87. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Parliament, 14 November 2002.
Chapter Eight
1. The five commentators taken to meet the Pope were Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the secretary of state of the Holy See; Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, the former chairman of the Central Committee of the Great Jubilee of 2000; Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, the former Vatican “foreign minister”; Professor Rocco Buttiglione, a distinguished Italian philosopher and parliamentarian; and the author.
2. On Wojtyła as poet, see Weigel, Witness to Hope, pp. 117–19, 155–57, 218–19, 248–49.
3. Author’s conversation with Pope John Paul II, March 20, 1997.
4. Author’s interview with Marek Skwarnicki, July 17, 2003.
5. John Paul II, Roman Triptych: Meditations, trans. Jerzy Peterkiewicz (Washington, DC: USCCB Publishing, 2003).
6. See ibid.
In this section of his commentary, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that John Paul’s evocation of nature and the possibility of a path to God through nature in “The Stream” reminded him of something Karol Wojtyła had said when he preached the Lenten retreat for Pope Paul VI and the Roman Curia in 1976: “He related the case of a physicist with whom he had carried on a long discussion, and at the end of it had said to him, ‘from the point of view of my science and its method, I’m an atheist.’ However, in a letter, the same man wrote, ‘Every time I find myself before the majesty of nature, of the mountains, I feel that HE exists.’ ”
The physicist in question was Marian Męsowicz, known throughout the world of physics for the “Męsowicz coefficients” and for his studies of liquid crystals. Męsowicz was the father of Teresa Malecka and Maria Rybicka, longtime members of Karol Wojtyła’s Środowisko, the group of lay friends that had first formed around him when he was a student chaplain in Kraków. [Author’s conversation with Piotr and Teresa Malecki, September 10, 1997.]
7. Dr. Alicja Baluch of the Institute of Philology at the Polish Academy of Pedagogy in Kraków suggested the notion of the Sistine Chapel as a kind of Wojtyłan axis mundi at a conference in Kraków on November 4, 2008.
8. Cited in Weigel, Witness to Hope, p. 714 [emphasis in original].
9. Citations from the triptych and from Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary are taken from John Paul II, Roman Triptych.
10. “Poems a Window on Pope’s Inner Life, Polish Editor Says,” National Catholic Register, March 9–15, 2003.
11. Joseph Bottum, “The Threshold of Verse,” First Things 143 (May 2004), pp. 44–47.
12. For more on John Paul II and beauty, see George Weigel, “Touching the Truth,” The Tablet, December 20, 2008.
13. Poetry is, of course, notoriously difficult (some would say, impossible) to translate. Still, Poles with a good knowledge of English believed that the English translation of Roman Triptych by Jerzy Peterkiewicz exhibited many of the same defects as Peterkiewicz’s previous translations of Wojtyła’s poetry. The book’s U.S. rights were given to the publishing office of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops, which produced a handsome book that was nonetheless replete with errors and embarrassments: the cover showed the Pope walking along a mountain stream, which captured the imagery from the first part of the Triptych but rather misguided the reader as to the contents of the rest of the poem; the dust jacket suggested that the book was “the spiritual last testament” of the Pope, which was nonsense; the coat of arms of the Pontifical North American College was used instead of the Pope’s coat of arms in the author biography on the back dust jacket panel—which also was mistaken in its orthography of Polish names; and the blurb from Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz had that eminent man of letters speaking ungrammatically.
14. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 2, citing the relevant texts in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
15. Ibid., 5, 6.
16. Ibid., 12.
17. See ibid., 27, 29, 35, 37, 46. See also Raymond J. de Souza, “Eucharist Encyclical Provides New Ways to Discover Holy Communion,” National Catholic Register, May 4–10, 2003, p. 4.
While Ecclesia de Eucharistia does not specify particular cases in which a Catholic’s defective communion with the Church ought to preclude reception of holy communion, this section of the encyclical clearly bore on the debate throughout the Catholic world about the reception of communion by politicians who regularly promote abortion.
18. Ibid., 18; see also ibid., 19–20 for the “eschatological tension kindled by the Eucharist” and the ways in which that tension “spurs us on our journey through history and plants a seed of living hope in our daily commitment to the work before us.”
19. Ibid., 8 [emphasis in original].
20. The remedy was supplied on March 25, 2004, when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued, with John Paul’s approval, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum [The Sacrament of Redemption], which prescribed corrections to various liturgical abuses. The corrections were to be enforced by local bishops. Some were.
21. John Paul II, Letter Concerning Pilgrimage to the Places Linked to the History of Salvation, 10.
For a thorough discussion of John Paul II’s eucharistic theology and its impact on his ecclesiology, see Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., “A Eucharistic Church: The Vision of John Paul II,” in Dulles, Church and Society: The Lawrence J. McGinley Lectures, 1988–2007 (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008), pp. 443–54.
22. On John Paul II and the Gulf War, see Weigel, Witness to Hope, pp. 619–24.
On September 22, 2002, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who acknowledged that political questions were not his field of competence, nonetheless told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that, in his view, the United Nations had sole competence to authorize the use of armed force and noted that “the concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” [“Cardinal Ratzinger Says Unilateral Attack on Iraq Not Justified,” ZENIT News Service, September 22, 2002.]
Throughout these debates, Vatican officials consistently misstated U.S. policy as one of considering “preventive” war, when in fact the term used by the Bush administration was “preemption.” “Preemption” was not, however, the term of choice within the just war tradition, in which the question at issue was the justified first use of armed force, which was certainly considered possible by classic just war theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. On this point, see Gregory M. Reichberg, “Is There a ‘Presumption against War’ in Aquinas’s Ethics?” in Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives, eds. Henrik Syse and Gregory M. Reichberg (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), pp. 72–97. See also George Weigel, Against the Grain: Christianity and Democracy, War and Peace (New York: Crossroad, 2008), pp. 241–44.
23. The Pope’s chief statements against war and in favor of a nonmilitary solution to the problems of Iraq’s defiance of the UN came in his homily of January 1, 2003, the Angelus address of that same day, his speech to the ambassadors accredited to the Holy See on January 13, 2003, his Angelus addresses of February 9, February 23, March 2, March 9, and March 16, and the general audience address of March 19, 2003. The relevant texts may be found on the Vatican Web site; Sandro Magister excerpted the key passages in “War in the Gulf: What the Pope Really Said,” Chiesa, March 20, 2003.
24. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309.
25. See, for example, “Vatican Extols ‘Force of Law, Not the Law of Force,’ ” ZENIT News Service, February 28, 2003. It was never clear precisely what this radical dichotomy meant, as law is never self-enforcing, either within or among states. Moreover, and by the Holy See’s own tacit admission, armed force sometimes was justified to enforce international legal norms, as in Afghanistan or, earlier, in the Balkans. “Law of force” seemed more a trope from the European political Left than a concept from the just war tradition aimed at clarifying the moral situation facing world leaders.
<
br /> 26. From an international legal point of view, disagreement over the meaning of Resolution 1441 was the gravamen of the UN debate immediately prior to the commencement of hostilities in Iraq on March 19, 2003, as it was within the British government and between the United States and certain officials of the Holy See.
The debate over 1441 is engaged from various perspectives in The Price of Peace: Just War in the Twenty-First Century, eds. Charles Reed and David Ryall (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
27. Massimo Franco, Parallel Empires, pp. 130–31.
28. The Holy See’s secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, was not as strident as some of his colleagues, and consistently warned against interpreting the Vatican’s position as pacifism. In a remarkable interview on January 29, 2003, however, he shed light on the political and diplomatic cast of mind at work in the Secretariat of State, in an interview with a group of journalists:
Some think the Church’s representatives are “idealists.” We are, but we’re also realists.
Is irritating a billion Muslims worth it? This is the question. This is the question I put to some of my American friends: is it advisable? Won’t you have the hostility of the whole population for decades?
Without getting bogged down in the question of whether or not the war is moral, I think the question of advantage is worth asking.
We know how to start wars, but not how they will end. I ask the Americans: are you sure you will emerge well from it? Doesn’t the experience of Vietnam urge you to be prudent? We see that war isn’t even over in Afghanistan. Things are not going well at all. But that’s exactly why it’s necessary to insist on asking whether or not this war is advantageous.
We are against the war. Whether the war is or is not preventive is not worth talking about much; these are ambiguous terms. It’s certainly not defensive. In the interest of harmony with the Muslim world, we must ask what is the best way to approach the crisis in Iraq. [Sandro Magister, “Iraq: The Purely Political Reasons for the Church’s ‘No’ to War,” Chiesa, January 30, 2003.]
The notion of the Catholic Church’s second-ranking official warning against “getting bogged down in the question of whether or not the war is moral” was striking, and suggested that the cast of mind embodied by the old Ostpolitik of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli was alive and well in certain offices in the Vatican.
29. Sandro Magister, “With the Pope or with Bush? ‘Studi Cattolici’ Stands with Both,” Chiesa, July 29, 2003.
30. See Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).
31. Cited in Magister, “With the Pope or with Bush?”
32. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, 13 January 2003.
33. Magister, “With the Pope or with Bush?”
34. Ibid.
35. Nicholson, The United States and the Holy See, pp. 88–89.
The Pope’s October 21 letter to President Bush framed the current Middle Eastern conflict in terms of the Secretariat of State’s convictions about the centrality of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, reiterated the Holy See’s conviction that every diplomatic and international legal remedy must be exhausted before armed force was used to resolve conflicts, and underscored the Vatican’s standing fear that any military action in the Middle East would inflame the entire region. The Pope concluded: “Convinced that violence is not the only response and that war is not inevitable, I pray that God will inspire you and all concerned to find the appropriate means to build a lasting peace based upon justice and the rule of law. I assure you of my prayers to Almighty God for you in the fulfillment of your demanding responsibilities.”
36. Cited in Franco, Parallel Empires, pp. 133–34.
37. Ibid., p. 131.
38. Nicholson, The United States and the Holy See, p. 95.
39. Cited in Franco, Parallel Empires, p. 140.
40. Ambassador Nicholson recalls that the New York Times described the Vatican as a “station of the cross of diplomacy” in the months before the war began, and particularly during the debate over a post-1441 Security Council Resolution:
In the space of two weeks, the Pope received Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish Prime Minister José María Áznar. The Pope’s visitors brought different perspectives to Vatican City; but regardless of which side of the debate they represented, the Pope’s message was clear and consistent: first, all parties have an obligation to commit themselves to peace and reconciliation; second, all parties have a responsibility to collaborate with the international community and conform to justice, inspired by international law and ethical principles; finally, special attention and consideration must be given to the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people.
The Aziz visit presented an opportunity to convey to one of Saddam’s inner circle the determination of the international community to see Iraq disarm. In a meeting I held with Archbishop Tauran prior to Aziz’s visit, it was clear to me that the Holy See intended to use the meeting to send a clear message to Iraq on the importance of complying with U.N. resolutions. In Aziz’s subsequent meetings with the Pope and his senior officials, the Holy See told him directly that time was running out and that it needed to make concrete commitments to disarm in order to avert war. Unfortunately, the Pope’s message fell on deaf ears. [Nicholson, The United States and the Holy See, pp. 93–94.]
41. Ibid., pp. 96–97.
42. Cited in ibid., p. 97.
43. Franco, Parallel Empires, p. 144.
44. Cited in ibid., p. 98.
45. Franco, Parallel Empires, pp. 144–45.
In an April 2004 interview with the Italian daily Il Giornale, the apostolic nuncio in Iraq, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, warned that the situation in Iraq was getting out of control and urged that the United States “Have the Courage to Transfer Power Immediately.” [“Papal Nuncio Gives Grim Report from Iraq,” CWNews.com, April 15, 2004.] A rapid transfer of power in Iraq was urged by one faction within the Bush administration, which did not prevail.
46. See Sandro Magister, “Iraq: The Church Goes on a Mission of Peace,” Chiesa, November 28, 2003.
47. Jason Horowitz, “Vatican Official Says U.S. Treated Hussein ‘Like a Cow,’ ” New York Times, December 16, 2003.
48. On May 23, Archbishop Martino, not yet a cardinal, spoke at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and said that “freedom and the restoration of law have never been achieved by force or war.” [“Reconsider Tools of International Law,” Vatican Information Service, May 23, 2003.] It was a curious claim, in itself—but perhaps even more odd coming from a man whose country had been saved from fascism by American, British, and Polish soldiers.
49. John Paul II, Homily at Midnight Mass, Christmas, 24 December 2003.
50. John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi Message, Christmas 2003.
51. John L. Allen, Jr., “The Word from Rome,” National Catholic Reporter, April 25, 2003.
52. “John Paul II Doesn’t Know the Meaning of ‘Weekend,’ ” ZENIT News Service, May 30, 2003.
53. “Pope Asks for Prayers to Continue to Fulfill Mission,” ZENIT News Service, May 18, 2003.
54. “ ‘A Youth of 83’ Enthuses Spain’s Youth,” The Tablet, May 10, 2003, pp. 38–39.
55. John Paul II, Address at the Welcoming Ceremony, International Airport Adrija Riviera Kvarner of Rijeka/Krk, 5 June 2003 [emphasis in original].
56. John Paul II, Homily, Mass and Beatification of the Servant of God Ivan Merz, 22 June 2003.
57. John Paul II, Address at the International Airport of Bratislava, 11 September 2003 [emphases in original].
58. John Paul’s concerns were shared by the distinguished international constitutional legal scholar Joseph H. H. Weiler, himself an Orthodox Jew; see Weiler, Un’Europa cristiana: Un saggio esplorativo (Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 2003).
59. John Paul II, Angelus, 20 July 2003.
60. John Paul II, Angelus, 13 July 2003.
61. Cited in “Unholy Row on God’s Place in E.U. Constitution,” Christian Century, April 5, 2003.
62. Cited in “France Says No to Christianity in Constitution,” eurobserver.com, September 14, 2003.
63. Cited in “Unholy Row.”
64. Cited in www.religioustolerance.org/const.eu.htm.
65. Ibid.
66. Cited in Gerald Owen, “Habermas + Derrida: Modernism a Beneficiary of War in Iraq,” National Post, August 2, 2003.
The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who had joined Derrida in appealing for a Europe “neutral between worldviews,” later modified his position after a public debate with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in January 2004. See Ratzinger and Habermas, Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion, trans. Brian McNeil, C.R.V. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006).
67. On Centesimus Annus, see Weigel, Witness to Hope, pp. 612–19. On Leo XIII and the beginnings of modern Catholic social doctrine, see Russell Hittinger, “Commentary on Leo XIII,” in eds. John Witte, Jr., and Frank S. Alexander, The Teachings of Modern Roman Catholicism on Law, Politics, and Human Nature (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), pp. 39–75.
68. John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, 2.
69. Ibid., 3.
70. Ibid., 4.
71. Ibid., 7–8.
72. Ibid., 9.
73. See Henri de Lubac, S.J., The Drama of Atheist Humanism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995).
74. John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europe, 76.
75. Ibid., 67.
76. Ibid., 25.
77. Ibid., 25. John Paul might well have added that, had there been no Christian culture in Europe, Europe would not have had the cultural and moral resources to summon the will to defend itself against successive waves of Islamic invasion.
The End and the Beginning Page 73