Papal Pacifism & Wishful Thinking

This post might come across as condescending to serious Catholics, particularly those who assume that Papal infallibility is a subject worth respecting. It is. Unapologetic warning in advance. Bill Donohue, stop reading.

The American zeitgeist seems to be shifting, at least slightly, towards a state of dawning awareness that the United States is on the verge of joining other nations in combat in Syria. The familiar faces of the Congressional House and Senate have begun debate, and old allegiances and rivalries are being challenged. Rand Paul is praising President Obama's tepid but Constitutionally valid decision to seek Congressional approval (which is seems like a weak move, given that the country is used to blanket unilateral statements from the White House on issues of national security).

As put to a friend: Obama-hate is compelling war hawks to be anti-war, anti-war folks are becoming anti-Obama, John McCain is agreeing with President Obama, and Senator Lindsay Graham still has a girl's name. BLACK IS WHITE, NIGHT IS DAY!

But regardless of the thoughtful debate, one person's opinion on the situation in Syria seems entirely based on wishful thinking. An opinion entirely built upon faith that things will work out, despite a dire lack of evidence. A position of foolish naivete. How... entirely... out of character, for this individual. Yes, the man whom is being described is none other than Pope Francis, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Pope Francis, to his credit, has condemned chemical weapons. This is admirable, and morally sound. Point in fact, Francis has taken a moderate approach to his office, at least if reports by the press are to be trusted. A few statements he has made have shined of genuine humanistic morality, untarnished by the dogmatic poisoning of an organization that claims to have a monopoly on ethics (it doesn't). Naturally, several of these statements have been walked back later by the organizational bulwarks that fervently oppose anything substantially new.

If this author was to choose a general impression of this Pope (nourished and encouraged by the media) from a non-Catholic perspective, the word chosen would have to be "sweet." Condescending & dismissive, certainly, but an adjective nowhere near as severe as the words his predecessor bring to mind: "revolting", or "morally compromised" are tame examples.

Sweetness is once again reflected on his attitude towards Syria. Despite his condemnation of the use of chemical weapons (an ethical slam dunk for pretty much anybody), he is calling for a "negotiated settlement" with the Assad regime. His statement today, a departure from the "spiritual" message that is the norm, was heartfelt, earnest, and innocent as a virgin (presumably an apt analogy). And it was about as profound as "Give Peace a Chance"-- far from Lennon's most insightful song.

Meh.

Some excerpts include:

"Using violence can never bring peace. War is war. Violence is violence."

"There is judgement of God, and judgement of history upon our actions... from which there is no escaping."

Pope Francis went on to call for a day of fasting and gathering in St Peter's square, open to believers and non-believers, to "invoke" (pray?) the "gift of peace" in Syria. The sentiment is sweet. It truly is. But it's got the same degree of geopolitical seriousness as an eight grade ethics paper.

The idea that Assad, an Alawite follower of Islam, gives half a damn about the Pope's invocation for peace is wishful thinking at its most hapless. This is one big difference that separates this kind of non-violent demonstration to that utilized in the Civil Rights era, or from Mahatma Gandhi's efforts: demonstrations then would immediately and directly be seen by the oppressors. Interesting fact: Gandhi had the nickname of Bapu, which means "father"--  the same word, in Italian, is the etymological root of the word "Pope". This "father" is going to be ignored.

Pope Francis' predecessor opposed entry into Iraq, a war of choice that the United States entered and created ill will in the international community. This author believes this was the correct call. And admittedly, as previously discussed, the situation in Syria is complicated and dangerous. All nations and all parties must keep sober minds when looking at what actions should be taken.

But looking skyward, and asking the heavens to resolve our issues? This is the attitude of children, not adults. This is in no way a serious examination of what moral obligation the developed world has in problem areas, where innocent collateral damage is tallying upwards.

It is doubtful that if President George W. Bush had been a practicing Catholic, the Pope's condemnation would have deterred him in the least. Who knows? Theologians are not operating in the land of mortals, and are seeking divine commands from books written by preindustrial fanatics. When push comes to shove, shoving will occur when it is convenient or, more optimistically, when it is necessary. Cardinal Adolf Bertram, in 1933, refused to intervene with Jewish segregation and the earliest stages of the Holocaust; Goebbels on the other hand was excommunicated for the ugly crime of marrying a Protestant. Looking for ethical guidance from these sources is not serious business.

One of the key problems here is that violence can, in some cases, be justified. Were an ethical person to see a child being beaten to death, would it not be that person's duty to intervene by any means necessary? All too often, children provide us both the moral excuse and simplification of ideals; we value protecting those who so easily qualify as innocent. That is, on a geopolitical scale, what the situation is in Syria. Granted, the reality is more complex than the analogy, and ethical duties are ill confined to simplicity.

Another vital critique of Pope Francis' perspective is that the expectation of Divine Justice to divvy out reward and punishment fairly is absurd. Should we abandon all laws? For after all, in the end will not God's Judgement make everything right? Deep down, all but the most dangerously zealous fear empty skies and dead heavens; maybe that's not an irrational fear. It might be nice to imagine Hitler burning in hell, but more likely his fate of nonexistence is no different from that of John Paul II. Sadly, police are needed on this planet, because the REAL world matters and the effort to achieve moral victory should not be delayed to future planes of existence.

Is it invalid for Pope Francis to express his opinion on Syria? Is it unreasonable for him to have concerns about violence being exacerbated by intervention? Certainly not. But to imagine that a show of Christian faith with produce some kind of Jean Valjean revelation to a Middle Eastern despot seems silly. Maybe it's no sillier than imagining that one man is a better conduit for God's Will than anyone else, and that person is elected by men who dress like red birds.

But hey, here's hoping it works. Prove me wrong.