Ambivalent Anniversary

My flight arrived at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport. I walked through the long spacious arrivals area and saw a series of 60 striking panels mounted on the wall — each illustrating a significant event for every year of modern Israel’s existence.
On 14 May 1948, the new State of Israel was proclaimed. It was conceived by the United Nations in a vote in November 1947 to partition Mandate Palestine — the segment of the former Ottoman Empire entrusted to Great Britain after the First World War by the League of Nations — into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international city of Jerusalem.
Its gestation took only six months. As soon as the British high commissioner withdrew, Israel was born — like all births, born in blood and pain, cut off from the matrix in which it had developed.
As the new blue and white Israeli flag proudly flew and the well-prepared Zionist (Jewish nationalist) militants took possession of as much of the land as they could, the less prepared Palestinian Arabs were appalled.
The armies of neighboring Arab states came to their defense and invaded. When some months later the major hostilities had ceased, Israel possessed most of Mandate Palestine except for the West Bank (the areas of biblical Samaria and Judea) and the coastal Gaza Strip.
For the first time since the conquest of Judea by the Babylonians (the forefathers of modern Iraqis) in 587 B.C., there was a truly independent Jewish state — a land for the Jews, the ancient People of God.
Not all Jews are Israelis, of course, but almost every Jew in the world looks fondly and proudly at modern Israel and its incredible achievements during the brief three score years of its existence.

Surprisingly, not all Israelis are Jews. Although many Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven from what is now Israel, many stayed and are now Israeli citizens. For a while, there was a generation of Israeli Arabs who were proud of their new nationality.
But, as events have continued to unfold in the Palestinian territories — the remainder of Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan River — occupied by Israeli since 1967, the pride of many Israeli Arabs has eroded.
Increasingly, they share the sentiments of their confreres in the occupied territories, who look back on 1948 as a catastrophe, a catastrophe of 60 years duration.
Paradoxically, Paradoxically, the fierce nationalism of the Zionist Jews nurtured an increasingly fierce nationalism on the part of the Palestinian Arabs.
For this 60th anniversary, one people celebrates the triumph of their new land and state; the other mourns the loss of their land and their status as a stateless people.
I wonder was the dream of the framers of the UN partition resolution naïve? Was “partition” meant to be a division of Mandate Palestine or a formula for two peoples to share one land?
Was the special status of Jerusalem — which hardly exists in practice — meant to be a way to keep the jewel from either people’s crown or a way to ensure that it remain a common patrimony for the three great Abrahamic faiths?
To borrow words from a U.S. anthem, “God shed his grace on thee.” May it also be said that he “crowned thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.”


(An earlier version was
published as “Anniversary” in
one, 34:4, July 2008)

Is Peace Possible?

Is it possible to have peace in the Holy Land — and, for that matter, throughout the Middle East?
Of course.
But, is it possible to have peace in the Holy Land now, not some day in the remote future?
Of course.
Then, why don’t we have peace in that part of the world?
Because there is no will to have peace.
Oh, there’s much talk about peace, interminable talking about peace — and much lamenting the lack of it. But there is no will to make peace.
If all parties concerned were truly determined to make peace, it could be accomplished tomorrow — or at least the day after. Alas, there is no real determination to do so.
In the Middle East, bargaining is almost an art form. Everyone practices it. A shopkeeper always offers his goods at double the price he hopes to receive; a buyer always offers a purchase price half what he expects to pay. Then the bargaining begins.
Should peace-making be any different?
Of course not.
For example, Hamas may say, “We will never recognize the state of Israel.” The Israeli — or the U.S. — government may say, “We will never negotiate with a terrorist organization.”
As openers, these are fine. But, remember the art of bargaining. Color the process with all the righteous indignation you may want, but proceed to negotiate and arrive at a mutually acceptable price to pay for peace.
Why is there no will to make peace? Is it because of ignorance, prejudice, fear, distrust? Is it due to cowardice, egoism, greed, or hatred?

Most people want peace. The man in the street wants peace. Merchants want peace. Educators want peace. Farmers want peace. Health care professionals want peace.
Politicians say they want peace — but often place, position, and power come first.
Meanwhile, during the interminable prolonging of a state of hostilities, a great human price is being paid.
Lives are lost. Men are imprisoned. People live in fear. Children’s education is distorted. Security becomes nonexistent. Unemployment grows. Lands are rendered useless. Families become homeless. Emigration grows. Traditional cultures and values wither.
Do those responsible for this grim situation suffer the price as well?
A pretext for inaction often is, “How can you make peace with ‘them’?” The adversary, my enemy, is not a “Satan” — pure evil. He or she is a fellow human being.
In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock protest to his tormentors, “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?”
Substitute any combination of “Jew,” “Christian,” and “Muslim” — the message is the same.
The good Jews, Christians, and Muslims of the Holy Land seek healing. Everyone gives them a diagnosis. Who will provide a cure?


(Published in
one, 33:6, November 2007)

Red Riders

When [the Lamb] broke open the second seal, I heard the second living creature cry out, “Come forward.” Another horse came out, a red one. Its rider was given power to take peace away from the earth, so that people would slaughter one another. And he was given a huge sword. (Revelation 6:3-4)

ISTANBUL — A bomb exploded in a crowded, downtown neighborhood during the afternoon rush hour today, killing eight people and injuring more than forty others. Victims included three teenagers returning from Quranic classes at a nearby mosque.

MARJEYOUN — Unexploded cluster bombs continue to be a major hazard in southern Lebanon. Since the cessation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, fourteen persons have died accidentally in the Marjeyoun area, mostly farmers working their fields.

ARBIL — The violence of the recent explosion in this northern Iraqi town shocked people who felt themselves safe in the Kurdish-controlled area. The Chaldean patriarchal seminary had been temporarily relocated there because of the dangerous situation in Baghdad.

TEL AVIV— A Palestinian suicide-bomber blew himself up in a crowded shopping center on Friday afternoon. Preliminary estimates are that at least twenty-five people were killed and five shops were totally destroyed.

ZERQA — Jordanian authorities apprehended six young men, members of a cell of militant extremists who were planning an armed attack on tourists in Queen Alia Airport near Amman.

BAGHDAD — U.S.-led coalition forces swept through a densely populated Shiite neighborhood. Crossfire between Americans and insurgents killed several bystanders, including two children.

GAZA — The Israeli army continued its air strikes against Hamas infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, hitting at least eight different locations and taking aim at a rocket-launching cell.

TEHRAN — The Iranian government ignored the threat of a major expansion of international sanctions as it continues its program for the enrichment of uranium.

SDEROT — A rocket landed in the yard of a house in the Israeli border town of Sderot, wounding three civilians, while another hit a nearby factory. The Qassam Brigades claimed responsibility for these attacks.

FALLUJA — The growing confrontation between tribal leaders and Al Qaeda took a violent turn today when a suicide bomber drove into a crowd gathering for a funeral procession, killing at least twenty-seven people and wounding dozens of others.

After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb . . . These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress . . . God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. (Revelation 7:9a, 14b, 17b)


(Published in
one, 33:4, July 2007)

Turkey and Its Christian Communities

A report on a visit to the Republic of Turkey, 31 August – 6 September 2005, by a small delegation of Catholic donor agency representatives. Dr. Otmar Oehring of Missio Aachen led the delegation that included Nadim Amman of the Archdiocese of Cologne, Marie-Ange Siebrecht of Church in Need, Father Leon Lemmens of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and Msgr. Robert Stern of CNEWA (Catholic Near East Welfare Association). Their fact-finding mission concerned the condition of Christian minorities in the country.

Cultural roots

The culture of modern Turkey – and urban Turkey is modern indeed – cannot be fully understood without familiarity with its ancient roots.
In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine decided the administration of his vast empire needed to be more centrally located. He built the great city of New Rome on a peninsula jutting into the Bosporus (a body of water dividing Asia from Europe), the site of the ancient Greek town of Byzantium.
Known for centuries as Constantinople (Constantine’s city), it was built to be a Christian capital, unlike old Rome, a pagan city with a Christian veneer.
Constantinople continued for a thousand years as the capital of the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire, a pluralistic polity of cultures, languages, and peoples, until its conquest by the Ottoman Turks, one of the many nomadic tribes of Central Asia who migrated West and eventually embraced Islam.
For centuries, Turkish tribes had pushed against the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire. Gradually, their control extended over large segments of Anatolia, the heartland of Byzantium and modern Turkey.
It culminated with the conquest of Constantinople, which the Ottomans called Istanbul, by Sultan Mehmet II in 1453.
Though culturally and ethnically heterogeneous, the Byzantine Empire’s state religion was Christianity. For the Turkish tribes, Byzantium was the enemy. So, from antiquity, there was reason for them to view Christians with suspicion and hostility. Members of the Christian ethnic communities that continued to live within the lands of the Ottoman Empire as subjects of the sultan – respected by the Muslim Turks as “People of the Book” – were treated as foreigners.
The Byzantine emperors often gave commercial concessions within their territory to Italian city-states such as Genoa and Venice. (The presence of the Latin Church in Asia Minor dates to that period.) European Christian governments pressured the sultan to make similar concessions. In 1535, the first of the “capitulation” agreements gave France a protectorate over the Christians of the Ottoman Empire.
Even so, the expansion of the Ottoman Empire continued. The enemy was still Christian – the Christian states of Central and Eastern Europe. The Ottoman Turks came close to overwhelming the West, but were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
During the 19th century, the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, European powers wrested more and more concessions from the sultan, which led to the establishment of privileged enclaves within the empire, if not entire autonomous regions. Prominent among those wielding political and economic power were Catholic France, Protestant Britain, and Orthodox Russia – all of which further reinforced the negative image of Christians.
Modern Turkish nationalism is closely identified with Kemal Atatürk, whose 1922 revolution definitively reoriented Turkey. Although the country’s dominant peoples were Sunni Muslims, Atatürk established a strictly secular, European-facing modern state.
Historical suspicions of Christianity and the rigorous secularism of Atatürk and his heirs are keys to understanding the basis of modern Turkish society. Unlike the Islamic countries of the Levant, where religion is the primary component of identity, in Turkey it is nationality
Nationality, ethnicity, and religion have complex interrelationships and tensions in Turkey – much like the situation in Israel. To be a Turkish citizen generally, but not always, means to be a Turk. To be a Turk and/or a Turkish citizen generally, but not always, means to be a Muslim.

Armenians

The evening of our arrival in Istanbul, we were warmly received by the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople and all Turkey, Mesrob II. He is one of the two patriarchs of the Armenian Apostolic Church – the Patriarch of Jerusalem is the other – under the leadership of Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians.
Patriarch Mesrob generously spent two hours with us, offering unique perspectives about the conditions of Christians in the country and their appropriate behavior vis-à-vis the Turkish state.
Historically, Armenians were very numerous in what is now the eastern part of Turkey. During World War I the Turkish government forcibly displaced them from their ancient homelands. Armenians have bitter memories of the violence and deaths of those tragic days – an estimated 1.5 million Armenians perished between 1915 and 1918, although this is disputed by Turkey.
There is still a small Armenian community living in Turkey, centered in Istanbul. Most belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church; there is also a tiny Armenian Catholic archdiocese in Istanbul with a recently appointed Armenian-Lebanese bishop, George Khazoumian, and a few priests ministering to the faithful.
Patriarch Mesrob, although an ethnic Armenian, was born in Turkey and is a Turkish citizen. He is very clear about his identity as an Armenian, a Christian, and a Turkish citizen and resists any implication that a Christian is a foreigner or any less patriotic than his fellow Muslim citizens.
Because of the secular character of the Turkish state, churches – in fact all religions – do not and cannot have legal identity as such. In the West, this is often judged a denial of fundamental rights, although it may be understandable in the Turkish context.
The only mechanism in Turkish law for Christians – or other religions, including Islam – to have legal personality for their institutions is that of the community foundation. Such an entity may hold property and function legally. However, this does not mean the bishop or similar church leader has legal authority over these institutions.
Although this is perceived as crippling by some church leaders who find their jurisdiction limited and their authority indirect, others, like Patriarch Mesrob, do not feel these dispositions of Turkish law prevent the successful functioning of his community.

Greeks

Since the fifth century, the bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, was second in honor to the bishop of (old) Rome – the pope. With the growing separation between East and West, culminating in the schism of 1054, the patriarch of Constantinople emerged as the voice of Orthodoxy and eventually as ecumenical patriarch. He is first among the many national patriarchs of the various Byzantine Orthodox countries.
Paradoxically, this eminent leader of the Orthodox Church has hardly any local flock of his own.
The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which delineated the borders of modern Turkey and Greece, appealed for more ethnically homogeneous states. It also called for the exchange of more than 1.25 million Greeks in Anatolia for a half million Muslims in Greece.
Overnight Anatolian Greek communities settled hundreds of years before the birth of Christ were depopulated, creating a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions (which prompted the founding of CNEWA). Istanbul’s sizable Greek community, exempt from the treaty, remained in the city until anti-Greek riots in 1955 resulted in another exodus, leaving only a few hundred families under the care of the ecumenical patriarch.
Metropolitan Meliton, Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod, welcomed us to the Phanar (an Istanbul neighborhood from which the headquarters of the ecumenical patriarchate takes its name). The metropolitan is in charge of the legal affairs of the patriarchate. He daily wrestles with the vexing challenges of the confiscation or restrictions upon the use of the church’s properties and the limitations of its activities.
Unresolved for years, for example, is the status of the patriarchate’s theological school on the island of Halki in the Sea of Marmara, part of the metropolitan region of Istanbul. Closed by the Turkish government in 1971, the ecumenical patriarchate is forbidden to reopen what was its principal seminary. Why? Because of historical animosities between Greek Orthodox Christians and Muslim Turks? Because of the general Turkish limitation on religious schooling in secular Turkey?
Metropolitan Meliton ushered us into the private office of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Fluent in many languages, he addressed us in English. With great affability and informality, Patriarch Bartholomew spoke with us about the particular conditions of his church and the general status of Orthodox-Catholic relations.
The ecumenical patriarch knows Rome well; as a young priest he completed graduate studies at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. He told us of his invitation to Pope Benedict XVI to visit the Phanar this year on the occasion of the patronal feast of St. Andrew and of his hopes for the occasion
The process of invitation was a lesson in Turkish sensibilities. That the ecumenical patriarch invited the pope was ostensibly merely a religious matter. But the pope is also a head of state and, as such, needs to be invited by the government to visit Turkey. Perhaps the government was not consulted beforehand by the patriarch; perhaps the date selected was inconvenient for the Turkish authorities. In any case, the government chose to invite the pope, but for a visit in 2006.
An exchange of visits between the pope in Rome and the ecumenical patriarch in Istanbul has become the happy custom of both churches since the historic embrace between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI on the Mount of Olives during the pope’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land in January 1964.

Assyro-Chaldeans

Although there had been a Chaldean jurisdiction in the south central Turkish city of Diyarbakir for centuries, regional social and political pressures have forced most Assyro-Chaldean Christians to emigrate; the few remaining now live in Istanbul.
The guarantees and legal protections assured to official religious minorities by the Treaty of Lausanne – Greek Orthodox, Armenians, and Jews – were not extended to the Assyro-Chaldeans and others. Even the teaching of their native tongue, Syriac, is illegal.
In the aftermath of the recent wars in Iraq, thousands of Iraqis, a relatively high percentage of whom are Assyro-Chaldean Christians, fled to Turkey. At present, there are between 3,000 to 4,000 Iraqi refugees living temporarily in Istanbul.
In the heart of the busy Istanbul neighborhood of Beyoglu – and right across the street from the recently bombed British Embassy – there is a small church, once Byzantine Catholic and now Chaldean, on the ground floor of a multi-storied downtown building.
Dressed in a shirt and tie, as is the custom of most Turkish Christian clergy, a young and personable Msgr. François Yakan, Vicar of Chaldean Patriarch Emmanuel III, greeted us at the door and showed us his small church. Then he took us upstairs to his apartment where we spent a few hours of animated conversation with him and his wife.
Like the Armenian patriarch, Msgr. François is a Turkish citizen by birth and feels similarly that he has found a reasonable modus vivendi for himself and his Chaldean community in secular, Islamic Turkey. The seat of his Chaldean Patriarchal Vicariate is organized, as commercial ventures often are, as a joint-stock company (not a community foundation). This enables the work of the church to be carried out.
The long-term members of his church are well-established businessmen in Istanbul. Through their generosity and with little outside help, Msgr. François has been able to care for the tremendous influx of Iraqis, most of whom arrive in Istanbul destitute. He hopes to remodel and expand his existing building to serve the refugees and the whole Assyro-Chaldean community.

Syrians

Although historically south central Turkey was the heartland of Syrian Christians, there are few remaining due to the same social and political pressures experienced by the Assyro-Chaldeans. The seat of the Syrian Orthodox patriarchate has long since been relocated from Turkey to Damascus, Syria.
A modest number of Syrian Orthodox and Catholics live in Istanbul. Our delegation spent one evening in Istanbul’s Ayazpasa neighborhood visiting with Chorbishop Yusuf Sag, Syrian Catholic Patriarchal Vicar, Zeki Basatemir, President of the vicariate’s Council of Administration, and other members of the community.
Chorbishop Sag and his wife live at the Syrian Catholic pastoral center – Sacred Heart Church and Convent – once a school of the Jesuits, but expropriated without compensation by the government. Subsequently, the national treasury department decided the Syrian Catholic Church Foundation could have use of the former school free of charge for 99 years.
Located in an attractive residential neighborhood, the multi-storied building – under renovation with some help from CNEWA – overlooks the heart of old Istanbul, the Bosporus, the Asian part of Istanbul and the Sea of Marmara. Chorbishop Sag and Mr. Basatemir showed us rooms once used by Archbishop Giuseppe Roncalli – later Pope John XXIII – when he was apostolic delegate to Turkey. He remains a respected and beloved figure in Turkish society.
The well-furnished building serves as a religious, cultural, and social center for the Syrian Catholic community. It is administered by a lay council and is used not only for the liturgy but also for parish meetings, receptions, celebrations, education, and youth activities.
The Syrian community, like the Assyro-Chaldean, is well-established in Istanbul. Its members are Turkish citizens, mostly business and professional people, and are loyal to their church and traditions.
The evening ended with a late-night supper in a seaside restaurant, hosted by the parish council, which left the delegation not only stuffed with delicious food but also with an unforgettable memory of Syrian hospitality and fraternity.

Latins

The Latin or Roman Catholic presence in Turkey is more extensive, visible, and foreign than the Eastern Catholic
There are three Latin ecclesiastical jurisdictions: the Archdiocese of Izmir, the Apostolic Vicariate of Istanbul, and the Apostolic Vicariate of Anatolia. Each has a residential bishop, Western European by birth and drawn from a Latin religious congregation.
It is these Latin congregations, both male and female, that provide most of the pastoral and educational services in the three jurisdictions. They are usually identified as missionary – that is to say, in the best sense, their members have left their homelands to work in a foreign and overwhelmingly Islamic country, serving in love, and giving a personal witness of fidelity to the teachings of Jesus.
These religious workers, almost all foreign nationals, are also associated historically with the Western European “colonial” presence in Turkey. Many staff and maintain French and Italian churches, built after the political concessions granted to the major Western European powers by the Ottoman Empire.

Istanbul. In Istanbul, we met the Apostolic Vicar of Istanbul, Bishop Louis Pelâtre, a French national of the Assumptionist congregation who has worked many years in Turkey. The seat of his vicariate, first established in 1742, is at 83 Papa (Pope) Roncalli Street! His large residence is part of a complex of older church buildings in the Harbiye quarter, including the offices of Caritas, the Catholic school of Our Lady of Sion and the Istanbul residence of the apostolic nuncio
The Istanbul vicariate is the largest of the three Latin jurisdictions with 12 parishes in Istanbul and 1 in Ankara, several chapels and shrines and 32 priests – mostly Franciscan, Assumptionist, Dominican and Jesuit. The vicariate also has 8 schools, 4 rest homes, 3 hospitals and 1 clinic serving all without discrimination in the Istanbul metropolitan region.
Bishop Pelâtre generously shared his long pastoral experience with us, with a certain admixture of both frustration and resignation when speaking of the challenges faced by his church in modern, secular, Islamic Turkish society.

Izmir. We left Istanbul to fly to the western port city of Izmir, ancient Smyrna, where we were greeted by the Latin Catholic Archbishop of Izmir, Ruggero Franceschini, a Capuchin Franciscan. He brought us to the seat of his archdiocese at the downtown church of St. Polycarp. It is the oldest existing Catholic church in Izmir. Built in 1690 for the French-speaking community, the church replaced an older structure. The newer church was enlarged and restored in 1898, 80 years after the reestablishment of the archdiocese.
The church and the adjoining office, residence and hospice are nestled in a modest-size, tree-filled compound, surrounded by tall office buildings and modern hotels.
Capuchin Franciscans have a long history of service in Turkey dating back to the 16th century. Like their confreres in the Levant, the Franciscans of the Custody of the Holy Land, they have persevered with their service and witness through the centuries.
Archbishop Franceschini has served in Turkey for many years. He was named apostolic vicar of Anatolia and then, after a term as provincial of his Capuchin order in Parma, Italy, returned to his present position in Izmir. One of his concerns in both posts has been to provide housing and hospitality for pilgrims visiting sites and places associated with biblical and early Christianity. Hopefully, if he builds it, they will come.
The Izmir archdiocese has nine parishes. The archbishop took us to visit two of them. We went first to Izmir’s Bornova neighborhood where Holy Name of Mary Church in its small compound hides behind a row of shops with a gate facing a busy city square. The church, centrally located and near a major university, has great potential, according to Archbishop Franceschini, but because of its very elderly and inactive pastor it is closed except for morning Mass and is relatively invisible to passersby.
St. John the Baptist Church in the poorer Buca quarter offered a striking contrast.
Its dynamic young pastor, Capuchin Father Marco Dondi – who also serves as chancellor of the diocese – has refurbished his old church and is engaged in many works of social service. His openness and linguistic fluency encourage cautious inquiries about the faith from some in the neighborhood. However, a conversion from Islam to Christianity bears a heavy social burden; Christian ethnic Turks are almost nonexistent.
It is hard to know how many Turks have a practical interest in Christianity. During the last few years many Evangelicals have begun to distribute religious literature in some of the larger Turkish cities, and many small “free church” communities have sprung up. However, generally the ethnic Turk remains Muslim.

Anatolia. Another flight took us to the southern city of Adana to visit the Apostolic Vicar of Anatolia, also an Italian Capuchin Franciscan, Bishop Luigi Padovese. Pastoral care in his 11-year-old vicariate extends to five small communities, “mission stations,” widely dispersed over central and eastern Turkey. He is assisted by 9 priests, 1 deacon, 1 religious brother and 8 religious sisters.
Bishop Padovese, a theologian and until last year President of the Franciscan Institute of Spirituality of the Pontifical Antonianum University in Rome, had been a frequent visitor to Turkey over the years because of his engagement in ecumenical dialogue.
An hour and a half drive took us to the seat of his vicariate, Annunciation Church in the city of Iskenderun, named after Alexander the Great, who defeated the Persian Emperor Darius III in 333 B.C. in a famous battle nearby. The large parish compound serves as the bishop’s headquarters and as a hospice for pilgrims and visitors staffed by three sisters of the Maria Bambina congregation.
A 30-minute drive further south into the province of Hatay took us to the vicariate’s mountain-top catechetical and retreat center in Güzelyalya, where we stopped briefly before continuing toward the Syrian border to visit Antakya, site of the ancient city of Antioch
Two millennia ago, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were the three greatest cities of the Roman Empire. It was in Antioch, the Acts of the Apostles tells us, that the disciples of Jesus were first called Christians
Although a thriving center of early Christianity and the gateway to the East, the city was destroyed in antiquity by repeated earthquakes and floods. With the exception of a grotto associated with St. Peter, once used as a church and now maintained as a government museum, there are hardly any traces of Antioch’s ancient Christian history or of the Crusader principality of the same name.
Christian Antioch lives on in the memory of its great saints like Ignatius, Theophilus, Babylas, John Chrysostom and Simon Stylites the younger. Five Christian patriarchs – Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Melkite Greek Catholic, Syrian Catholic, and Maronite – still proudly bear the title “of Antioch.”
The principal, though small, Christian community in Antakya belongs to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch – the seat of which is now in Damascus. There is also a Syrian Orthodox and Latin Catholic presence. The Latin Church of Sts. Peter and Paul is located in the center of the town, which, of course, is now overwhelmingly Muslim.
Ecumenical relations in Antakya are excellent. Since 1988 both Orthodox and Catholic communities celebrate the great feasts with a common calendar. Families are interrelated and socially there are no distinctions
Our visit to the Anatolia vicariate concluded with a three-hour drive back through Iskenderun and Adana to Tarsus, the birthplace of St. Paul. The church that commemorated his presence there is now a state museum; Italian Sisters of the Figlie della Chiesa Congregation, three of whom live nearby, are ready to welcome the infrequent pilgrim.

European Union

In Turkey’s capital city of Ankara (in the region of ancient Galatia), the country’s relation with Europe is a dominant concern. The revolution of Kemal Atatürk oriented Turkey toward Europe, and it still looks that way. Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1951.
At the European Union summit on 17 December 2004 a decision was taken to begin the multiyear process of accession negotiations with Turkey on 3 October 2005, even though certain criteria concerning the rule of law, fundamental rights, and respect for and protection of minorities were not being fulfilled.
Although millions of Turks live and work in Western Europe, especially in Germany, the challenge of culturally integrating an Islamic population of 70 million people into the “Christian” West is formidable.
The draft accession negotiating framework consists of 35 distinct chapters each concerned with a variety of topics, including free movement of goods, workers, and capital; company and intellectual property law; financial services; rural development; fundamental rights; and justice, freedom, and security. These chapters, however, make no explicit reference to the issues of religious freedom and the legal status of non-Muslim minorities in Turkish law – issues of great concern to many Europeans and most Turkish Christians
Religious minority rights and the status of Christians in Turkey were a topic of discussion with the two Jesuit priests who hosted our delegation’s visit to Ankara. They were referenced also in briefings by Ambassador Paul Poudade of France and Archbishop Edmond Farhat, Apostolic Nuncio in Turkey and Turkmenistan.
Frank Spengler of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, a political foundation of the German Christian Democratic Party, offered an in-depth briefing to our group about the background to and prospects for the accession negotiations with the European Union.
The opening of accession negotiations is the fruit of a 40-year process: In 1963, Turkey’s eligibility was recognized; formal application was made in 1987; Turkey was declared a candidate for EU membership in 1999; and in 2002 the country was declared “eligible.”
Although major legislative reforms have been made in Turkey better to prepare the country for European membership, there is questioning by some European governments if full membership will ever be feasible in light of huge cultural, social, and economic differences.
We were also briefed about the same topic by two political affairs officers of the delegation of the European Commission to Turkey, Sema Kilicer and Serap Ocak, with a special focus on minority rights. Our discussion touched on concerns for full religious freedom including the granting of juridical status to churches and autonomy for the religious personnel and institutions necessary for their religious, educational, and social work.
Harald Schindler, First Secretary in the Legal and Consular Department of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, gave us some additional interesting insights over an informal evening meal. He seemed optimistic about the process of legal reformation and social change in Turkey and the possibility of its eventual, successful integration into Europe.

Conclusion

Echoing the great vision of Saul of Tarsus articulated in I Corinthians, the famous Jesuit paleontologist, Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, described the trend of modern society and the direction of the creative, evolutionary process in terms of convergence.
He coined the expression “noosphere,” to name the enveloping, growing web of ideas, interconnections, and interactions in which all the peoples of the world live. As this process of convergence dissolves traditional divisions of tribalism, ethnicity, nationality, religion, social status, and culture, small wonder there are stresses, reactions, and hostilities.
Although our fact-finding visit to Turkey particularly focused on some of the immediate stresses, reactions, and hostilities experienced by its Christian religious minorities and on their concerns, it also clearly revealed a complex, ancient, and dynamic society fully engaged in a process of integration with the world community. Not all Europeans favor Turkish membership in the European Union nor do all Turks. Atatürk has his heirs and his opponents.
I found it interesting that many political theoreticians and leaders – who deal with the art of the possible – seemed to display more optimism concerning the future development of Turkish society, its relationship to Europe, and the status of its religious minorities than do some of the religious leaders.
I also felt as a North American participant in an otherwise European delegation perhaps a bit more sanguine about the possibilities of secular, modern, multicultural Turkey
Like the modern suspension bridges that join European and Asian Istanbul into one great modern metropolis, Turkey sees itself bridging the divides of geography and history between Europe and the Middle East. Hopefully, while maintaining its secular identity, it can also help bridge the cultural and religious divides between the traditional Muslim and Christian worlds.

(Published in an earlier version
as “A visit to Turkey and Its Christian Communities” in
one, 31:6, November 2005)

Through the Looking Glass

The only way to have a healthy Holy Land is for political leaders to address the root of the problem, not just the symptoms.
The root of the problem is the continued Palestinian occupation of the Israeli territories.
Ever since the armed might of the State of Palestine overran Judea and Samaria in 1967, the explicit policy of the Palestinian government has been to settle as many Palestinians as possible in the territories.
The original intent of this settlement policy was to create “facts on the ground” so that there would never be an Israeli state. Inspired by the dream of a historical Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, the strategy so far is working.
In spite of repeated condemnations by the U.S. government, Palestine’s strongest — and sole — ally, settlements continue.
Meanwhile, although there was a period of limited Israeli autonomy after Oslo, for all practical purposes Palestinian military occupation of Israeli lands has returned.
Only the European governments speak out for the Israelis — they have a painful recollection of the attempt to exterminate European Judaism during World War II.
U.S. policy is widely criticized as imbalanced. For example, President Bush has met repeatedly with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat yet not even once with the Israeli leader Ariel Sharon.
The U.S. Congress is overwhelmingly in support of Palestine. One reason is APPAC (the American Palestinian Public Affairs Committee), America’s Pro-Palestinian, and strongest, lobby. It has long since effectively mobilized Palestinian- and other Arab-Americans for Palestine and against the Israelis.

The situation in the Holy Land has deteriorated badly during the past two years. Whether or not the second Israeli uprising was triggered by the visit of Arafat to the Western Wall, it has become the greatest threat to the existence of the State of Palestine since its founding in 1949.
Israeli suicide bombers — wantonly killing innocent men, women, and children — cannot be tolerated by the Palestinians. If Sharon’s Israeli Authority is ineffective in controlling Israeli terrorism and terrorist organizations, the Palestinians have no other recourse than to intervene.
Yet, the Palestinian policy of massive retaliation and the disproportionate use of force has led to an intolerable situation for the beleaguered Israelis. With the repeated Palestinian incursions into the Israeli territories, the destruction of homes, and the continual curfews, normal life is almost impossible for the average Israeli.
Checkpoints with daily humiliations and control of movement are bad enough, but the latest Palestinian tactic of digging ditches around Israeli towns and building barbed-wire fences, so reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto, is morally repugnant.
Wait! Aren’t things really just the reverse? Of course, but maybe looking through the looking glass at this mirror image of violence and injustice may suggest new approaches to softening hearts, exorcising hatred, and showing all God’s children the way to justice and peace.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 28:5, September 2002)

Not All Are the Same

“The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence,” goes the American proverb. It means, comparing ourselves to others, we always imagine that others don’t have the problems we do. In reality, this usually is not true. It’s just that we really don’t know the situation of others as well as we know our own.
In my experience, in some ways it also applies to religions.
Because of the responsibilities of my job, I get to travel to many different places in the world, meet a great variety of persons, and encounter a great variety of views and beliefs.
Sometimes it’s amusing to talk to religious people who have very little knowledge of Christianity. They seem to imagine that all Christians are pretty much the same and that the Pope in Rome is their head.
Alas, we Christians know better. We’re very aware of the many differences that divide us, sometime bitterly. We classify ourselves into several major branches like Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical. Each of these includes a variety of groups and kinds of belief. There are even some religious groups that many would consider only marginally Christian, if Christian at all.
But, if by Christian we mean those who consider themselves disciples of Jesus, why then it’s not so far off the mark to consider all Christians the same.
Christians who have had little contact with Muslims and Islam have a similar tendency — to consider all Muslims the same — since they all hold that God is one and follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Alas, Muslims know better. They’re very aware of the many differences that divide them, sometimes bitterly. They classify themselves into several major branches like Sunni, Shi’i and Sufi. Each of these includes a variety of groups and kinds of belief. There are even some religious groups that many would consider only marginally Muslim, if Muslim at all.
The countries of the Middle East reflect this variety.
In Lebanon, the people are Christians and Sunnite and Shi’ite Muslims — and so, respectively, are the president, prime minister, and president of the parliament.
In Syria, the majority of the people are Sunni Muslims. The government is “secular” Islamic. The president and most senior officials belong to a group known as Alawites. Some Muslims questions whether Alawites are true Muslims at all.
In Iran, almost all the people are Shi’ite Muslims and so are the strict religious authorities that rule them.
In Saudi Arabia, a “fundamentalist” Sunni Muslim group called Wahhabis dominates. Its adherents consider the Islamic world, especially Muslim governments, corrupt, corrupted by the West. They advocate a return to the pure law of the Qu’ran and the obligation to impose it on other Muslims and “non-believers,” by violence if necessary.
Recent events reflect their influence. But, not all Muslims are the same.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 27:6, November 2001)

On the Road to Damascus

On Friday, 4 May 2001, according to the Roman lectionary, the first reading at Mass was the passage from The Acts of the Apostles about St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. It was a happy coincidence that we were taking the road to Damascus from Beirut that very morning. The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, Gregorios III, had invited CNEWA’s Secretary General, Msgr. Robert Stern; Associate Secretary General, Msgr. Denis Madden; and Regional Director for Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, Issam Bishara to be his personal guests for the duration of Pope John Paul’s pilgrimage visit to Syria.

Syria

The independence of the Syrian Arab Republic dates from 17 April 1946. However, it proudly cherishes its ancient patrimony as a cradle of civilization and of two great monotheistic religions.
Syria was sometimes the seat of empire, sometimes a part of empire. About 4,500 years ago a great Semitic empire centered in northern Syria extended from the Red Sea to what is now modern Turkey and east to Mesopotamia. Two thousand five hundred years later, at Jesus’s birth, “when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” the entire Mediterranean world was under Rome.
Syria came under Muslim rule in 636. The ancient city of Damascus became the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate, the Muslim empire that extended from Spain to India, from 661 to 750.
For four hundred years before World War I, Syria and all the Near East was part of the Ottoman Empire. After the war, until its independence, Syria was governed by France with a mandate from the League of Nations.
Today Syria is a rapidly developing country of 16,110,000 people, most of whom are Muslim. About 10 percent of the population is Christian, including 309,000 members of various Catholic churches. Although the president must be Muslim, Syria is a secular state. The Christian churches freely maintain their institutions and services to their people and, in some ways, e.g., tax exemptions, are favored by the government.

Welcome ceremony

Thousands of young police officers lined both sides of the road to the Damascus International Airport on the afternoon of Sunday, 5 May. When the Alitalia flight carrying the Pope and his modest entourage landed, the President of Syria, Dr. Bashar Assad, the ministers of his government, and all the patriarchs and bishops of Syria were on hand to greet and welcome the Holy Father.
Syrian and papal flags were flying, an honor guard stood at attention, and the band was playing as the tall young President warmly greeted the stooped and frail visitor who slowly stepped onto Syrian soil, the first pope ever to visit Syria – although eight earlier popes were Syrian-born.
The speech of President Assad was laced with many warm welcomes, as is the Arab way, and references to Syria’s rich Christian and Muslim heritage. However, it had some dissonant words as well. He not only spoke about those who are afflicting the Palestinian people and occupying Arab lands – i.e. Israel, although he didn’t mention the name – but also accused them of opposing “the principles of divine faiths with the same mentality of betraying Jesus Christ.”
From the political perspective, for Israel – and to a large extent the West – Syria is perceived harshly and negatively. For the Syrian government, the opposite holds true – Israel is the enemy. Regrettably they make no distinction between Judaism, Zionism, and the policies of the government of Israel.
In his talk, the Pope eschewed the political, speaking primarily of the religious dimensions of his visit and of his respect for the faiths and people of Syria. The Pope, however, could not ignore the tensions and conflicts troubling the Middle East.
He reaffirmed that “it is time to return to the principles of international legality: the banning of the acquisition of territory by force, the right of peoples to self-determination, respect for the resolutions of the United Nations Organization and the Geneva conventions.”
The Pope also gently offered a counterpoint to the harsh words of the President, stating that “we all know that real peace can only be achieved if there is a new attitude of understanding and respect among the peoples of the region, between the followers of the three Abrahamic religions.”
He said it is important “that there be an evolution in the way the peoples of the region see one another, and that at every level of society the principles of peaceful coexistence be taught and promoted.”

Ecumenical meeting

After his courtesy visit to the President of the Syrian Arab Republic at the Presidential Palace, the popemobile took Pope John Paul II straight to the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Virgin Mary in the old center of Damascus.
There he was warmly welcomed by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Ignatius IV. Two other patriarchs of Antioch stood at his side: Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I and Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III.
The packed cathedral included not only the Catholic and Orthodox bishops of Syria, but most of the other Catholic patriarchs, many of the Greek and Syrian Orthodox bishops of the two patriarchates from other countries around the world, and an enthusiastic congregation.
Actually Syria is one of the most ecumenical places in the world. The three patriarchs who live in Damascus are truly brothers in Christ. Greek, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, and Latin Christians live peacefully side by side, often intermarrying and frequenting one another’s churches.
Beautiful symbols of unity were a joint profession of the Creed, warm and loving words from both the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and the Pope, a mutual embrace or kiss of peace, and the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer by all.
Sometimes we talk so much about the need for Christian unity we almost forget how much real unity already exists.

Holy Mass on Sunday

Damascus’ Abbassyin Stadium holds almost 30,000 people. I think most of them were long since at hand when the Pope arrived to offer a public Mass at 9:30 Sunday morning. It was a moment of prayer for all Christians. Catholic bishops and priests concelebrated; Orthodox patriarchs and bishops shared the sanctuary – a great roofed stage at one side of the central oval of the stadium.
Coincidentally, 6 May was not only Good Shepherd Sunday in the Latin calendar but also the World Day of Vocations in the Catholic Church and the Syrian national holiday commemorating the “Martyrs of Liberty.”
It was a long but happy morning for the thousands there. Songs and cheers punctuated the celebration of the liturgy and the homily of the Pope. An orchestra played, choirs sang, and the Latin-rite Mass incorporated elements and chants from the various Eastern churches. Mercifully, there were intermittent clouds to shield the warm sun. Damascus is a city with almost a desert climate – even a day in May can be very hot.
As one of the many concelebrants, I was privileged to help in the distribution of Communion. It seemed like everyone wished to share in the Eucharist. So many young adults were there – Christian faith in Syria is alive and well.

Meeting with patriarchs and bishops

The root meaning of the word “companion” is one who breaks bread with you. Clearly this was an apt word to describe the Catholic and Orthodox bishops who were hosted to lunch with the Holy Father at the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate following the outdoor Mass.
Somehow I had a place at one of the tables too. Much to my surprise I was seated across from Bishop Afram Athnil, Bishop of Hassake, Syria, of the Assyrian Church of the East. Just a few years before he had completed his theological formation at Mundelein Seminary of the Archdiocese of Chicago with a scholarship from CNEWA.
Lunch is an inadequate word to describe this magnificent meal, given through the generosity of a local benefactor. The food was wonderful, but the warm words exchanged by patriarchs on behalf of their churches were rich food for the spirit.

Meeting with clergy and religious

Just a short walk from the Melkite Greek Catholic patriarchate through the narrow streets of old Damascus is the Syrian Orthodox Cathedral of St. George. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I invited the Pope there to greet the clergy and religious of all the Christian churches – and the Syrian Orthodox laity as well.
The small cathedral was jammed. The overflow crowd followed the service by television in the courtyards. Boy scouts in uniform lined the street. The arrival of the popemobile was heralded by an enthusiastic burst of music from the band.
The Holy Father’s entrance into the cathedral was accompanied by an entrance chant in Syriac, or Aramaic, the language spoken by the Lord and still used by the churches of the Syrian tradition. (There are three villages left in Syria where the spoken language still lives.)
Happily, this day was also the feast of St. George. Although he’s associated with England by many in the West, St. George was actually a Middle Eastern martyr. His veneration began at Lydda in Palestine in the fourth century and gradually spread throughout both East and West.

Meeting with Muslim leaders

An astounding event culminated this challenging first full day of the Pope’s visit to Syria. Toward evening, he traveled through the narrow covered streets of the suq or old market, which was lined with thousands of Muslims. He was on his way to greet the Muslim leaders of Syria in the Umayyad Great Mosque, for 13 centuries one of the most important mosques in Islam.
Hundreds of robed and turbaned sheikhs and scholars awaited the arrival of the Pope in the vast porticoed courtyard outside the doors of the mosque. A small group of bishops was invited to attend along with the papal party from Rome.
The Pope first visited the memorial of St. John the Baptist, which is still venerated in the great mosque. Originally a Byzantine church built to enshrine the head of the Baptist, it was rebuilt and enlarged as a mosque in the seventh century.
After emerging from the mosque, a formal meeting was held in the great courtyard. The sheikh of the great mosque cordially welcomed the pilgrim Bishop of Rome, the first pope to visit a mosque in the entire span of Christian history.
The Minister of Islamic Religious Trusts spoke first, then the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmed Kaftaro, and finally the Holy Father.
Beforehand, I had the opportunity to greet the Mufti. A friend of many years, he once invited me to speak in his mosque during regular Friday services. Sheikh Kaftaro has long been an advocate of Muslim-Christian dialogue and understanding. Once he had been received by the Pope in Rome; it was a happy reciprocation for the Pope himself to be welcomed by the Mufti in Damascus.

In the footsteps of St. Paul

Monday morning, 7 May, Msgr. Madden and I were waiting in the little church of St. Paul on the Wall. It’s actually built into one of the gates of the old city of Damascus, Bab Kissan, and commemorates how St. Paul escaped the city by being lowered over the wall in a basket from a window.
I could identify with that, for my guest room in the patriarchate was built over the wall too, my window just a few hundred feet from the shrine dedicated to St. Paul.
When Pope John Paul arrived, he was delighted by the welcome of a small group of children from the Melkite Greek Catholic orphanage located by the shrine, and went over to embrace them. I was delighted too – for years, this institution was part of CNEWA’s Needy Child Program.
A brief moment of prayer was all that the Pope’s busy schedule allowed. He then left for another stop, the Memorial of St. Paul, a church in a poor quarter of the city, before leaving for Quneitra.

Prayer for peace in Quneitra

Thirty-six miles south of Damascus are the ruins of Quneitra. Once a large – and in large part Christian – village in the Golan Heights, its houses were blown up by the Israeli army when they pulled back to the edge of a United Nations-monitored demilitarized zone between the Israeli-occupied Syrian territory of the Golan and Syria itself.
No one lives in Quneitra now. The Syrian government leaves the ruins untouched as a reminder of the past – and present – hostilities. For the occasion of the papal visit, thousands of people were there; many of them original inhabitants, long since displaced to poor neighborhoods in Damascus.
A cool breeze blew across the verdant countryside, flowers bloomed alongside shattered, tilted concrete slabs. The Pope, accompanied by Catholic and Orthodox patriarchs, entered the abandoned shell of the Greek Orthodox parish church to kneel in a prayer for peace.
A brief but significant ceremony followed. The Holy Father watered a small olive tree planted as a symbol of peace and memorial of his visit.
“Merciful Father,” he prayed, “may all believers find the courage to forgive one another, so that the wounds of the past may be healed, and not be a pretext for further suffering in the present. May this happen above all in the Holy Land, this land which you have blessed with so many signs of your Providence, and where you have revealed yourself as the God of Love.”
Amen!

Youth meeting

Late Monday afternoon several thousand young people jammed the Melkite Greek Catholic Cathedral of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary and all the courtyards and streets around the patriarchate. Banners were flying, flags were waved, and loudspeakers animated the huge crowd with music and song.
The sight and sound of the young people animated the Pope too. He lit up at the sight of this tumultuous welcome as his special little car brought him to the doors of the cathedral.
By now a familiar sight, the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchs and clergy together awaited him in the church amid the throngs of teenagers and young adults cheering his entrance: “John Paul Two, we love you” they shouted in English amid cheers and songs in Arabic
Several of the youths made brief addresses to the Pope and, of course, he warmly greeted them. Although he spoke in French, his words were repeated in Arabic and often interrupted by applause.
Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III received a tremendous acclaim when, in the course of his address, he said he would change the date of the celebration of Easter in Syria to the same Sunday celebrated by the Orthodox.
The celebration of Easter on separate days by Catholics and Orthodox is very unpopular, especially where Christians are a minority. The papal visit occasioned this important gesture toward Christian unity.

Farewell ceremony

Tuesday morning, 8 May, the Pope and the accompanying officials of the Holy See were once again at the airport. John Paul had barely spent 72 hours in Syria, yet they were three unforgettable days for the country and especially for its Christian population.
President Bashar Assad, escorted by his government ministers, was there once again to bid a formal farewell to the Pope and his group. Again, the President spoke, this time to bid the Holy Father farewell, and the Pope to give his thanks and pledge of prayers for the President, his government, and the people of Syria.
As-salamu ‘alaikum (Peace with you),” were Pope John Paul’s first and final words in Syria – as well as those of the President.
I was there with a small group of patriarchs and bishops. We each had a chance to greet the President and bid farewell to the Pope as he boarded a special Syrian Air flight to Malta, his last stop on the way to Rome.
The Holy Father walked the remaining distance along the red carpet to the plane. An honor guard in full dress uniform flanked the Pope’s way, a stiff wind blowing his robes as he walked. He slowly mounted the stairs to the plane. The door was sealed and the steps removed. As the plane began to move away to the head of the runway, the President himself stood waving goodbye. He stood for all of Syria.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 27:4, July 2001)

Murder Most Foul

“Murder most foul,” the spirit of the deceased king told his son in Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet, describing how his brother had killed him.
These words came to mind when I heard of the death of twenty young Israelis at a club in Tel Aviv one bright evening, the first of June. A benighted young Palestinian, strapped about with explosives and potential shrapnel killed himself along with them.
Who were the victims? For the most part, they were Russian immigrants to Israel. Their families were tired of the Communist and post-Communist society in which they had lived and of the pressures on their lives there. They came to Israel, the land that held out promise to them for a better life, a better future, and the chance to live in a free, Jewish society.
Who was the killer? Apparently, a young man frustrated by the plight of his people and the hopelessness of his life in a refugee camp and motivated by a promise of paradise for those who die for the sake of God and country.
Where he came from, many hailed him as a martyr — a curious distortion of that ancient word. In Greek, a martyr was a witness. In traditional usage it refers to a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or principles. Usually it is associated with non-resistance to a death inflicted by another.
Perhaps in his suicidal death and monstrous death-dealing he had a motivation of martyrdom, but the accurate and objective word to describe what he did is murder.

This is not a judgment of the culpability of the youth. For all we know, he could have been so persuaded by the example of others and the distorted religious formation he may have received that his conscience was clear.
Many of the brutal and violent actions that occur within the context of national struggles and political strife fall into the same category.
For example, when any sharpshooter selectively targets an opponent without firearms, he may be acting in good faith, but is he not murdering him?
Of course, murder is never the operative word; instead we use more palatable ones like attacking and resisting, terrorism and massive retaliation — but innocents are constantly killed.
Among the commandments the One God gave to Moses was, “You shall not kill.” This teaching is common to authentic followers of Moses, of Jesus, and of Muhammad.
Over the centuries, long, painful experience has carefully elaborated a variety of excusing and justifying circumstances ranging from the most intimately personal to open warfare.
Alas, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim history is also filled with callous examples of inflicting death on one’s enemies in the name of God’s will — murdering them.
Only God knows the depths of the human heart. May he have mercy on those who wantonly die and mercifully judge those who kill them.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 27:4, July 2001)

Religion, Politics, and Jerusalem

There are key words that describe the psyche of a people. For example, “freedom” is a key to understanding the American mentality. In Israel, I believe it is “security.” For Arabs, especially Palestinians, it is “respect.”

The Holy City

Embedded in the pavement of the Greek Orthodox parish church in the town of Madaba in the highlands east of the Jordan River are two words that illuminate the anguishing problem of Israel and Palestine today. They are ancient Greek words, for they have been in place for over 1,400 years. They label a representation of Jerusalem, part of a mosaic map of the region: HAGIA POLIS (Hagia Polis), the Holy City.
From the beginning of Christian times, this was the proper name of Jerusalem, the only city in the Western world that was called the Holy City. Today Arabs still call it El-Quds, which in Arabic means “the Holy.”
Polis, the Greek word for city, is the root of our modern English word “politics.” Politics refers to guiding and managing the life of the city and, by extension, of the city-state or nation-state.
This unique title, Holy City, spells out the paradox and the problem of Jerusalem – the inseparability of the spiritual and political. With all due respect, sometimes political leaders are naive in thinking they can deal with the challenge of Jerusalem merely in political terms, as though its spiritual aspect were nothing but some historic connection with barely any modern significance.
How foolish, flawed, and failed is such a policy was made clear by the tragic events of the past months.

Whose City

In part, the present crisis in the Holy Land stems to the second Camp David discussions. Until then, Jerusalem was such a delicate topic that everyone agreed to postpone talking about it. For better or for worse, U.S. President Bill Clinton, in seeking a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explicitly and formally put on the table the status of Jerusalem – the hottest topic of all.
When at the end of September the Israeli Likud party leader and former general, Ariel Sharon, accompanied by Israeli security, made a visit to the Temple Mount (the Temple Mount refers to a vast elevated plaza in Jerusalem on which the biblical Temple once stood, but which has been a Muslim sanctuary since the seventh century; its exterior western retaining wall is the great holy place for Jews), he did something in itself simple and ordinary, but whose symbolism was powerful and inflammatory.
His stated purpose was to demonstrate that a Jew may freely go anywhere in Israel, but this particular “anywhere” is a holy place of Islam. General Sharon wished to assert the political sovereignty of the State of Israel over all of Jerusalem, but he was perceived to be asserting sovereignty over the hagia as well as the polis.
The violence that followed soon after cannot be justified, but can be understood. The presence of this Israeli politician in a holy place not only heightened tensions between two nationalisms, Israeli and Palestinian, but also between the Jewish State and the religion of Islam. It convoked that tremendous clash and convergence of the holy and the political that is at the heart of the problem of Jerusalem.
To understand the challenge of peace in Jerusalem, one must understand the spiritual significance of the city, a spiritual significance for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Jews and the Holy

Although Israelis assert that Jerusalem is their eternal and indivisible capital, for religious Jews the significance of Jerusalem is not so much that it was the political capital founded by King David as it was the spiritual capital of ancient Israel. The great thing that David did was to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. He wanted to build a place for the Ark at the summit of the hill on which his palace stood. In the plan of God, it fell to David’s son Solomon to build a place for the Ark.
The Ark was a chest in which were carried the Tablets of the Law, the contract between God and Israel. When the Ark was in its special tent in the desert and, later, housed in the Temple of Jerusalem, it was always a privileged place of communication with God, a place where prayers were offered and sacrifices were made. For ancient Israelites, it was their spiritual center.
The Temple and, by extension, the city of Jerusalem were the very heart of Judaism. The Psalms are filled with references to Jerusalem. The Psalmist sings, “If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand wither. May my tongue stick to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not exalt Jerusalem beyond all my delights.”

Christians and the Holy

Jerusalem is not only a spiritual center for Jews but also for Christians. First, Christians self-appropriate all of the Jewish Scriptures. They see themselves as another branch from the same stock. Jerusalem is associated with Jesus, the apostles and the early Church.
Mary and Joseph, as good Jews, presented the infant Jesus to the Lord in the Temple in Jerusalem. Years later, when returning from their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, they couldn’t find the boy Jesus in their caravan – instead, they found him talking with the teachers in the Temple courtyards, where religious groups gathered around their rabbis and teachers. Later, when Jesus began his public ministry, he often did the same.
Jerusalem is the place of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection. His holy sepulchre has been the focus of Christian pilgrimage from time immemorial.
Jerusalem is not only associated with Jesus but with his Church. It was in the same upper room where Jesus celebrated the last supper with his apostles that the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary, the apostles, and many other disciples. Jerusalem was the Mother Church of Christianity. When there was a conflict between Peter and Paul and when Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was questioned, he came to Jerusalem to talk to the head of the Church of Jerusalem, James, the brother of Jesus.
Jerusalem is for Christians a symbol of the ultimate redemption, a symbol of the union of all with the Lord. The words of the Book of Revelation describe the end of times as the New Jerusalem descending from heaven like a bride dressed up in all her beauty.

Muslims and the Holy

For Muslims, too, Jerusalem is a spiritual center. Muslims also look upon the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures as part of their tradition. They speak with reverence not only of the prophet Muhammad but also of Jesus. They venerate all as prophets of God, Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.
For Muslims, that remnant of exposed rock – over which the Temple originally was built and which probably was the threshing floor that David purchased for the resting place of the Ark – is venerated as the place where Abraham was put to the test by offering his son in sacrifice.
An ancient tradition, beautifully elaborated in Muslim literature, tells of a mystical experience of the prophet Muhammad. He traveled by a winged steed to Jerusalem, alighted at the rock, and was caught up into an experience of heaven. The other great mosque at the edge of the area of the ancient Temple compound is called Al Aqsa, the farthest mosque, the mosque mentioned in the Qur’an.
For Muslims, after Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem is the holiest place in the world.

If you forget or ignore all of this, you totally misunderstand Jerusalem. Jerusalem is associated with the Divine. It is not so much a small territory in the Judean hills as it is a symbol and a value – not just for the six million people in Israel and the three million people in the Palestinian territories, but for all Jews, all Christians, and all Muslims throughout the world. For at least 2,700,000,000 people, nearly half the human race, Jerusalem is a spiritual center.
This is the hagia, the holy. The other dimension of Jerusalem is the polis, the city, the political.

The Expanding Capital City

Israelis assert that only for them was Jerusalem ever a political capital. King David took the city from the Jebusites 3,000 years ago and made it his capital. After only a brief period as capital of a united Israel, it remained the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah until it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C.
For centuries, Jerusalem was occupied by Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Seljuk Turks. Briefly it was the capital of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Then it passed into the hands of Egyptians, Ottoman Turks, the British, and the Jordanians. Since 1967, it has been held by Israel.
When one talks about the peace process and solutions to the political problem of Jerusalem, it’s necessary to know some geography. What we traditionally call Jerusalem, the Old City, is very small. Before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Arab communities of Jerusalem spread north, up the Mount of Olives to the east and a little bit south, toward Bethlehem.
The growth of modern West Jerusalem began at the end of the 19th century. In the course of the 20th, it developed and expanded, so now the Old City – which was once all of Jerusalem – is only a small neighborhood within the broad boundaries of the present city.
When the Israelis occupied Jerusalem in 1967, they expanded its boundaries to include many suburban villages located in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. By annexing them to the State of Israel, these villages, from the Israeli perspective, were removed from any future discussion and peace negotiations.
This is part of the political problem of Jerusalem: its boundaries are shifting all the time. There is a constant appropriation of land, usually Arab land, to increase the size of Jerusalem.
Apparently in frustration after the Camp David meetings, President Clinton announced a shift in policy. Usually every election year the United States Congress makes a rather condescending ploy to gain the American Jewish vote and decides to move the embassy of the United States from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In the past, President Clinton demurred and used his executive authority to delay such a move. This time, he announced that before the end of his term, he will move the United States embassy to Jerusalem.
What are the implications of such a move? It seems so innocuous that most congressional representatives vote for it. Their logic seems to be: “Why are we slighting our Israeli friends? Israel is our ally. It’s the right thing to do. After all, Jerusalem is Israel’s capital; the Knesset (Parliament), offices of government, presidential residence, everything is located in Jerusalem.”

The International City

But, according to international law – if there is such a thing and let’s hope there is – Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel. For that reason, every country that has diplomatic relations with Israel, with the exception of two Central American republics, has its embassy in Tel Aviv.
What international law says that? In 1947, the United Nations Organization voted to partition Palestine, which had been governed by Great Britain under a mandate from the old League of Nations. The General Assembly decided to divide Mandate Palestine into three parts: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a separate political entity, a corpus separatum, the city of Jerusalem. A very detailed section of the partition resolution explained that because of its immense historical, cultural, and spiritual significance, Jerusalem should be placed directly under the United Nations.
The plan called for the U.N. Trusteeship Council to appoint a governor who would establish working relationships with the Jewish and Arab states but also ensure the unique status of Jerusalem as an international city.
Clearly this is not the view of Israel. After Israel, in 1967, conquered the remainder of Mandate Palestine, the State of Israel, understandably, declared Jerusalem to be its eternal and undivided capital. Years later, with the evolution of Palestinian nationalism, the Palestinians made a similar claim. However, the difference between the two claims is that one claimant possesses Jerusalem and the other does not.
The venerable aphorism, “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” seems to fit this case. No matter what we theorize about sovereignty, if we read human history, it is mostly about taking possession. Israel de facto has total sovereignty over Jerusalem. The City of Jerusalem and all its neighborhoods, both Arab and Jewish, are administered by one mayor and a municipal government.
A positive result of Camp David was that the Prime Minister of Israel expressed a willingness to negotiate the status of Jerusalem, but with very strong conditions.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to consolidate its hold on Jerusalem by building satellite suburban developments, “settlements”, around the Old City, which are limited to Israeli Jews. Israeli Arab citizens – one fifth of the Israeli population – may not live there. There is a deliberate policy of making a minority of non-Israeli, non-Jewish residents of Jerusalem. This has succeeded.

The Limitations of Sovereignty

The paradox, though, when you speak about sovereignty over Jerusalem, is that in spite of all the talk about the total Israeli exercise of sovereignty, there have always been limitations to that sovereignty.
For example, who has sovereignty over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? It is controlled primarily by the Christian religious authorities – the Greek Orthodox, the Armenians, and the Franciscans. A Turkish decree of over two hundred years ago, referred to as the Status Quo, still regulates the behavior of Christians for religious and nonreligious purposes in the Holy Sepulchre and other major holy places.
The Status Quo provides that unless public safety is at stake or unless the ecclesiastical guardians violently disagree with one another the civil authority has no say. They can only intervene in extraordinary circumstances.
Although Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem, when it comes to the Christian holy places there is an understanding that the exercise of sovereignty is limited. The same applies to the Muslim and Jewish holy places, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
Who, in practice, controls the Temple Mount? Theoretically, as part of Jerusalem, it is controlled by Israel. Actually, there is an understanding that the Muslim religious authorities control it – that is, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his Islamic High Council. What do the Israelis do? They help, they guard the entrances. If public order or safety is violated, Israeli soldiers enter.
Who has sovereignty over the Western Wall, the great Jewish holy place of Jerusalem where Jews go to pray, where even the Holy Father went to pray? Who controls it? Again, it is directed by religious authorities, rabbis and the religious schools, although it is under the State of Israel.
De facto, there are limitations to sovereignty in Jerusalem. There always have been. They are ancient. They are historical. They are traditional. Sometimes people lose track of this when they say it is absurd for the United Nations to make a special provision for Jerusalem. Why not? The Ottoman Turks did. The Israelis still enforce their law. It is a practical limitation on Israeli sovereignty even today.

The Limitations of Access

When you combine the religious and the political and social daily life – when you try to live out the inseparable hagia and polis of Jerusalem – you get into terrible tangles.
Right now, for example, Jerusalem is closed off from the rest of the West Bank, the Palestinian Arab areas. On Fridays, the holy day for Muslims, Palestinian Muslims who want to pray at the Al Aqsa mosque cannot do so, for frequently they are not allowed into Jerusalem.
There was a powerful picture in the newspapers last October of an angry Israeli soldier directing people away while an angry Muslim man stood face to face with him; that day Israel was restricting access to the Muslim holy places to men over 45 years of age. Why? Israel feared that hot-blooded young men would use Friday prayers as an excuse for further violence. So they limited access to the Al Aqsa mosque. Again, this is understandable. It’s a matter of security.
What does this say about the policy of the State of Israel that guarantees free access to all the holy places? Its logic seems to be: “Be reasonable. This is an extraordinary situation. In the name of security and public order, we temporarily have to restrict access to the holy places.”
But restrictions upon entering Jerusalem have been in place for seven years, not just these recent weeks. Restricting access to Jerusalem is more than restricting access to a spiritual center for Christians and Muslims. If you know the country at all, you know that Jerusalem is a hub for the West Bank. The roads all go through Jerusalem. If you cannot go to Jerusalem, it is very complicated to travel. The main hospitals are in Jerusalem. If you cannot get into Jerusalem, you cannot get the medical care you may desperately need.

Dwelling of Peace

What is to be done about Jerusalem? What is to be done to balance the demands of the hagia and the polis, the spiritual and the political? The Holy See’s position is that the status of Jerusalem involves more than just considerations of territory and politics. The spiritual patrimony, the religious identity of Jerusalem must be safeguarded. The city must have a special status. Direct international governance of Jerusalem may not be practical, but there must be at least an internationally guaranteed statute ensuring the unique special character of the Holy City, for much the same reasons that prompted the 1947 plan of the United Nations.
Jerusalem is too important and too valuable to belong exclusively to anybody. The spiritual boundaries of Jerusalem embrace the hearts of billions of people. The political future of Jerusalem is a matter to be resolved between two peoples, the Israelis and the Palestinians. The ultimate destiny of the Holy City involves three great faiths – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jerusalem must be not only an indivisible city, but also a shared city.
The Hebrew name for the Hagia Polis, the Holy City, is Yerushalayim, the Dwelling of Peace. May it be so!


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 26:6, November 2000)

Raising the Anti

Of course I’m not anti-Semitic! It’s not appropriate to stereotype Arab people, speaking about them as though they were all the same and projecting on each superficial and prejudicial characteristics.
Oh, of course I’m not anti-Jewish either! It’s absurd to be anti-Jewish when Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were Jewish — and all the Apostles and first Christians. It’s absurd to be anti-Jewish since contemporary Judaism and Christianity are two branches of the same family.
I’m not anti-Islam either. It makes no sense to be against fellow believers in the same God. Am I anti-interpretations of doctrine some Muslims teach? Why, surely. I’m even anti-interpretations of doctrine some Christians and Jews teach.
Am I anti-Israel? Israel is a country made up of people with different ethnic backgrounds and different religions — Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Bahais — and those without any particular religion at all. I can’t be anti-all of them.
Am I anti-the-Israeli-government? No, I’m not anti-an-entire-government. That would be a bit much. But, we’re getting warm — I am very much anti-certain-policies-and-practices-of-the-present-Israeli-government. And for that matter, I am very much anti-certain-policies-and-practices-of-the-Palestinian Authority and the United States government, too.
I’m anti-violence — I’m anti-violation-of-the-God-given-dignity-and-inalienable-rights-of-every-human-person. I’m anti-retaliation, massive or moderate. I’m anti-an-eye-for-an-eye-and-a-tooth-for-a-tooth.
In fact, I’m anti-inflexibility, anti-blindness, anti-insensitivity, anti-selfishness, and anti-corruption.

I’m anti-jihad. I’m anti-might-makes-right. I’m anti-anti-world-authority, and anti-anti-United-Nations. I’m anti-political-pandering-and-patronizing. I’m anti-my country-right-or-wrong-my country.
I’m anti-propaganda and manipulation. I’m anti-distortions-of-truth. I’m anti-a valueless-approach-to-reporting-current-events. I’m anti-no-moral-compass.
Aren’t you for anything?
Yes, I’m pro-justice and pro-peace. I’m pro-understanding and pro-standing-in the-other’s-shoes. I’m pro-respect-for-differences and pro-seeking-common-ground. I’m pro-forgiveness and pro-reconciliation. I’m pro-love — that means I’m pro-God and pro-life.
It’s not easy trying to be a disciple of Jesus in this world. The ideals and the impossible dreams are always bright and clear, but, ah, the practical applications.
It doesn’t give you any monopoly on the truth, but it does give a direction for seeking the truth.
It doesn’t exempt you from the frailties and ignorance of the human condition, but it does give you power to overcome them.
What’s the answer? What to say?
“When they take you before synagogues and before rulers and authorities, do not worry about how or what your defense will be or about what you are to say. For the holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say.”
When the chips are down, He’ll tell me.


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 26:6, November 2000)