Beatrice on her site
called attention to this item published on the site of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which she finds admirable for enclosing the Pope away from the polemics that had preceded his visit to the Holy Land.
Yes, it does that, but the approach implies that the Pope could have done otherwise. That is my primary reservation about it - the assumption that the Pope, any Pope, could have gone to the Holy Land and take sides in a political conflict where both sides have legitimate claims that can be resonably met, as well as certain specific claims that can only be resolved by political compromise, which neither side is ready to make.
My second reservation is that in an article which praises the Pope's fairness and balance and spirit of Christian love, the writer himself, a priest, takes sides openly and unfairly, not so much with the Palestinians as against the Israelis, as indeed most of the clergy in the Holy Land who have expressed themselves before and after the Pope's visit - in short, he himself fails to follow the Pope's example that he praises!
I personally do not think it is the place of the clergy to take political sides in a conflict where both parties have been guilty of killing and violence while making it appear that only one side is to blame.
'To recognize in the other
my equal, my brother, my sister'
by Fr. Vincent Nagle
Translated from the French text
on the website of
www.lpj.org/index
June 10, 2009
Unfortunately, no other information is given about the author - neither his nationality nor in what capacity he is serving in the Holy Land.
The Pope's visit to the Holy Land was a poignant demonstration of the courage that the Christian faith gives, the courage of a father who has the responsibility to care for his family.
There had been numerous warnings and numerous persons who had tried to dissuade the Holy Father from undertaking this visit at a time when, for many reasons, tensions in the region were particularly high,
Many representatives from the Christian community in the Holy Land, convinced that the timing was ill-chosen, had even written a common letter to ask the Pope not to come. And the media predicted a catastrophe.
The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem himself, although a fervent partisan for the trip
[With all due respect to the author, this is not true! - Mons. Twal was quoted several times before the trip was formally announced as telling the press he did not think the timing was right!] told the Israeli press: "A word out of place [by the Pope], and I would have problems with the Jews. Another, and I would have trouble with the Muslims. The Pope will go back to Rome, and I will stay behind with all the problems".
[Which is, to say the least, unwise and very ungracious, if not censorious, to say of the Pope!]
From all available evidence, the pressure against the trip was strong. But profoundly conscious of his mission, and certain he was obeying 'Another', the Pope went anyway.
The resistances and hesitations aroused by the visit were born from a purely human view of things. In the center of such an outlook is a political approach which presumes to meet the challenges of human society by purely political solutions without a response to the drama played out in the human heart.
Many priests had expressed their concern that the Israelis would use the Pope's visit as a blessing to go ahead with an ultra-rapid expansion of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and their
violent contempt for the lives of Arabs.
[Now that's a very loaded and patently unfair political statement from someone who has just denounced purely political solutions for human challenges! Who has 'violent contempt' for the lives of others - the Palestinian terrorists who have no second thoughts about suicide-bomb attacks on civilian centers in Israeli cities and daily rocket attacks aimed at the southern Israel cities, or a superior Israeli defense force that seeks to destroy that rocket-launching capability but must do this against enemies who deliberately nest in civilian neighborhoods and use their own civilians as a shield?]
Other Catholics, such as the head of the Parish Council of Nablus [on the West Bank], said the Pope should not come until he had changed his point of view, namely, to adopt a political position that is in phase with the dominant party
[??? with Fatah? or with Hamas? And why would they demand that the Pope take a partisan political stand anyway?]
Not seeing how they could utilise the Pope's visit as an advantage against their political opponents, many persons, especially the Christians, were opposed to the visit.
[Now, there's a candid statement, for a change!]
Nonetheless, once the Pope had arrived, it was clear that he brought with him something beyond all political discourse, an outlook that did not consider what political advantage anyone might gain from it
{EXCUSE ME, EVERYONE! but didn't the Pope make clear from the time he first announced the trip that it was to be a pilgrimage first of all - a spiritual visit to the land where Christ walked - during which he also wished to bring comfort and moral support to the Christians in the Holy Land????? Why is the Pope's attitude - the only one a Pope can have - reported here as though it was a surprise????].
Rather, it was an effort to express to everyone a love greater than that which they had for themselves. This universal fatherhood, which begins with his own children [Catholics], extends to all persons, and this was first apparent during the first part of his trip, in Jordan, where the political and social situation is much calmer, even if, as patriarch Twal noted in an address to the Pope, one notes a possible drift "towards a narrowing of outlook and a rejection of the 'other'".
In the address at the King Hussein Mosque in Amman, Benedict XVI declared: "I firmly believe that Christians adn Muslims can meet the challenge of developing the vast potential of human reason with a view to the common good and in reference to faith and truth".
More than once, and in different forms, he repeated these words, showing that his words were not directed only to Christians but towards the advent of am open dialog and the possibility of coexistence among everyone.
Fr. Luigi Giussani, founder of the Communion anf Liberation movement, often said that the world thinks in exclusionary terms - 'aut-aut' [=(either-or), whereas the Church thinks in inclusionary terms, "et-et' (and-and).
On the part of Christians and other Arabs, one often heard the criticism that the Pope was coming only to visit the Jews. On the part of the Jews, when the Pope speaks of the legitimate aspirations of teh Palestinian people, an Israeli official said, "One would think it was Arafat speaking".
[Again, a most unfair insinuation. The Israeli press, along with some ultra-rightist rabbis and Israeli officials, may have been very unfairly vocal about their discontent that the Pope did not say what they wanted him to say about the Holocaust, Pius XII and German guilt, but from what I read, no one was foolish enough to openly criticize him for what he said that was sympathetic to the Palestinians - for the simple reason that everything he said when he visited Bethlehem was carefully phrased to be fair to both sides. Even his criticism of the Wall implied the tragic necessity for it. Review very closely what he said at the Aida camp!]
The divisions in this land make it difficult to even conceive that any person could possibly embrace both peoples.
[Is a Catholic priest really saying this? Is that not the Christian ideal? Even the political idea of two states is an expression of that ideal - that two states can live side by side peacefully and fraternally!]
And yet, whoever was paying attention could perceive that the Pope's challenge for a 'supplement' of humanity was addressed to all.
[Of course it would be! He is preaching the Christian message of love, and that applies to everyone! Why is that a surprise? It certainly does not need paying close attention not simply to perceive that but to know it and even to expect it.]
To President Prres, he remarked that "In Hebrew, security - batah - is born out of trust; it is not born only out of the absence of a threat, but also out of a feeling of calm and confidence".
With these words, he was urging the Israelis to look beyond the military aspect and to understand that true security requires a new relationship with others which is not based on force.
[Again, sheer distortion of fact. As though Israel's security and military measures were not always a response to despicable acts of terrorism against its citizens, and never unprovoked actions!]
Likewise, at the Aida refugee camp outside Bethlehem, at the foot of Israel's Wall of separation, the Pope said: "On each side of this wall, great courage is needed to go beyond fear and defiance, to resist the desire to avenge losses or wrongs. Magnanimity is required to seek reconciliation after years of confrontation....Good will is needed to take imaginative and daring initiatives with a view to reconciliation".
Benedict XVI did not adopt the political line of one part or the other [and one would hope that the clergy in the Holy Land would adopt the same non-partisan, fair and Christian attitude instead of an openly pro-Palestinian line that is also rabidly anti-Israel], but embraced the hopes and anguish of everyone, urging them to take a step forward in their humanity.
At the heart of the visit was his concern for the ever-decreasing flock of the Church in the Holy Land which has been a priority for the Pope. He fully recognizes and takes on their sufferings and fears, taking a half hour to meet members of the Holy Family parish in Gaza who received permits to come to Bethlehem during his visit.
[he met them at the residence of President Abbas during his courtesy call before leaving Bethlehem].
At the Mass in Bethlehem, Benedict XVI said that the presence of Christ on earth and in the town of his birth should be, for the faithful, a provocation to "constant conversion to Christ, which should flow not only from our actions but also in our reasoning: we must have the courage to abandon fruitless ways of thinking, acting and reacting."
He urged Christians to move forward. relying on the primordial reality of the presence of Christ.
Benedict XVI's great sense of fatherhood shines best in his constant urging of conversion of the heart to Christ as the only way for man's total regeneration.
Likewise, to the crowd of about 40,000 who assembled for the Mass in Nazareth, he asked that education be made a central priority, underlining the special role women play in this fundamental work - since is they who must first teach children "to love and accept others, to be honest and respectful to all, to practise the virtues of mercy and forgiveness".
These messages did not pass unnoticed by everyone. The Latin Patriarch wants the entire local Church to live by these words.
At the departure ceremonies in Tel Aviv airport, President Peres told the Pope: "You personally reinforced the spiritual dimension of your visit in calling for peace, and increasing hope and understanding among all the inhabitants of this land".
All this comes from the courage and the profound and limpid faith of Pope Benedict.
Seated before the empty tomb of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he said, echoing the words of St. peter: "Outside of Jesus whom God made our Lord and Christ, there is no other name given to man through whom we are saved."
The paternal courage of the Pope comes from that certainty. a courage that allowed him to come to a land which is divided and in conflict in order to bring to all the possibility of taking a new step, to bring it a new human outlook.
It is the sense evoked in these words to President Peres: "Lasting security rests on trust, it feeds at the springs of justice and law, and it is sealed by the conversion of hearts which impels us to look the other person in the eye and recognize the 'You" as my equal, my brother, my sister".
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 14/06/2009 10:19]