Issue Date: August 11, 2006
U.S. bishops: Break cycle of violence with cease-fire
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Fla., chair of the Committee on
International Policy for the U.S. bishops, issued a statement July 17 calling
for a cease-fire in Lebanon, faulting Hamas and Hezbollah for triggering the
crisis, criticizing Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure, expressing
solidarity with the Lebanese, and asking the United States to exercise greater
leadership to bring a halt to the violence.
The full text of Wenskis statement can be found here:
www.usccb.org/sdwp.
Following the July 26 Rome Summit on Lebanon, involving diplomats
from 15 nations along with the Holy See and two other international
organizations as observers, NCR interviewed Wenski by phone regarding
the latest developments.
NCR: Your statement, along with that of Pope Benedict, called
for an immediate cease-fire. The summit could not agree on that point because
of opposition from the United States, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
arguing that a cease-fire must be meaningful, that is, it cannot be a return to
the status quo ante. How do you react?
The Americans put a lot of emphasis on that adjective
meaningful. Weve been calling for a meaningful cease-fire
too, but in our view its meaningful when people stop dying. Neither the
Holy See nor the conference of bishops wants a return to the status quo. We
were careful in our statement to point out the difficulties with the weakness
of Lebanon, and that allowing the existence of a state within a state in the
form of the Hezbollah is not sustainable. We want Lebanon to be strengthened as
a sovereign nation. But above all, the fighting should stop. These are not
mutually exclusive goals.
We can both stop the fighting and continue the
disarmament of Hezbollah. Some people seem to want the fighting to continue
until there is no Hezbollah left to disarm, but thats not the right way
to reduce the number of mothers who have to mourn the loss of their sons and
daughters.
The summit did agree on the creation of an international force for
Lebanon, a point your statement did not touch. What do you make of
that?
Our call is for a cease-fire. We condemned the actions of Hezbollah and
Hamas for starting this crisis, and weve called for the current fighting
to stop. Weve got to break the cycle of violence with a cease-fire, and
then move to real negotiations between Israel and Palestine, as well as to
assure the independence of Lebanon. Its not clear whether a peacekeeping
mission right now can help achieve these goals. To the extent it might or
could, I think we would be supportive.
But thats the $64,000 question -- can it work? NATO has the
capacity to do it, but has said it doesnt feel such an undertaking is
within the scope of its mission. They dont want to extend that mission
beyond their historic territory. U.N. peacekeepers generally dont engage
in disarmament. Its a real quandary.
What were trying to say is this: The more people who are killed,
the more the fighting escalates, the more infrastructure is destroyed, the more
difficult it becomes for all sides to find common ground to negotiate.
Thats why the cease-fire is so important. It would allow us to take a
deep breath, to let reason direct policy rather than reactions of anger to
hurts old or new. The escalation of violence will not bring us closer to a
resolution which is just, but [a cease-fire] will take a lot of moral
courage.
What are the bishops doing to get their message out?
We issued this statement [July 17], and there were two reasons we wanted
it out that day. First, Cardinal [Nasrallah Pierre] Sfeir of Lebanon was in
Washington, and he expressed gratitude and appreciation for it. He had a
meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney and took the statement with him, so
this was a way of raising the awareness of the White House. Also, Cardinal
[Theodore] McCarrick was going to the White House that evening for a farewell
dinner, along with Archbishop [Donald] Wuerl. We wanted to be sure the
statement was in their hands as they went to that dinner with President Bush. I
have the sense that the White House listens to us.
Even if they
dont agree, they take it into consideration.
Some have criticized statements from the Vatican, especially from
Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the secretary of state, for implying a sort of moral
equivalence between terrorism and a states right to self-defense. Do you
see it that way, or do you think the Vaticans been on the money?
I think theyve been pretty much on the money. Sometimes, this is a
question of differing perspectives. I used to live in Miami, and between Miami
and New York we in the United States have the highest concentration of Jews
outside of Israel. Our radar is more sensitive about not giving a perceived or
unintended slight to the Jewish people. I think Sodano made it clear later on
that he was not trying to take sides on the issue.
Its also true that sometimes the Israeli government will play to
these sensitivities in order to deflect attention or questions that can rightly
be raised about their policies. I think the lack of proportion in some of
Israels responses can fairly be questioned by anybody.
In general, do you find a pro-Palestinian tilt in Vatican foreign
policy?
I wouldnt say its a question of a lack of balance, but just
a different perspective. Its the same situation with Cuba. In Miami, many
Cubans react just like the Jewish community to some statements. They have a
heightened sensitivity to these things, and might find a lack of balance.
Really, I think its usually a matter of differing perspectives that can
generally be clarified.
On the question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the church has long
favored a two-state solution, and has clearly called for the State of Israel to
be recognized and to survive whatever accommodation needs to be made with the
Palestinians. Perhaps were more keenly aware of the justice issues
involved and the many legitimate grievances that the Palestinian people have,
in part because theres a significant constituency of Palestinian
Christians, Palestinian Catholics. This is not a question of being biased for
or against one or the other group, but of trying to be a prophetic voice
calling for justice. Sometimes people would rather take umbrage than examine
their conscience.
Whom does your July 17 statement speak for?
Its the Committee on International Policy. We try to follow a very
strict policy with this sort of statement
the best that bureaucracy can
create. When a statement is issued under my signature, its been carefully
vetted by different policy people within the conference, by staff, by the
president of the conference and by the general secretary. In this case, we also
consulted the papal nuncio, though it wasnt because we had to. Archbishop
[Pietro] Sambi was based in the Holy Land, so we ran it by him to ask if there
were any nuances he felt could be sharpened. We also consulted Catholic Relief
Services, who have people in the Middle East. In other words, this isnt
just me mouthing off. Its a statement of a standing committee of the
bishops conference, and we can be sure the bishops will stand behind
it.
What kind of authority does the statement have? Are Catholics obliged
to accept it?
This isnt something thats going to be added as an appendix
to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It does not bind the consciences of
American Catholics, but it helps them to form their consciences. Many Americans
are troubled by the situation in the Middle East, and are looking for their
shepherds to say something. Of course, there will be people who dont
agree with us. Some may say that were just trying to bash Bush and so on.
Actually, I suspect that sometimes his cheerleaders get more upset than he
does. Were not trying to bash anybody, we just want to contribute to the
debate.
So Catholics are free to disagree?
I dont know if theyre free to say, for example, Israel
should bomb Lebanon back to the Stone Age. I dont see how they can
find any comfort for that view. The catechism doesnt say anything about
bombing back to the Stone Age.
So the burden is on them to show how a different conclusion would
flow from the teaching of the church?
Yes, thats right. Our statement also called upon the United States
to exercise greater leadership, and there might be some Catholics who are
isolationists who might not welcome that, but I dont think they can find
much support for that.
I know this is a very difficult situation, and its easy for me in
Orlando to write and say things. But we also have to remember that there are
patriarchs and a cardinal in Lebanon who are dealing with this on the ground;
its very tough for them.
What about the popes comments?
I thought Benedict XVIs intervention last Sunday [July 23] was a
very positive one. You remember when he was elected, there was a lot of talk
about his name as a reference to Benedict XV, who was a peace pope.
When you look at the beginning of the 20th and the 21st centuries there are a
number of interesting parallels. At the beginning of the 20th century, the
world found itself in a war started when the Austrian prince was shot in
Sarajevo by someone then called an anarchist. Today we would call
him a terrorist. Then too, the world was undergoing an accelerated process of
globalization, thanks to the steamship, the telegraph and the industrial
revolution. Many of the anarchists of the day were anti-globalists, so then as
now terrorism is, in a sense, a reaction to globalization.
Not exactly a promising precedent, since Benedict XVs appeals
for peace went largely unheard.
Its still early with this Pope Benedict, but Im
encouraged.
National Catholic Reporter, August 11,
2006 |