Facing the prospect of war in Iraq, the critical attitude of the Catholic Church has been defined as anti-American and pacifistic. In truth, there are numerous indications that show that in the Vatican, as in other Christian churches, the support for pacifism is not complete. The result is internal splits within the various faith communities.
The possible (probable, but yet to erupt) war of the United States and its allies against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein is already shaking the geopolitical picture: among others, those of the various Christian churches. At play is not so much the difficult relationship between Christianity and Islam, but more so (and closely connected), that of Christianity and the West and above all the discussion of the relationship, at least for us within Catholic Christianity.
The editorials of Ernesto Galli Della Loggia in the Corriere della sera opened a can of worms. Why such a strong Vatican invocation for peace, this time when in other cases such as Chechnya or East Timor, Rome has been much more prudent and silent? Is this one-way pacifism, then? Why this Vatican anti-Americanism?
The issue is of no small account and deserves some deeper investigation: primarily regarding the presumed anti-Americanism, which needs to be considered relatively, to say the least. It wasn't long ago (just a few dozen years), when times were such that the Pope risked appearing to the eyes of the world as if he were the "chaplain" of the White House. Events that have left their heritage until today, even if it is known to all that Wojtyla comes from a very different culture and that recent facts have rendered the relationships between the American and Roman bishops more difficult (one thinks of the pedophilia dispute). However to speak about Vatican anti-Americanism is really pushing it. The Vatican's desire to come to a pact with Islam must neither be exaggerated nor overestimated. So much for pacifism. Beyond the expressions more or less emphatic in favor of peace, the Catholic doctrine does not appear to have changed. It has continued to repeat that the war is a calamity ("Nothing is lost with peace, everything is lost with war", repeated Benedict XV on the eve of the first world war) and that it could only be accepted if certain conditions were met. War must be: a question of defense, and not offense (no "preventive" war, therefore); such that the advantages are proportional to the disadvantages; that the damages are kept to a minimum, above all for the civil populations, and so on. These are rigid conditions, however they separate the official Catholic position from the several forms of "absolute" pacifism.
This position has been restated, even facing the eventuality of a war with Iraq, in some authoritative articles in Avvenire. A careful reading of the official speeches by the Vatican confirms this traditional doctrine. The current Vatican attitude adds to this the necessity of UN intervention. This was clearly stated by Monsignor Jean-Louis Tauran, "Minister of Foreign Affairs", in La Repubblica (of 23 December 2002), "Dialogue within the International community is useful and necessary in that they will assume the responsibility in the eventual absence of Iraq". A position, therefore, not much more "pacifistic" than that of many European states.
However, it does not seem that we can speak of a split between the Vatican and the West. Some pacifistic positions by the Protestant churches, above all in those same United States, are more decided, it seems. Many top leaders have taken non ambiguous positions against the war. But, here like elsewhere, the churches must take into account public opinion that, as was noted, is decidedly divided. One can talk about the position, strongly pacifist, of some respected leaders, but not of the churches as such. Not to mention that many churches with a fundamentalist or evangelistic nature, instead are absolutely in favor of the war (also with theological-eschatological motivations). In all the churches, however, the hypothesis that the war is causing internal splits, is very significant. This is true in Rome as in the US and elsewhere. The Christians who want their churches to take stronger positions do not represent just a small fringe group. The leaders appear embarrassed, also for this reason. In the Catholic world, for example, we are talking about groups, associations, communities, and movements very grounded and connected inside the institution, not only to its periphery, as it was, for example, during the times of the Communist Catholics or other forms of dispute. Today entire parishes and associations are calling for peace, as well as priests, friars, and nuns.
We see, therefore, a split deepening between Catholics of the Left and Right. We also see them pro or against the Berlusconi government. There are many issues separating the Catholics with which they must contend, from the justice of the occupation, to the taxes on immigration. But the issue of peace is central and tempers all the others. More than a split within Christianity, especially between Catholics and the West, we have to reflect on the split that the war is creating within the churches. It is an issue to which we will have to return.
Filippo Gentiloni