Some people. I think. I'm going to try to articulate this, but recognize that it is a struggle to choose the words that really express what's in my head. But I have to try, because it's been rumbling around in my head for days (or longer) and it seems ridiculous and trite to post anything else before this.
So, my son flew out of Heathrow today. And yes, according to flight tracking, his flight did, indeed take off, about 3 hours late, but it is in the air, passengers without a single piece of hand luggage on them, fingering their passports in plastic bags, looking anxiously around at their fellow passengers, wondering, "Would you do it? Would you kill me? And all of us?"
This, along with recent arrests and disappearances, and Islamic fundamentalism/radicalism/fascism fomenting violence, repression and war throughout the globe, with the parties responsible being not the desperate unwashed but often the educated and, it seems at first glance, thoroughly at home in the the countries they seek to destroy -- all of this means something. A clash of civilizations? Some say no, others say of course, what else could it be?
And in this, those of us who are Catholic - and even many who are not - look to our leaders for perspective. Not directions, not policy pronouncements, but insight as to a spiritual stance within this state of the world.
Dissatisfaction with "Vatican" statments on, say the situation(s) in the Middle East or various acts is varied, with the most extreme being a total contempt for what anti-American Euroweenie prelates might have to say in criticism of Emperor Bush. Apart from that, the questions go in various directions, offered in various levels of intensity across the spectrum, until we get to the other end of contempt for a new breed of "Cafeteria Catholics" who put neocon pundits and policy-makers in the place of the Magisterium.
But there are many in the middle of that spectrum, who observe the world, listen to those prelates, reflect on Catholic teaching, and pace, ambiguous and confused. And I'd like to venture an opinion on what confuses and worries even those who believe that what the Pope says on this is to be taken more seriously than, say, his "prudential judgment" on whether it is going to rain tomorrow.
I think it is that in these statements, there seems to be a sort of distance from the reality raging around us. There is no direct engagement with the fundamental issues: the commitment to cripple the West and impose the radical, fundamentalist Islamist ideal in its stead. A total contempt for freedom and the intrinsic value of human life. And the determination and will to do this, by any means necessary.
In which "peace" means something different to those instigating the war than those defending themselves, in which there is no desire for co-existence or dialogue.
(after the jump)
From the beginning of Our Pontificate, amidst the horrors of the terrible war unleashed upon Europe, We have kept before Our attention three things above all: to preserve complete impartiality in relation to all the belligerents, as is appropriate to him who is the common father and who loves all his children with equal affection; to endeavour constantly to do all the most possible good, without personal exceptions and without national or religious distinctions, a duty which the universal law of charity, as well as the supreme spiritual charge entrusted to Us by Christ, dictates to Us; finally, as Our peacemaking mission equally demands, to leave nothing undone within Our power, which could assist in hastening the end of this calamity, by trying to lead the peoples and their heads to more moderate frames of mind and to the calm deliberations of peace, of a "just and lasting" peace.
Whoever has followed Our work during the three unhappy years which have just elapsed, has been able to recognize with ease that We have always remained faithful to Our resolution of absolute impartiality and to Our practical policy of well-doing.
We have never ceased to urge the belligerent peoples and Governments to become brothers once more, even although publicity has not been given to all which We have done to attain this most noble end...
First of all, the fundamental point should be that for the material force of arms should be substituted the moral force of law; hence a just agreement by all for the simultaneous and reciprocal reduction of armaments, according to rules and guarantees to be established to the degree necessary and sufficient for the maintenance of public order in each State; then, instead of armies, the institution of arbitration, with its lofty peacemaking function, according to the standards to be agreed upon and with sanctions to be decided against the State which might refuse to submit international questions to arbitration or to accept its decisions.
Once the supremacy of law has been established, let every obstacle to the ways of communication between the peoples be removed, by ensuring through rules to be fixed in similar fashion, the true freedom and common use of the seas. This would, on the one hand, remove many reasons for conflict and, on the other, would open new sources of prosperity and progress to all...
With regard to territorial questions, such as those disputed between Italy and Austria, and between Germany and France, there is ground for hope that in consideration of the immense advantages of a lasting peace with disarmament, the conflicting parties will examine them in a conciliatory frame of mind, taking into account so far as it is just and practicable, as We have said previously, the aspirations of the peoples and co-ordinating, according to circumstances, particular interests with the general good of the great human society.
The same spirit of equity and justice should direct the examination of other territorial and political questions, notably those relating to Armenia, the Balkan States, and the territories composing the ancient Kingdom of Poland, for which especially its noble historical traditions and the sufferings which it has undergone, particularly during the present war, ought rightly to enlist the sympathies of the nations.
Such are the principal foundations upon which We believe the future reorganization of peoples should rest. They are of a kind which would make impossible the recurrence of such conflicts and would pave the way for a solution of the economic question, so important for the future and the material welfare of all the belligerent States...
First, note the engagement, the clear sense of his role in this, in what the papacy can bring to the table. It was a different conflict, of course, involving mostly European ground and nominally Christian societies. It was a clash of nations, not opposite civilizations.
Even though I really don't know much about this period or this papacy (book on order to learn more, though...), what struck me about this statement was that at this point in history, a Pope's role in calling for peace and suggesting terms would not be taken for granted, following, as it did, decades of anti-religious revolution, and a dramatic reduction in the temporal power of the papacy. "Who does he think he is?" would be a not-surprising response in this context, and it was, indeed, the response to Benedict's suggestions.
I am not sure what I am working to here, but what I'm trying to articulate are the questions I am discerning from comments and elsewhere, questions about to receive the statements of the Vatican on these matters, particularly as they relate to what I see has a real global threat from Islamist fascism and authoritarianism. The Pope's call for peace are not mindless or superficial, as some sneer every time he utters the word, it seems - they are what Popes should be calling for. The Love of Christ, the power of Gospel, is something mysteriously beyond and immersed within but not dependent on human affairs. A pope shouldn't call for a cease-fire? What's the alternative?
But there is something that seems missing in the context, and I think this is a reason that some are having a hard time taking what is being said from the Vatican with the seriousness it deserves. For whatever reason, only part of the big picture is being painted - there are reasons for the violence and terrorism that stand in oppoosition to the Gospel on every level.
So when people struggle with this, I think what they are saying is this: This is not a doctrinal issue, but we know we should still be taking the Pope seriously on this, and we want to. He has a perspective none of us as individuals have, and in his attention to global, rather than nationalistic, priorities, he teaches and challenges us. But in the statements, we don't hear the foundations of the weight of the present threats and conflicts addressed, some of which concerns fundamental human rights of freedom and justice. So how can we receive this as a prudential judgment we should take seriously if we don't hear all of the elements of the situation addressed?
Is that correct? Expand on this, if you like. Please try to keep the conversation helpful, if you can. I'm sure my own post will be amended as the day wears on.
Comments