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.
Comments