This does not mean relations between the United States and the Vatican are destined for crisis. The Vatican is realistic enough to understand that if it wishes to exert influence on world affairs it needs to work with the Americans, and the Bush team continues to desire the moral legitimacy it believes Vatican support can lend its policies. What seems increasingly clear, however, is that this is not destined to be the special relationship enjoyed by America and Britain, allies linked by a common history, language, and worldview. This is a dialogue between two institutions with common interests, but also divergent cultures that will from time to time flare up into sharp policy differences.
No one should be shocked, in other words, the next time Civiltà Cattolica takes America to task.
THE VATICAN RESPONSE TO THE WAR IN IRAQ: A CHRONOLOGY
In the classic style of Vatican diplomacy, the Pope avoids committing himself to specific positions in political debates, since he is supposed to be super partes, that is, above the parties. He will state general principles, leaving it to his aides and to the global media to fill in the blanks in terms of the practical implications of his words. On his various trips to Poland prior to the collapse of the Communist system, John Paul would avoid direct conflicts with the regime, but would carefully employ the word solidarity at key moments in his addresses, leaving no doubt as to his sympathy for the opposition movement. Similarly, during the public discussion of the Iraq conflict, John Paul would cite the suffering of the Iraqi people and implore peace, leaving it to other Vatican voices to comment in more direct terms on the proposed, and then actual, American-led “preventive war."
Vatican officials began speaking out against a possible war in early August 2002, while the Pope himself did not begin to mention Iraq by name until January 2003. The Pope never did directly condemn the war, and some commentators have taken this as evidence that his opposition was less absolute than media reports suggested. In fact, however, John Paul was clear as to where he stood. His closest and most authoritative aides told reporters at critical moments that the Pope was convinced the war was a mistake, and that he was aware of and approved the aggressive vocabulary with which they were stating the case against it. At no time did John Paul offer any public utterance that distanced him from the antiwar declarations of Vatican personnel. The only possible reading of the record is that John Paul II was strongly opposed to the Iraq war.
This does not mean that in opposing the war the Pope intended to bind the consciences of Catholics. The distinction was laid out by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in an interview with 30 Giorni, an Italian Catholic publication: “The Pope," Ratzinger said, “has not proposed the [antiwar] position as the doctrine of the Church, but as the appeal of a conscience illuminated by the faith. . . . This is a position of Christian realism which, without dogmatism, considers the facts of the situation while focusing on the dignity of the human person as a value worthy of great respect."
August 6, 2002 Jesuit Fr. Pasquale Borgomeo, the general director of Vatican Radio, asserted in a live broadcast that instead of trying to get inspectors into Iraq to see if the country has weapons of mass destruction, the United States seems determined to launch a war. The Bush administration seems to have decided to ignore the opportunity for inspection and continues to focus on “the military option," he said. “Experience should have taught us something about the recurrence of certain wars, including those considered won, which are undertaken to resolve one crisis but are destined to create others, sometimes even more serious. To many, including not a few Americans, this policy appears to be wavering—its tactical aspects uncertain—and, even more, lacking the strategy one would expect of a superpower called to exercise global leadership," he said. “The United States is trying to combat terrorism, but it deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—even after September 11—as if it has no relation to the growing tide of resentment against the United States and the West on the part of large segments of the planet’s Arab and Muslim populations," Borgomeo said.
September 1–3, 2002 The Community of Sant’Egidio sponsored its annual interreligious gathering, this year held in Palermo. Several Vatican officials used the occasion to address the possible war in Iraq. They included Cardinals Roger Etchegaray (French), Ignatius Moussa I Daoud (Syrian), and Walter Kasper (German), along with Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (Irish).
Etchegaray, former president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace who now functions as an informal papal diplomatic troubleshooter, had long been critical of United Nations sanctions against Iraq. At Palermo, he said he was “happy to see growing opposition" in the international community to a war in Iraq. “The threat coming from Washington is something that is simply unthinkable. There is no war, least of all today and least of all in the Middle East, that can resolve something," Etchegaray said. Kasper, meanwhile, said there are neither “the motives nor the proof"to justify a war. Both men spoke in response to questions from reporters. Kasper’s comments were taken as an indication of shifting winds in the Holy See, since he had been publicly sympathetic to the U.S.-led strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan following September 11, 2001.
The criticism from Martin and Daoud was more indirect, coming in the context of prepared remarks on other topics. Commenting on the response of the United States to the attacks of September 11, Daoud said: “Every part of the earth suspected of complicity in terrorism has fallen under threat. Iraq now finds itself on the waiting list. Where will this campaign finish? Will it succeed in stabilizing an order of peace, preventing war with war, violence with violence, demanding the arms of the enemy through the use of arms?" Daoud’s conclusion seemed negative. “In the end, the arms remain in the hands of a part of the world, and their presence expresses in itself an explosive situation."
Martin, who at the time was the Pope’s representative to the United Nations in Geneva, argued that a successful “war against terrorism" has to be focused on development and social justice. He made no direct reference to Iraq. “The great weapon of the war will have to be that of trust and respect towards other people. The war against terrorism will not be won with some ‘quick fix’ that resolves tensions for the moment, disregarding a sustainable future for all," said Martin, who subsequently was named the coadjustor bishop of Dublin.
September 3, 2002 Borgomeo devoted his weekly commentary to the buildup to war in Iraq. “A year after September 11, we feel like disappointed friends of the United States—but still friends. We believe in the cultural and moral potential of this great country more than in its technological and military might," he said. “What is most worrisome is that the United States continues to consider military action as the most effective means to combat terrorism and an attack on Iraq as a priority. Beyond Arab and Muslim countries, isn’t there enough resentment in the world against the United States and the West? We in the West all considered ourselves Americans [after September 11]," Borgomeo said. “Afterward, that resource of solidarity crumbled away."
September 10, 2002 Then-Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, a Frenchman who was at the time the secretary for Relations with States, in effect the Pope’s foreign minister, gave an interview on the possible war in Iraq to the Italian Catholic daily L’Avvenire. Tauran insisted that any action against Iraq “should happen within the framework of the United Nations." He added that consideration must be given to the consequences for the civilian population of Iraq, as well as the repercussions for the countries of the region and for world stability. Tauran’s bottom line seemed negative. “One can legitimately ask if the type of operation that is being considered is an adequate means for bringing true peace to maturity," he said.
September 15, 2002 Cardinal Camillo Ruini, president of the Italian bishops’ conference, criticized the idea of a preventive war in Iraq. “That vast net of international solidarity that rapidly took shape after September 11 now seems marked by growing tears, especially in its primary and traditional strong point, which is the close rapport between the United Stat
es of America and Western Europe," Ruini said. “Differences with an economic origin, or on matters of international law, add up to a very dangerous divergence as to the way to guarantee security and combat terrorism. In this regard, and with special attention to the attitude to be held on Iraq, without doubt the most rigorous vigilance is necessary in order to prevent the risk of new and greater tragedies, whose development would be quite difficult to control. But this does not mean that the path of a preventive war can be undertaken, which would have unacceptable human costs and extremely grave destabilizing effects on the entire Middle East region, and probably on all international relations. The weapon of dissuasion, exercised in the ambit of the United Nations with the strongest determination and with the sincere and engaged commitment of all countries capable of exercising a concrete influence, can represent, also in this difficult situation, an alternative able to guarantee security and peace. For its part, the Iraqi government obviously will have to give proof of realism and a willingness to find and respect agreements."
Like Kasper, Ruini’s antiwar comments marked a turnaround in Vatican opinion. He was among the European Catholic leaders most sympathetic to the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of September 11. On October 24, 2001, at a press conference during the Synod of Bishops, Ruini answered questions about the morality of the American incursion in Afghanistan by referring to the “necessity of the fight against terrorism."
September 21, 2002 L’Avvenire published the text of an address given by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at a conference in Trieste in which he criticized the idea of a war in Iraq. Asked if such a war could be justified, Ratzinger said: “In this situation, certainly not. There is the United Nations. It is the authority that should make the decisive choice. It’s necessary that the choice be made by the community of peoples, not a single power. The fact that the United Nations is seeking a way to avoid the war seems to me to demonstrate with sufficient proof that the damages which would result [from the war] are greater than the values it would seek to save." Ratzinger criticized the new doctrine of preventive war. “The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism," Ratzinger said. “One cannot simply say that the Catechism does not legitimate war, but it’s true that the Catechism has developed a doctrine such that, on the one hand, there may be values and populations to defend in certain circumstances, but on the other, it proposes a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."
September 24, 2002 In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, then-Archbishop Stephen Hamao, president of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples, and now a cardinal, said, “I’m very worried by what the U.S. is doing. I hope they don’t attack. We don’t need to excite more violence and hate." Hamao, who as archbishop of Yokohama, Japan, took part in protests at a U.S. naval base, said that U.S. policy makers need to do a better job of understanding how their choices look from other global vantage points. “A war between the United States and Iraq could not help but seem to many of the world’s people a war between white Westerners and Arabs," Hamao said. “It would complicate relationships everywhere. It must be avoided." Asked about the suffering of the Kurds at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s government, Hamao responded: “I feel very much for the Kurds. As a Japanese, I live with the memory of the atomic bomb," Hamao said. “We too have experienced the terrible reality of weapons of mass destruction, in our case at the hands of the United States. A war will not solve the problem of these weapons. Negotiations through the United Nations must be pursued. If all else fails, then leave it up to the United Nations to intervene, not just a single country."
October 1, 2002 Then Archbishop Renato Martino, an Italian who heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and now a cardinal, criticized the idea of a war in Iraq in an interview with Italy’s Famiglia Cristiana magazine. He said the idea of a preemptive U.S. strike against Iraq, carried out as part of the war on terrorism, was based on a hypothetical right of a single country to decide when and where to intervene across the globe. “It presumes that it is up to the United States to decide between peace and war. In short, it is pure unilateralism," he said.
Borgomeo said on Vatican Radio that the doctrine of preventive attack would represent a “harsh blow to international law, which the West has recognized since 1945. International law certainly can be reformulated, but not in a unilateral manner. The doctrine of preventive attack not only represents a real wound to international law, and not only another setback for the credibility of the United Nations, but also, if put into action, a dangerous precedent for future imitators." He also questioned the political wisdom of a U.S. attack on Iraq, saying it went against Bush’s post–September 11 efforts to garner a global consensus against terrorism. The plan to attack Iraq has instead caused deep divisions, even among U.S. allies. One certain effect of such an attack would be a “deepening of the gulf between the Islamic and Western world" and an increase in the anti-American resentment that fuels terrorism, he said.
November 2, 2002 A rare exception to the quasi-pacifist Vatican line came in a November 2 editorial in the semiofficial journal Civiltà Cattolica. It suggested that an American attack on Iraq, even without authorization from the United Nations, could be justified if there were an imminent danger of aggression from Hussein. Still, the journal insisted that a preventive war in the absence of a specific threat would be immoral. “The ‘preventive war’ does not serve peace, but places humanity in a state of permanent war, in addition to the very grave fact that the theory of ‘preventive war’ lies beyond the most ethically secure rules and those most universally accepted by international law," it read.
November 14, 2002 The Pope addressed the Italian parliament. While he did not mention Iraq, he spoke about the need for peaceful solutions to conflicts. “The new century just begun brings with it a growing need for concord, solidarity, and peace between the nations: for this is the inescapable requirement of an increasingly interdependent world, held together by a global network of exchanges and communications, in which nonetheless deplorable inequalities continue to exist," he said. “Tragically our hopes for peace are brutally contradicted by the flaring up of chronic conflicts, beginning with the one which has caused so much bloodshed in the Holy Land. There is also international terrorism, which has taken on a new and fearful dimension, involving in a completely distorted way the great religions. . . . Italy and the other nations historically rooted in the Christian faith are in a sense inherently prepared to open up for humanity new pathways of peace, not by ignoring the danger of present threats, yet not allowing themselves to be imprisoned by a ‘logic’ of conflict incapable of offering real solutions."
December 3, 2002 Borgomeo again criticized the U.S. buildup to war. Speaking on Vatican Radio, he said the United States holds a “preconceived attitude that disqualifies the inspection campaign as useless and reduces it to a sort of farce. In reality, the desire to use force appears increasingly evident: to rely on military mega-power to fill the holes and failures of politics." He said U.S. allies are “more justified than ever" in having reservations about being asked by America to participate “in the fight against terrorism while precipitating unilaterally toward military adventures with unforeseeable consequences." Borgomeo said that “bankrupt policies cannot be compensated by multiplying military commitment." War on Iraq, he asserted, would backfire as an attempt to clamp down on terrorism. “The war on Iraq, which in U.S. public opinion is being sought with every means to be made to seem unavoidable, is in fact an incentive for terrorism itself."
December 17, 2002 Martino spoke at a press conference to present the Pope’s message for the World Day of Peace. Martino was blunt in his application of these principles to Iraq. “A preventive war is a war of aggression," Martino said. “There is no doubt. This is not part of the definition of a just war. There has to be an offense, an invasion, and then there can be a le
gitimate defense." Asked about the need to disarm aggressors, Martino stressed anew the need to work through the United Nations. “This disarming of belligerents must be done through the organs at our disposition, which is the United Nations," Martino said, recalling that Paul VI had referred to the UN as “the obligatory path for humanity in modern times."
December 23, 2002 Tauran used his strongest language to date to criticize a possible Iraq war in an interview with the Roman newspaper La Repubblica. He cited one Arab minister who said an attack on Iraq would “open the gates of hell." The warning concerned a possible clash of cultures between Christianity and Islam. “We need to think about the consequences for the civilian population and about the repercussions in the Islamic world. A type of anti-Christian, anti-Western crusade could be incited because some ignorant masses mix everything together," Tauran said. The French prelate was critical of what he called an American tendency toward unilateral action. “A single member of the international community cannot decide: ‘I’m doing this and you others can either help me or stay home.’ If that were the case, the entire system of international rules would collapse. We’d risk the jungle," he said.
All the Pope's Men Page 36
