While there is room for disagreement with the Pope on prudential questions, Benedict is a man who understands fascism and ideology; he is wise, learned, eminently realistic --and, I believe, holy. I don't think Catholics should easily dismiss the fact that the Pope keeps calling for a ceasefire --it's something that needs to be wrestled with, rather than too-lightly dismissed. Therefore I was very interested in John Allen's word-not-from-Rome last week, which included an excerpt from Corriere della Serra quoting a close advisor to B-16 on the Pope's view of the crisis in Lebanon:
"Between the act of self-defense to which every government is obliged in order to protect its citizens, and the attack of terrorist groups of various stripes with the common denominator of refusing to recognize Israel, the voice of the pope was in favor of the Jewish people," Fisichella wrote.
"From this point of view, there’s no sede vacante, and for anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear, the voice of Benedict XVI has been, from the very beginning, clear and unequivocal"
I absolutely agree --B-16 has been very clear (to the Muslims in Cologne e.g., and Archbishop Lajolo's "reciprocity" campaign) and to that extent Bottum's a bit behind the curve as far as representing papal thinking goes. The Vatican call for a ceasefire is not equivalent to, say, Kofi Annan's call for a ceasefire, because it's not a political strategem. The Pope's not asserting moral equivalency between the parties, nor trying to preserve Hezbollah by preventing Israel from destroying it, but truly calling everyone --especially the terrorists -- to repent and believe the Gospel. (The MSM tends not to notice the part of papal pronouncements that apply to terrorists). I like the way Allen puts it --that B16 doesn't think a crisis means we should put a gag order on the Gospel. Thus he (B16)preached on July 23rd:
Today in a multi-cultural and multi-religious world, many are tempted to say: "It’s better for peace in the world among the religions and the cultures not to speak too much of the specificity of Christianity, that is, of Jesus, of the church, of the sacraments. Let’s be content with those things which can be more or less universal …" But it’s not true. Precisely in this moment -- in a moment of great abuse of the name of God -- we need the God who triumphs on the Cross, who wins not with violence but with his love. Precisely in this moment we need the face of Christ, to know the true face of God and thereby to carry reconciliation and light to this world. Thus together with love, with the message of love, with all that we can do for the suffering of this world, we must also carry the witness of this God, of the victory of God precisely through the non-violence of his Cross.
Furthermore, while I suppose people have the right to judge Vatican actions by public statements and what they see, matters are a little more complicated than that. I think most of us who wish the Vatican would be "tougher" on certain matters underestimate how much is done silently behind-the-scenes, by papal nuncios. On a couple of occasions I've spoken with Bishop Gassis of Sudan, and he can testify to the difference between official Vatican statements about Islam and his private conversations with John Paul II. Not that the Vatican is dishonest, but that Popes always face the Pius XII problem --namely that they have to weigh a strong political statement's worth against its possible effects on Catholics living under the regimes being criticized. It's easy for us in the West to wish for the Pope to carry a banner and march in a protest, but if I were a Jew or a Catholic living under an Islamist regime, I'd rather the pope saved me in silence than killed me quicker with challenging words. Notwithstanding this, B-16 does seem more inclined to be pointed.
Finally, Bottum's strongest criticism is of Cardinal Sodano, who's on his way out --and it's become fairly obvious that B-16 doesn't share the good Cardinal's (and he is a good Cardinal, even if I don't share his politics) attitudes on the subject. Read the various versions of the Catholic Exchange stories on Vatican statements about Lebanon and it becomes clear that two different perspectives are battling for primacy there. What's the use bashing a guy who's being retired?
Bonus news: Cardinal George appears to be cancer-free after bladder surgery (and a follow-up surgery due to complications).
