Neuhaus on B16 on Iraq
Good analysis. Excerpt:
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.
Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage.
Good for Benedict. I really like this guy. Good pope, good man, good mind. He's an independent thinker-- he tells the truth as he sees it, no matter who's ox is gored in the process, but not abrasively. Quite unlike Weigel (and his ilk), who seems more interested in attempting to reconcile Bush's foreign policy and that of the Likud party in Israel to Catholic doctrine.
ReplyDeleteAndy Nowicki
www.andynowicki.blogspot.com
Yes, John Paul II was great. But Benedict XVI is highly underrated. If JP2 was a sort of rock star, Ratzinger/Bendict is a more unassuming man of wisdom, who speaks softly yet forcefully, and who seems more aware of the fact that all is not well in the Church, unlike JP2, who often seemed fixated on a kind of brain-dead optimism ("be not afraid," "springtime of the Church" and all that).
Andy, do you think it's possible that a war sometimes can produce good effects? I'm not just speaking of any present conflicts, but can any war ever result in good outcomes?
ReplyDeleteThe simple answer is yes-- I'm not a pacifist.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're getting at with the question, but I'm interested to know if I'm missing something.
That was me. I don't know what's up with blogger-- it doesn't like me today.
ReplyDelete--Andy
Well, the Holy Father said this last August in answer to an inteview question:
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Holy Father, a question about the situation regarding foreign politics. Hopes for peace in the Middle East have been dwindling over the past weeks: What do you see as the Holy See's role in relationship to the present situation? What positive influences can you have on the situation, on developments in the Middle East?
Pope Benedict XVI: Of course we have no political influence and we don't want any political power. But we do want to appeal to all Christians and to all those who feel touched by the words of the Holy See, to help mobilize all the forces that recognize how war is the worst solution for all sides. It brings no good to anyone, not even to the apparent victors. We understand this very well in Europe, after the two world wars. Everyone needs peace. There's a strong Christian community in Lebanon, there are Christians among the Arabs, there are Christians in Israel. Christians throughout the world are committed to helping these countries that are dear to all of us. There are moral forces at work that are ready to help people understand how the only solution is for all of us to live together. These are the forces we want to mobilize: it's up to politicians to find a way to let this happen as soon as possible and, especially, to make it last.
[bold mine]
Robert T. Miller from First Things criticized it at the time and I don't think it was necessarily to carry water for current US foreign policy; the Pope specifically placed his answer in the context of both world wars. So it would seem that some "reconciling" is in order. Read his short piece and let me know your response.
I dispute Miller's characterization of WW2 as a kind of Manichean struggle between good and evil (yeah the Nazis were evil, but so were the Soviets, and the cause of the Western allies was significantly stained by their widespread use of mass civilian bombing campaigns), but I take his greater point; I think Benedict should have phrased things a bit more carefully on that occasion.
ReplyDeleteYeah.
ReplyDeleteYeah to everything I wrote or just to the last thing?
ReplyDeleteAndy you are right we should not try to reconcile Bush's policy with Catholic doctrine. What people like Weigel et. al. miss about Benedict or the previous Pope was that anyone went through what they did in WWII and under Communism will look to war as a last choice. An example would be Pope John Paul II's handling of the Communist after Ali Agca nearly killed him in 1981. The Pope knew the Communists sponsored Ali Agca's trip to Saint Peter's( A fact that Ali Agca revealed to the Pope in their 20 minute meeting). It should also be noted that evidence discovered the the Mitroikin Commission of 2005, revealed that a Bulgarian agent who initially said he was no where near St. Peter's was in fact there. That as well as evidence in Tad Skulcz biography of the Pope make them seem as guilty as sin. That being said, despite this knowledge the Pope worked for change in a nonviolent way and proved quite successful. It is in that spirit that Pope John Paul and Benedict believed they could solve the Iraqi problems. It does not make these beliefs right, it just provides context.
ReplyDeleteJonathan, I agree with you. We don't want Popes who say "Yay, war"; they are ambassadors of the peace of Christ. But I'm not sure Weigel doesn't understand this.
ReplyDelete