There was never any serios talk, for example, of democracy promotion in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, nor any real criticism of China's human rights abuses.
Posted by: Blackadder at Apr 10, 2007 6:36:00 PM
Again with the cafeteria Catholicism!!! This time from the neo-cons who only want to listen to the Holy Father when it suits them and is in agreement with their narrow notions. Please,give me a break from "Catholics" slavishly following the the Republican agenda instead of their shepherds!!!
Posted by: Fr. Dave Kozak at Apr 10, 2007 6:56:32 PM
It's no secret what the Pope thought of the war, but the immediate context of his words, as I understood them, was terrorism in Iraq and the entire region. I doubt by "continual slaughter" he was referring to any Western troops in the region; the Iraquis are pretty much blowing themselves up. It's obvious that nothing good is coming out of Iraq in that regard, which is why the troop presence was increased.
Also, and I say this as constructively as possible, with complete respect for the Holy Father, I think sometimes the words of the Popes fall on deaf ears because they rarely speak this way of the Church itself. It's common for the Popes to list problems and speak out against situations around the world and ask for prayers. What if they listed problems and spoke out against specific Bishops in the Church itself and asked for prayers? "Bishop so-and-so made some questionable comments, the Archdiocese of so-and-so is mired in another sexual abuse scandal, Fr. so-and-so was arrested on charges of embezzlement." I don't know if this should actually be done, but I think some people perceive the Pope as speaking on something secondary when so many problems ravage the Church, which is his primary concern.
Posted by: Jason at Apr 10, 2007 6:56:37 PM
One could use many adjectives to describe our highly-educated, logical, and incisive Pontiff -- "uncritical" is not one of them.
Posted by: geist at Apr 10, 2007 7:02:46 PM
