This week the newly elected pope embarked on his first major foreign trip that took him to Germany, the country of his birth. If anything, it wasn’t just routine. The customary attendance of the triennial World Youth Day by the pope, scheduled this time in Germany, offered an ideal detour that went beyond the culturo-religious agenda.
The detour wasn’t just to pay homage to his native land as may have appeared to the politically distracted. And it wasn’t also to harp on the rising tide of secularism within Europe’s “long and rich Christian tradition”. There was perhaps, more direction, purpose and intrigue to his sideshow than to the dull familiarity of the actual event. The new pontiff, it seems, has an agenda to harness closer relations with Jews and Muslims alike, but it was the political undercurrents of which that grabbed more interest.
All this came in the footsteps of a diplomatic row between the Vatican and Israel last month. In response to a spate of bombings in various parts of the world Pope Benedict XVI had issued a statement condemning terrorism. In that he mentioned by name Britain, Egypt, Turkey and Iraq as the affected countries, but left out Israel that only a few days earlier had witnessed its own horror in Netanya. The resentful Israelis indulged in a verbal trade-off with the church that was finally rested after a sharp rebuke from the latter. The Vatican, which could have easily backed down with a conciliatory addendum to their earlier communiqué, chastised Israel for not adhering to the principles of international law in dealing with the Palestinians.
Until now the Israelis had been quite adept in using various forms of pressure to intimidate foreign governments. In a departure from the usual soft-pedaling to Israeli whims that we are accustomed to, the Vatican refused to be bullied and charged that its policy was not amenable to Tel Aviv’s dictation. This was clearly a damper to the turning yoke of Israeli-Vatican relations. Although the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Jewish state has as yet not reached any level of cordiality, there had been growing affinity under the leadership of John Paul II, Benedict’s predecessor. In fact, it was John Paul who had established diplomatic relations with Israel and had also become the first ever pontiff to have entered a synagogue.
Ever since John Paul’s death four months ago, the Jewish community has watched from the sidelines, studying the policy and beliefs of the as-yet-untested Pope Benedict. And to their palliation, his first act of diplomatic tact was to invite Rome’s chief rabbi to his installation ceremony and offer Jews a hand of friendship. Obviously then, one could not be faulted to assume that the new pope would persevere with the détente credited to his predecessor. But, it was a mistake though, to assume that the same hand that courted friendship with Jews would also grasp the baton of political establishment within Israel.
When his first foreign trip was planned, the new pontiff insisted on including in his itinerary, a visit to the Jewish synagogue and also a meeting with Muslim leaders within Germany. Ever since his election four months ago, the pontiff has demonstrated a desire to maintain the momentum of interfaith dialogue. Faith is the sole stimulus to his pontificate and he understands the necessity of building bridges against the current divide of civilizations. At the synagogue, when he grasped the hand of a rabbi, it genuinely exuded the personal warmth of interfaith bonding, without the choreographed superficiality that is typical for political leaders.
Unfortunately, the same warmth was not in evidence when the pontiff met Muslim leaders.
While he had decried the rising tide of anti-Semitism in his synagogue visit, in his meeting with the Muslims he urged them to do more in fighting the seed of terrorism. The message couldn’t have been clearer — Muslims are equated with “perpetration” while Jews are with “victimization”. The blow, nevertheless, was cushioned. When he addressed the Muslims, terrorism was mentioned in the third person with the implication being that, although these terrorists were Muslims, they were not representative of Muslims in general.
This seems to follow a pattern. In the aftermath of the London bombings, he refused to describe these as directed against Christians and couched his response in the religiously neutral terminology of “barbaric acts against humanity”.
While concerns have been raised on the pope’s stance on Muslims, these have arisen solely in the context of Turkey’s membership in the EU. It is quite understandable though, that a religious figure such as the pope would desire a separate but cohesive identity for Christians within Europe. Although Turkey’s bid to join the EU is purely political, Benedict being what he is, cannot be faulted for opposing the entry of a Muslim country within this bastion of traditional Christianity. Even though his approach toward Muslims is guarded, he has left the window open to build on this opportunity. And if we are to counter the “clash of civilizations” that is envisaged, then the world of Islam must grasp this “hand” before it loses its grip.
There is certainly an openness of dialogue being promoted by the Vatican. There seems to be a genuine desire to foster better relations between religions and move beyond the rhetoric of political demagoguery. The fact that the pope has lashed out at the Jewish state and only a month later forged “bridges of friendship” with its adherents, optimistically, is a departure from past policies of the church. Indeed, he seeks to appeal to the faith of a nation rather than appease its politics.
The Vatican, while also being a seat of political power, cannot entirely separate religion from politics and so instead attempts to strike at the nationalistic creed of such. In doing so Benedict has demonstrated that he is essentially a straight-talking pope, and not a politician burdened with scheming conjuration. He is showing himself to be more a leader of a community and less of a state, so as not to be held back by the rules of archetypal diplomacy, and the trappings of petty politics.
Although Benedict has a clear idea of what he believes in, knowing the ropes of political principles is a different ballgame altogether. His success as a statesman will be gauged by his ability to separate civil interest from personal ideology. He doesn’t possess the tone of a seasoned diplomat and for someone who wishes to further dialogue across civilizations, this quality is crucial. Or so goes contemporary thought.
Benedict is still the spiritual leader first and a politician later. He has the realization that religion and politics do not mix well and consequently strives to deal with both in isolation. It’s still early days and only time will reveal what course his impetus for interfaith relations will take. Meanwhile, we watch and applaud.
