For those who observed it closely, the recent perfunctory meeting of Pope Benedict XVI and President Bush at the Vatican offered a glimpse at what future relations between the United States and the Holy See will be like. In most respects, it appeared to be a typical rendezvous between two heads of state. The pontiff welcomed Bush cordially, setting the tone for a relaxed thirty-five minute discussion that was nearly as cordial. The two dignitaries discussed areas of mutual interest and concern including religious freedom, human rights, and the deteriorating political and economic situation in Africa and the Middle East. When they had finished talking, the Pope and president followed the usual diplomatic custom of exchanging gifts: Bush offered Benedict a walking stick carved with the Ten Commandments, while Benedict presented Bush with an engraving of St. Peter’s Basilica and a gold medallion representing his pontificate.
But the very typical character of this meeting between two such different leaders ought to make observers suspicious. Indeed, when I read articles from various media outlets describing it, I closest had a sense that it was an attractive veneer, a insignificant formality lacking substance. This is not to question the sincerity of either President Bush or Pope Benedict; I believe that both men have tried to do their best given their respective abilities and circumstances. Rather, it was apparent that underneath their civility, occasional pleasant humor, and agreement on basic moral issues, a cauldron of definite mutual uneasiness-generated by the fire of major disagreement-was simmering.
To most people around the world, it is well known that Pope Benedict and President Bush have taken opposing stands on a wide range of matters. Benedict has firmly opposed the war in Iraq which Bush has insisted on continuing. Benedict has called for universal nuclear disarmament, while Bush has maintained the importance of strengthening his nation’s arsenal. Benedict has called for aid to the Palestinian people, while Bush has refused such aid citing allegations that the Hamas government has been involved in terrorism. Benedict has stressed the importance of international law, multilateralism, and the United Nations in conducting international affairs, while Bush has insisted that the United States must take at all event actions necessary to preserve its own security and that of Israel. Benedict has warned against the perversion of free-market capitalism-especially on its global extent-into a means for unlimited selfishness, while Bush has consistently implied that all leaders who control their national economies or who completely oppose the entrance of this laissez-faire system into their countries are enemies of the United States.
However, these differences are not impossible to reconcile. After all, both the US president and His Holiness have arrived at these views on the basis of the same moral concepts. What they differ on is in understanding and correct application of those ideas. For example, President Bush supports the Iraq war as a method of combating terrorism and ultimately ensuring the freedom of the Iraqi people; Pope Benedict opposes the same war as being severely destructive to the Iraqi people and nation, a violation of international law, and a futile attempt to rein in “Islamic” terrorism. Similarly, Benedict has emphasized the urgency of economic development aid for Africa and other poverty-stricken regions as a duty of justice that will further world peace, while Bush has placed military spending for national security far ahead of foreign aid on the ground that the duty to protect his own people from terrorism comes before helping foreigners out. Both leaders concede the concepts of freedom, justice, the rule of law, security, solidarity, and peace; their disagreements revolve around the issue of how to implement those concepts-in addition as the already stickier question of how to keep them all in proper balance.
A chief goal of Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate is unity-but not a shallow kind of unity in which serious disagreements are forced below the surface. Rather, the Pope is helping to build worldwide unity of internal convictions and external objectives on the basis of the true, basic moral values that all peoples keep up in shared. His gentle personality and towering intellectual position render him amply appropriate to this challenging task.
Meanwhile, the overriding goal of President Bush’s administration is to eradicate the international “Islamic” terrorist movement. The president has striven for unity among the nations of the world in confronting this menace with a “War on Terrorism”, but instead his policies have led to a worsening of divisions in the international community and a global quadrupling of the terrorism rate since 2001.
Differing levels of personal respect arising from the actions and policies of both the president and the Pope also contributed to the uneasy air of their tête-à-tête. The pontiff is well aware that Bush has been accused of and is responsible for hundreds of war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, from cluster-bombing innocent villages to torturing and abusing prisoners to dropping missiles on mosques and hospitals to assassinating scores of journalists. Though President Bush has unequivocally invoked the extreme circumstances of a “War on Terrorism” to justify these acts, Pope Benedict has been just as unequivocal in his condemnation of them. At the same time, Bush seems to keep up an enormous respect for, in addition as allurement to, the Successor of Saint Peter. At a press conference after the meeting, the American head of state said he was “in awe” at the Holy Father, whom he described as “a very smart, loving man”. Furthermore, prior to the meeting, Bush had expressed his decision not to argue with the pontiff, telling reporters he would be in a “listening mode”-a scarce attitude for this particular president to adopt.
All of these factors combined to shape the high-level diplomatic exchange. Discussing the G-8 summit he had just attended, Bush remarked that it was “successful”. Pope Benedict replied, “Successful? You had some decisions? It’s not so easy.” The dignitaries were referring to the summit of leaders of the eight powerful nations-the US, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Japan-held in Germany the past week. The assembly had failed to reach agreement on a plan to reduce world poverty, at the minimum in some measure because of opposition from the United States. Then the Pope stated that it was important for the good of humanity that such meetings produce decisions. In his own gentle way, the Pope was disagreeing with the president that the summit was successful and exhorting him to compromise where possible for the assistance of the world as a whole.
Moving on to discuss the worsening problem of world poverty, Bush and Benedict agreed that more aid is needed, especially to Africa. Bush mentioned that the US is doubling its global commitment to fight AIDS from $15 to $30 billion. Nevertheless, in many other areas the US has either cut foreign aid or continues to dole out far less than what the poorest countries need to survive and develop. The leaders recalled with particular concern the humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur vicinity, where for four years the state-sponsored Janjaweed terrorists of an oil-hungry regime have been systematically murdering and displacing the black population. Less than two weeks before his visit with the Pope, Bush announced that the US would apply targeted economic sanctions to the government of Omar al-Bashir in an effort to stop the violence. The Vatican, the African Union, the UN, and grassroots organizations around the world including the Save Darfur Coalition in the United States have all urged the stationing of a multilateral peacekeeping force in Sudan, but the US has maintained a cool attitude toward this proposal.
Another item on the office-bearers’ agenda was the desperate position of Christians in Iraq and the Holy Land. In Iraq, “Muslim” terrorists have kidnapped a number of Christian residents, already killing a priest-journalist-Father Ragheed Aziz Ganni-on June 3. Efforts to rebuild the country have been impeded by escalating terrorism and corruption. War and sectarian violence between coalition troops and Muslims have conspired with endemic poverty to put enormous pressure on Iraq’s Christian minority. Since the war started in 2003, most Iraqi Christians-700,000 to date-have reluctantly fled the country. The situation of the already more ancient Holy Land Christian community is less dire than that in Iraq but no less worrying for the long term. Caught in the middle of a lengthy struggle between Jews and Muslims for political, economic and military control of the vicinity, and lacking sufficient aid from the outside world, Christians have been slowly fleeing the Palestinian Territories and Israel for more peaceful and obtain countries. Pope Benedict is deeply and rightly concerned that these Biblical lands will someday be depleted of living witnesses to Christ. While President Bush assured the pontiff that he shared these concerns, he did not specify what he was doing or could do about the situation either during their meeting or in the presidential press conference which followed.
Benedict expressed to Bush his often-stated hope for “regional” and “negotiated” solutions to the many conflicts now wrenching the Middle East. This was a meaningful point on which the leaders have continually disagreed. The Vatican did not mention President Bush’s response to this statement or what discussion, if any, occurred on this topic. Nevertheless, it is well known that Bush has relied heavily on the use of force, fearing that diplomatic engagement gives terrorists an edge in the struggle.
Finally, according to a Vatican statement released soon afterward, the meeting included “an examination of moral and religious questions, including those related to human rights and religious freedom, the defense and promotion of life, marriage and the family, education of new generations and sustainable development.”
The issue on which Benedict and Bush have experienced least disagreement is the right to life of every human being. In fact, the Holy See’s Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone went out of his way to praise the president for his stance on abortion in addition as his “positive initiatives in favor of the defense of life from conception”, presumably referring to his tireless efforts to prevent embryonic stem-cell research involving the destruction of human embryos. It seems that Bush’s clear opposition to the court-ordered euthanasia of the brain-damaged woman Terri Schiavo in 2005 might also have been remarked, since that controversy happened after Bush’s last visit with a Pope in 2004, but the Vatican did not mention this.
It is encouraging that Pope Benedict XVI and President Bush agree on the most basic human right of all. At the same time, it is unfortunate that they disagree on almost everything else. It is obvious that the uneasiness of their meeting was a consequence of time constraints forcing them to shove these important disagreements below the surface. Nonetheless, the two representatives could enhance relations considerably if both of them were eager enough to do so. On virtually every foreign policy issue, Pope Benedict’s position has been markedly definite from that of the United States-and drawn harsh criticism from American neoconservatives.
in addition the Holy See deserves credit for its impartial excursion toward unity and peace for all humankind. In a world where morality has been artificially divided into two incoherent camps-one emphasizing love of God without adequate concern for neighbor, the other emphasizing love of neighbor without reference to God-the Pope wishes to highlight the coherence of loving both God and our neighbor, which together constitute the complete moral law, as the basis for unity and peace among peoples. His magnificent encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love) was written to convey this pertinent message.
While President Bush may be sincere, his advisers have filled his brain with the colossal deception that “Islamic” terrorism is an act of war and can only be defeated by all-out war. The extremist mindset produced by this neoconservative deception is uncompromising; it warns that Bush cannot negotiate with anti-American leaders or address the grievances of terrorists lest he threaten American security. Unfounded fear lies at the bottom of such notions. According to the pontiff, the only thing that can break down the walls of mutual hostility and fear is a courageous unconditional love, at the heart of which lies concern for the good of the other-yes, already love of and concern for our actual and possible terrorist enemies. Listening to them, accepting the legitimacy of their problems and addressing them honestly would be a sure sign of this loving concern that would move terrorists to abandon their cruel and blasphemous violence “in the name of God”.
Bush’s advisers have also assured him that the rapid, unlimited growth of big business characterizing the post-Cold War world is popular to all peoples in general and should be permitted to continue freely. However, this smooth lie was fabricated by Western entrepreneurs themselves to justify their enormous concentration of global wealth and the resultant growing gap between high and poor. The real reason for the Iraq war was to satisfy the petroleum lust of Western mega-corporations. Furthermore, the inner reason for the “War on Terrorism” is to protect and permit the unjust gains of these big businesses in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and in other places around the world. The Pope has reiterated that for the shared good, the globalization system must be unprotected to regulation.
When President Bush and Pope Benedict stood side by side in the Vatican facing dozens of cameras and reporters, observers might have been tempted to characterize Bush as the leader displaying greater courage and more determination to confront evil. They might have detected Bush’s discomfort with being in the presence of a man whom some have called a cowardly “appeaser” of terrorists. But clearly it takes more courage to interpose oneself between terrorists and the American government and urge both, in the name of Jesus, to stop the violence. It requires particular courage for the Pope, who lacks the protection of a modern military force, to stand up for the whole truth about the moral law and God’s love when both sides are willing and able to slaughter and destroy for their own part of the truth.
As a chiefly religious leader who is nevertheless an inescapably political figure in our modern time, the Pope has a vital role to play. He has become a mediator in an increasingly polarized world since the end of the Cold War and especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. During the run up to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul II called for Iraq’s complete compliance with UN inspectors while urging the US and Great Britain to avoid the route of war. Pope Benedict’s two-year-long efforts on behalf of the people of Darfur may have helped shame the US government into slapping an embargo on the genocidal regime. In April of this year, Pope Benedict dissipated a territorial row between British naval officers and Iran in the Persian Gulf.
Pope Benedict XVI and President George Bush are the two most visible and powerful leaders on earth. The Pope is the religious and spiritual head of the Catholic Church, the wondrous institution established by Jesus Christ to bring salvation to all peoples. The American president is the political head of a geographically extensive country whose moral, cultural, economic, political, and military influence on the world has been monumental. consequently when these two dignitaries decide to come together, it is a meaningful event. However, it is to be wondered how many more times the president of the United States will accept invitations to meet with the Pope given the little by little more conflicting paths the US and the Holy See are taking. American policies are pushed by the selfish interests of a few multimillionaire and billionaire moguls; Vatican policies are pushed by unselfish concern for the good of all of earth’s inhabitants. If continuously pursued, these two policies-and the world leaders carrying them out-must collide at some point.
Did this thirty-five minute official meeting accomplish anything? Time will tell. It certainly gave us all an abundant opportunity for reflection. Unfortunately, President Bush cannot see outside the box of his neoconservative logic to grasp the beautiful, logical, reasonable, and realistic vision of Pope Benedict XVI. The president need not be a Catholic to understand the Pope’s rationale because it is not specifically a Catholic argument; it is based on the moral principles that all peoples recognize. Will the Bush administration and its allies “return to the path of reason”, lay down their arms, and commit to the good of all peoples, as the Vicar of Christ has asked, or will they allow the unstable conditions of growing poverty, festering grievances, mounting terrorism, insatiable greed, and unchecked militarism to worsen past the point of no return?
The extremist neoconservative ideology is a great pseudo-religious deception which has ensnared meaningful numbers of people, including President Bush. For this reason, we should expect relations between the American presidency and the papacy to deteriorate further in the years ahead. Certain wealthy, influential neoconservatives in the US, who stand for values diametrically opposite to those of the Catholic Church, are determined to make the world safe for unfettered big business, the petroleum industry, lawless warmongering, and war profiteering under the guise of-and at the expense of-freedom, justice, security, democracy, and peace. With the omnipresent excuse of national security, these major businesspeople and politicians will do at all event is necessary to unprotected to their dark goals. If that method corrupting the president and increasing military spending beyond its present ridiculous level, they will do it. At some moment in the future, the United States may make its evil aims clear by severing diplomatic relations with the Vatican. While Bush has inadvertently ignited and helped to fuel world tensions, later presidents will openly denounce the Holy See and claim for themselves the only moral authority to determine right from wrong. The Catholic Pope versus the President of the United States may well appear as the defining struggle of the twenty-first century.