Jubilee, Closed for War
There has been a lot of talk about the war in Yugoslavia, but the war must also produce discussion about the Jubilee of 2000 wanted by Pope Wojtyla. If, in the 1800’s, warlike events that involved Rome pushed the Popes not to convene the Jubilee, even more so now, it should be suspended. Shouldn’t the Pope be asking the people to forget coming to Rome, but to make peace where they are, for example in Yugoslavia, where people die because of war and violence?
During the last two months of uninterrupted war in Yugoslavia, the machine of preparation for the Jubilee of 2000 called for by Pope Wojtyla continues unperturbedly. Making a comparison between these two facts, and wishing to find some connections between them, would seem insensitive. Yet between the two very distinct events there is a connection.
The Jubilee concept was taken from Jewish scripture, but was emptied of its substantial Biblical significance. Pope Boniface VIII in 1300 instituted the first Christian Jubilee. It consisted of a “change of heart” that should manifest itself in the pilgrimage to the tombs of the apostles in Rome, to acquire there the indulgence. The event itself was always celebrated at the end of the appointed terms (from 1400, every 25 years). However, from this chain, which stretched from 1300 to 2000, 2 links are missing: that of 1800 and 1850.
Under Napoleon, Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French and forced to leave the Pontifical State, dying in exile in August of 1799. These circumstances prevented the Pope from convening the Jubilee for the imminent canonical term, that of 1800. His successor, Pius VII, elected only in March of 1800 in Venice, was also unable to convene the Jubilee.
Analogous is the story of Pius IX: in November of 1848 – to escape the riotous revolutions which would then culminate in the construction of the Roman Republic – the Pontiff hid in Gaeta, in the Reign of the Two Sicilys, and from there he returned to Rome only in April of 1850, when the Pontifical State had reestablished “order.”
Therefore, finding themselves out of their seats due to warlike events, two Popes did not declare the Jubilee. Today, two hundred years after the story of Pius VI, and 150 years after that of Pius IX, the situation is much worse. Certainly, the Pope is free, and no one is fighting a war against him. On the contrary, at least formally, the Pontiff is revered by nearly (thinking of China) all the powers of the world; by the entire West, at least.
But, in the meantime, a devastating war is in action, now, at the doors of Italy and Rome: that of Yugoslavia. Up to this time from the fatal 24th of March ‘99, NATO is still bombing Kosovo and Serbia. The ethnic Albanian Kosovars continue to be the victims of an implacable “ethnic cleansing” by Milosevic’s troops. Meanwhile, thousands of bombs dropped by the Atlantic Alliance to punish the Yugoslavian regime, every now and then (like the “collateral effect”), fall on the heads of the poor refugees whom they would like to protect. To date, every diplomatic attempt to resolve the Balkan puzzle has failed.
Together with the Orthodox Patriarch Teoctist (see page 25 of this issue) from Bucharest, Wojtyla has asked the parties involved in the struggle in Yugoslavia to fulfill their “prophetic gestures” to end the shedding of blood and to find a just peace. A proper request. But, perhaps, while waiting whether the militaries and the politicians accomplish these gestures of supreme wisdom that all wish for, Giovanni Paolo II could set an example, announcing that, because of the war in Yugoslavia, the triumphal Jubilee of 2000 (to begin with the announcement of the Oceanic pilgrims to Rome), has been suspended.
The Jubilee itself could take place, but in a different way from that envisioned by Boniface VIII and confirmed by Wojtyla. Who would want to change it? This idea is obviously upsetting to the Catholics, but such a choice would reflect the people of all faiths. It could be done in our own house, without pilgrims from anywhere, Rome, Jerusalem or wherever. It could be done without obtaining indulgences, and searching for, right where we live, ways to make peace with our neighbor whom we hate, and who hates us. It could be done by searching for ways to make peace, justice and solidarity in the country in which we live.
In particular, the Catholics of ex-Yugoslavia have fervently prayed to not have to come to Rome for the Two-thousand: the Catholic Croats could go instead to Belgrade, to sow the seeds of peace with the Serb Orthodox. Likewise, in Rwanda and Burundi, Tutsi and Hutu, visiting each other in turn and opening their hearts, finding, if they are able, in their lands – (and not with the excuse of a pilgrimage to Rome) – peace and reconciliation.
The proposal of this different Jubilee, of this Jubilee that is not a (traditional Catholic) Jubilee is the minimum step – it seems to us – which Pope Wojtyla could propose to prophetically say his non licet (it is not permissible) to the war and to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Pius VI and Pius IX did not declare the Jubilee because their Pontifical State was in the hands of foreigners.
Today, when a Church says (Vatican Council II) it wants to take on itself “the joys and the sufferings of the world,” the time has arrived for a Pope to retract a Jubilee which is being prepared while a devastating conflict kills innocent women and men.
Certainly, it is difficult to stop in its tracks the grandiose organizational machine brainstormed for the Jubilee. But the ongoing tragedy in Yugoslavia requires, even from the Church, additional courage, until yesterday unthinkable.
The Editorial Staff
Translated by Terry Finseth