By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
In a
subtle but potentially significant shift, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, the pope’s
new foreign minister, has signaled openness to the Bush doctrine of preventive
force against terrorism — but under United Nations auspices, not the United
States or a “coalition of the willing.”
Lajolo spoke in an exclusive Jan. 14 interview with NCR, his first
extended session with an American newspaper. He issued a blunt, if indirect,
call to the United States to work more collegially within the United Nations.
“It
is clear that the military and economic superiority of one country,” he said,
“while giving rise to a particular moral responsibility vis-à-vis other nations
(the principle of solidarity), does not automatically translate into an
institutional pre-eminence with the subordination of other members (the
principle of equality).”
“Simultaneous attention to these two principles would surely render the UN
structures more acceptable and efficient,” Lajolo said.
The
full text of the interview is here: Interview with Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo.
Lajolo, 69, an Italian, was named to the Vatican’s top foreign policy job in
October, replacing French Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, who was subsequently
made a cardinal. Tauran had been the architect of the Vatican’s opposition to
the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and some observers have sensed a slightly more nuanced
stance under Lajolo.
His
NCR interview may lend support to that impression, as Lajolo appeared to
move the Vatican from near-absolute condemnation of preventive force to a kind
of tacit acceptance, albeit under the U.N. mantle.
“Certainly there is the need for prompt intervention, indeed prevention of acts
of terrorism,” Lajolo said. He made clear that he meant prevention by military
force if other measures fail. Yet he linked this concession immediately to U.N.
authorization.
“Here
also we see how justified is the pope’s call for an internationally recognized
authority, on the world level, supported and controlled by the member states of
the U.N., and endowed with juridical competence and adequate means to act in a
timely manner.”
This
strikes a somewhat different tone than earlier Vatican comments.
“The
concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism,” Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s top doctrinal official, said on Sept. 21, 2002.
On
Oct. 1, 2002, the director of Vatican Radio, Jesuit Fr. Pasquale Borgomeo,
bluntly said preventive war would be a “harsh blow to international law.”
Yet
if the Bush administration can take some cheer from Lajolo on prevention, there
remains a clear difference between the White House and the Vatican on the role
of the United Nations.
Lajolo said exaggerated notions of national sovereignty can be dangerous.
“An absolute sovereignty of
States is a dangerous myth, the consequences of which are wars,” he said.
Lajolo defended the U.N. from charges of being too cumbersome and inefficient to
respond to terrorist threats.
“After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, Security Council Resolutions Nos. 1373 and
1377 set in motion a system of international cooperation to eliminate the
financing of terrorism, to control the movement of suspected terrorists, to
avoid the creation of ‘safe havens’ and to eradicate places of refuge,” Lajolo
said. “This system of cooperation is working.
“Also, the way in which the U.N. confronted the difficulties in Afghanistan,
with Resolutions Nos. 1378 and 1383 legitimizing military intervention, cannot
be characterized as ‘cumbersome.’ ”
Anyway, he said, resisting a rush to arms is not always a bad idea.
“The
complexity of the problems and the collateral effects which certain decisions
can have on the world level call for prudence and account for certain delays,”
Lajolo said.
“Even
the technical advances in police work, border and finance controls, etc., which
are capable of responding to new challenges, are inevitably complicated and slow
to implement.”
Lajolo said the struggle against terrorism must be multi-dimensional.
“It
is necessary not only to single out and eliminate the centers that arm
terrorists, but also to identify and correct their cultural and spiritual
centers,” he said.
“I
must mention the necessity, among other things, to ensure that certain
schoolbooks used in some countries by which the young are taught to feel
contempt or even hatred for people of other religions or diverse nationalities
be duly corrected.”
Lajolo said the anti-terrorism push also requires policy choices in favor of
justice.
“Here, too, the pope has indicated some specific approaches,” Lajolo said. “He
has called for the establishment of a just international business and finance
environment, effective international economic aid and also — with requisite
guarantees — the cancellation or substantial reduction of the foreign debt of
the poorest countries together with the transfer of scientific and technological
knowledge.”
Finally, Lajolo said it’s not just Iraq that demonstrates the need for a more
effective U.N.
“One
can think of the international community’s lack of response to the massacres in
some regions of Africa,” Lajolo said. “The search to find adequate means to
avoid such limitations and delays can no longer be put off.”
* * *
Tauran, Lajolo’s predecessor, made a presentation about the contribution of the
Holy See to international relations on Jan. 15 at the Opus Dei-run University of
the Holy Cross. (Tauran’s titular church as cardinal is Sant’Apollinare, which
is attached to the university).
Ironically, Tauran repeated the harshly critical language about preventive use
of force that Lajolo appeared to soften. The Holy See, Tauran said, rejected the
idea of preventive war, which he called an ad-hoc concept (meaning that it was
designed to justify an invasion of Iraq). Preventive force is not supported by
the United Nations charter, he said, which establishes precise rules of behavior
when facing an aggressor.
“There is a consistent and detailed corpus juridico in international
law,” Tauran said. “Had it been applied in recent years, the shedding of much
blood would have been spared, and many crises would have been avoided.”
Tauran offered three bedrock principles that he said guide Vatican diplomacy:
•
The centrality of the human person and of human rights
• The promotion and defense of peace
• The realization that peace is much more than the absence of conflict
A
large contingent of ambassadors turned out for Tauran’s talk, a sign of the
respect he won over 13 years as foreign minister. (Especially since Tauran is
now in a relatively low-profile assignment as head of the Vatican library,
ambassadors have no particular reason to keep their contacts with him fresh
aside from personal esteem).
One
of the great things about the embassy circuit was seeing the ambassador from
Iran and the deputy chief of mission from the United States at the same
reception afterwards with Tauran. It occurred to me that the Holy See is one of
the few venues that can bring such a variety of diplomats together on neutral
turf to reflect on issues of conscience, and perhaps that alone is enough to
justify its diplomatic activity.
* * *
In
his most-anticipated foreign policy speech of the year, John Paul II addressed
diplomats accredited to the Holy See on Monday, January 12. This annual session
amounts to a “State of the World” survey.
John
Paul said he would steer clear of rehearsing his opposition to the Iraq war.
“What matters
today is that the international community help the Iraqis, freed from a regime
which oppressed them, so that they might be in shape to take up the reins of
their country,” the pope said.
In language
sure to cheer observers in the Bush and Blair administrations, John Paul
excoriated terrorism.
“How could we
not mention international terrorism, which —
sowing fear, hatred, and fanaticism — dishonors all the causes it pretends to
serve?” the pope asked.
At the same time, John Paul
issued a pointed reminder of his opposition to the use of force: “One thing is
certain,” he said. “War never resolves conflicts among peoples!”
The pope called for “a more
effective collective security system that gives the United Nations its proper
place.”
John Paul
offered an even-handed appraisal of the Middle East, lamenting both “recourse on
the one hand to terrorism and on the other to reprisals.” He also referred to
neglected African conflicts that produce
“deterioration of the social fabric, plunging entire peoples into despair.”
Finally, the pope observed
that Europe is having “difficulty in accepting religion in the public square,”
and urged that the continent recover its Christian roots.
* * *
On
Jan. 13, U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See James Nicholson met with members of the
press at the American embassy, near the Circo Massimo, to discuss the pope’s
speech.
“The
pope’s message was on all fours with the position of the United States on all
the subjects he covered,” Nicholson said. He cited in particular John Paul’s
language about terrorism and his call for a new international legal order.
Nicholson sought to minimize differences between Bush and John Paul over the
war. “They were two good moral men seeing the situation differently,” Nicholson
said. “But the pope never said it would be immoral for us to go into Iraq, he
never said that war is immoral.”
“Now
the pope is saying that a ruthless regime has been suppressed, and that [we
have] opportunities to reconstitute this country with new freedoms for its
people,” Nicholson said. “We totally support that.”
2004
will mark the 20th anniversary of full diplomatic relations between
the United States and the Holy See, and Nicholson is planning four conferences
to mark the occasion:
•
Religious liberty (with a keynote address by Justice Antonin Scalia of the
U.S. Supreme Court)
• Legal instruments to deal with stateless terrorism
• Human trafficking
• Food, especially the application of genetic science
I
asked Nicholson what impact he believes the pope has on world events. Ever the
media-savvy former Republican activist, he replied with a factoid. When John
Paul II went to Toronto for World Youth Day in 2002, Nicholson said, 2,200
journalists were on hand. When the G-8 met in Western Canada a few weeks later,
600 journalists showed up. Nicholson’s point: John Paul has a big megaphone, and
has to be taken seriously.
As
evidence of how the Bush team heeds Vatican concerns, Nicholson told a story.
“I
once got a call from the [Holy See’s] foreign minister, who had just gotten a
call from the pope, and this was at night,” Nicholson said. “The president was
on his way to Russia. It was asked if the president might bring up a certain
matter in his bilateral meetings in Moscow related to religious freedom. I made
a call that night to certain people in a certain airplane. It happened.”
Nicholson cited a deeper motive for engagement with the Holy See.
“In
the end, it isn’t he who’s got the best night vision goggles and so forth who’s
going to be successful, but rather he who can forge a moral consensus,” he said.
* * *
I
appeared on a Dutch TV show last Saturday, talking about John Paul II’s legacy
and the challenges facing the next papacy. The program has become a hot
property, but, alas, not because of anything I said.
It
was another guest, Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who grabbed headlines
with his comments on condoms.
“When
someone is HIV infected and his partner says, ‘I want to have sexual relations
with you,’ I would say, do not do it,” Danneels said. “But if he does it all the
same, he should use a condom. Otherwise he adds a sin against the fifth
commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ to a sin against the sixth, ‘Thou shalt not
commit adultery’”.
Later, Danneels said: “It is a matter of prevention to protect oneself against a
disease or against death. You cannot judge that morally to be on the same level
as using a condom as a method of birth-control.” The cardinal added that bishops
must be practical in their interpretation of rules.
A
spokesperson for Danneels later clarified, in response to a question from the
Dutch network, that the cardinal was not talking only about partners in a
marriage, but also extra-marital sex.
“That
does not mean the cardinal is promoting extra-marital sex,” the spokesperson
said.
Especially in light of recent remarks by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo,
president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, that condoms should not be
used to block transmission of HIV (in part, Lopez asserted, because the virus
can penetrate a latex condom), Danneels’ statements received wide coverage. News
agencies reported that the 70-year-old Belgian prelate had “challenged” or even
“contradicted” church teaching.
Not
so, according to Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian at Rome’s
prestigious Alphonsian Academy.
“From
what I understand based on news reports, what the cardinal said is consistent
with traditionally accepted principles in Catholic moral theology for dealing
with complex moral situations,” Johnstone told NCR Jan. 14.
Those who think Danneels “contradicted” church teaching, Johnstone said, don’t
understand the difference between two levels of moral discourse: one is a moral
rule, the other the application of that rule in a complex situation. Considering
how to apply a norm in a particular situation, he said, is not to undermine that
norm.
Danneels’ position could be justified, Johnstone said, by appeal to either of
two concepts: the principle of double effect, or of counseling a lesser evil.
Johnstone was not necessarily endorsing Danneels’ view, but explaining how it
could be supported from within Catholic tradition.
Double effect, a concept that dates at least to the 1600s, holds that if one
anticipates both a good effect and a bad effect from an action, under certain
conditions one can morally perform that act. Those conditions are: the action
must not be morally wrong on other grounds; one must intend the good effect, not
the bad; the good effect must not result from the bad; there must be a
proportion between the good to be achieved and the harm to be done.
One
could make a “reasonable argument,” Johnstone said, for Danneels’ position using
these criteria.
Counseling a lesser evil, on the other hand, envisions a situation in which a
confessor or spiritual guide is dealing with a person clearly committed to
performing an evil act. If you can’t persuade them not to do it, the principle
holds, you can at least persuade them to do something less serious. St.
Alphonsus Liguori, for example, said that a priest counseling a criminal who was
determined to kill someone, and who could not be talked out of it, could
legitimately advise the criminal to beat the person up instead.
Johnstone noted that some moral theologians do not accept this principle, but it
has never been rejected or condemned by church authorities.
What
about the argument that use of a condom is intrinsically wrong?
“A
piece of rubber can’t be intrinsically evil,” Johnstone said. “Morally that
doesn’t make any sense. You have to refer to the end for which it’s used.”
Finally, Johnstone noted that it is perfectly possible to disagree with Danneels
from within the Catholic tradition.
“Both
views would have to be considered acceptable,” he said.
A
political footnote. Danneels has been touted as a papal candidate, among other
places in my book Conclave. However defensible his comments on condoms
may be, they will probably boost impressions in some circles that Danneels is
too liberal for the church’s top job.
* * *
Ever
since the Vatican document Liturgiam Authenticam appeared in May 2001,
demanding more literal translations of liturgical texts from Latin into English,
observers have waited to see what practical difference it would make in Catholic
worship.
This
week we got our first look.
The
International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been working on a
translation of the Order of Mass, the core prayers for Sunday worship, in light
of Liturgiam Authenticam. Drafts have been circulating in liturgical
circles. I obtained a copy last week, and although it is already out of date,
sources confirmed that the following changes have survived the most recent
editing:
•
Gone is the familiar “And also with you” response to the priest’s greeting, “The
Lord be with you,” and at other points in the Mass. According to the draft
translation, the congregation responds, “And with your spirit,” a more literal
rendering of the Latin.
• In
the Creed, the congregation begins each section by saying “I believe” rather
than “We believe,” a shift to the plural seen by some critics as part of an
excessive post-Vatican II emphasis on the communal dimension of worship.
These
two changes were mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam.
• In
the penitential rite (often known by its Latin opening word, Confiteor),
the congregation recites “through my fault, through my fault, through my most
grievous fault” while striking their breasts, a custom that hearkens back to the
mea culpa from the Latin Mass prior to Vatican II.
• In
several places, sacral adjectives deleted in current texts for the sake of
simplicity are restored. For example, the people would now say: “May the Lord
accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our
good, and the good of all his holy church.”
• In
the “Glory to God,” an extra phrase is added: “We praise you, we bless you, we
worship you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory.” This
restores Latin phrases originally dropped from English translations to avoid
what was seen as redundancy.
• In
the Eucharistic prayer, when the priest says “Let our hearts be lifted high,”
the people respond, “We hold them before the Lord,” rather than the familiar “We
lift them up to the Lord.”
• In
the fourth Eucharistic prayer, use of the word “man” to mean “human being,”
which had been eliminated by an earlier ICEL draft rejected by the Vatican in
2000, is restored in some cases. On the other hand, there are also instances
where the text currently in use says “man” that the new draft uses the more
inclusive “men and women.”
In
general, the translation sounds more formal than what is currently in use, in
part because it sticks much closer to Latin cognates and Latin syntax.
Perhaps predictably, observers who backed Liturgiam Authenticam seem
pleased, while those who criticized the Vatican document are not. I report on
those reactions in the Jan. 23 issue of NCR. Look for the headline: “New
Mass translation said to be ‘elegant,’ closer to Latin.”
This
week, the draft goes to English-speaking bishops’ conferences for review. The
bishops who govern ICEL will meet again in July to sift through reactions from
the conferences and to issue a final text. It will then be up to the individual
conferences to petition Rome for final approval. If the U.S. bishops approve the
translation in November 2004, it could conceivably be ready for use in American
parishes by early 2005.
* * *
Last
week I noted, in the context of Vatican reaction to new reports about the
American sexual abuse scandals, that the defense of clerical authority is among
the Holy See’s core concerns.
As if
on cue, John Paul II underlined the point in a Jan. 10 address to the plenary
assembly of the Congregation for Clergy. The assembly had been studying the
status of “consultative organisms,” such as parish councils, diocesan finance
councils, and (in the wake of the scandals) sexual abuse review boards.
The
pope’s main concern was to differentiate these bodies from organs of democratic
government.
“The
legitimate pastors, in the exercise of their office, must never be considered
simply executors of decisions based on majority opinions that emerge in the
ecclesial assembly,” the pope said.
“The
structure of the church cannot be conceived on the basis of merely human
political models. Its hierarchical constitution rests on the will of Christ, and
as such, is part of the ‘deposit of faith,’ which must be conserved and
transmitted integrally in the course of the centuries.”
Many observers, especially
Anglo-Saxons steeped in democratic culture, tend to regard such language as a
smokescreen for the preservation of clerical privilege. There’s truth here: any
institution made up of human beings has politics, and no doubt the will to power
forms part of many ecclesiastical debates. (Not just from the clerical side, by
the way).
At
the same time, one will misunderstand the psychology of the Holy See by assuming
that power is the only, or even the primary, consideration behind such
statements. Rightly or wrongly, a core Vatican belief is that “hierarchy is
healthy.”
One
does not need to reach back to antiquity to understand how this view colors
attitudes towards lay councils. Consider Eastern
Europe in the 20th century under Communism.
In Hungary, a
state-sponsored lay council, called the Free Church Council, promoted an
autonomous “Hungarian” Catholic Church. Arguments were similar to those of
today’s reformers, that the Vatican is an authoritarian institution foisting its
cultural patterns upon local churches. The government sponsored a “patriotic
priests” organization, called Opus Pacis, promoting loyalty to socialism.
Some priests became informants for the regime.
In
Czechoslovakia between
1950 and 1955, the bishops of all 14 Czech dioceses were removed, and five were
imprisoned. Administration was handed over to mixed clerical/lay councils
subservient to the government. In the 1960s, new bishops were chosen who, in the
end, abandoned thousands of clergy and believers to the gulag.
The
parallel between 1950s-era Eastern Europe and 21st century Western
Europe or North America is obviously inexact. Nevertheless, the Holy See has a
long memory, and this background helps explain the concern.
For a
more optimistic view of democratic structures in the church, one can consult
http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/. It’s the home page of the Association
for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, a group founded in 1980 by
laity and clergy in the wake of Vatican condemnations of such theologians as
Edward Schillebeeckx, Jacques Pohier, and Hans Küng. The case for democratic
governance is outlined in detail.
* * *
The
Vatican announced this week that John Paul II will not make his annual visit to
the Church of Santa Sabina on Rome’s Aventine Hill for Ash Wednesday. Santa
Sabina is the Dominican headquarters, and by tradition the Dominican master
general joins the pope.
This
year John Paul will lead the Ash Wednesday observance in the Paul VI Audience
Hall in the Vatican.
The
trek to Santa Sabina is a custom that reaches far back, perhaps as early as the
sixth century, and this will be the first time John Paul II has missed it. It’s
further confirmation of a Vatican desire to pare his calendar back to the
absolute essentials.
* * *
In
the long list of firsts in John Paul’s pontificate, a new entry was registered
on Jan. 16. For the first time, the chief rabbis of Israel visited the pope in
the Vatican.
The
two rabbis, Yehuda Metzger and Shlomo Amar, met with the pope for 35 minutes
Friday morning. Also present was the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, Oded
Ben-Hur, and several Vatican officials, including Archbishops Stanislaw Dziwisz
and James Harvey, papal secretaries, and Fr. Norbert Hofmann, a German who heads
the Vatican desk for Catholic/Jewish relations.
The
rabbis, in Rome to attend a "concert of reconciliation" at the Vatican on
Saturday evening, held a press conference at the Rome synagogue after their
papal audience. They said they used the meeting to press the pope on three
issues: anti-Semitism, terrorism, and a request that the Vatican give to Israel
either a manuscript of the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides or an object of
equivalent historical value.
Prior
to leaving Israel, Amar had said he also intended to ask about objects from the
ancient Temple of Jerusalem carted away by Roman legions in the first century,
including a menorah depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome, that he believed to
be in Vatican storage. Amar told reporters, however, that he did not raise the
issue with John Paul.
A
Vatican official told NCR Jan. 16 that the pope did not react to the
rabbis’ requests. From the Vatican point of view, he said, the meeting was
important not so much for its content as for the fact it happened. He said it
forms part of a budding dialogue between the Holy See and the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel. The two parties have met three times, most recently Dec. 1-4 in
Jerusalem.
The
rabbis also announced that the Jewish community of Rome has invited the pope to
join them for the 100th anniversary of the present Rome synagogue on May 23. If
John Paul accepts, it would mark his first time at the synagogue after his
historic visit of April 13, 1986, when he became the first pope after the age of
Peter to set foot in a Jewish place of worship.
The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is
jallen@natcath.org
Copyright
© The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company, 115 E.
Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111
All rights reserved.
TEL: 1-816-531-0538
FAX: 1-816-968-2280 |