US-President Bush with Arms and John Paul II with Assisi
Oct 21, 2004
From the Presentation by His Beatitude Cardinal Ignatius Moussa I Daoud to the “Religion and Cultures: Between Conflict and Dialogue” summit in Sant’Egidio, September 1-3, 2002.
4. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that destroyed places considered symbols of economic and military power, have placed in evidence the fragility of the world situation and have provoked very diverse reactions on the international level.
5. I would like to refer, in a special way, to two representative voices that have made themselves heard in the world, although with quite different principles and programs: President Bush and Pope John Paul II.
6. The President of the United States has raised a great alarm in the world, has created a never before seen military budget, and has begun to combat the number one enemy of humanity: terrorism. One must choose. One must stand either for or against terrorism. The military campaign conducted by the United States arrived immediately and struck hard and quick. The Taliban were defeated. A democratic regime was installed in Kabul. Every part of the earth suspected of complicity in terrorism has fallen under threat. Iraq now finds itself on the waiting list. The members of Al-Qaeda are pursued everywhere. And despite it all, Bin Laden cannot be found, and Al-Qaeda does not seem yet reduced to silence … The threat of terrorism has not yet been distanced from us.
Where will this campaign finish? Will it succeed in stabilizing an order of peace, preventing war with war, violence with violence, demanding the arms of the enemy through the use of arms?
In the end, the arms remain in the hands of a part of the world, and their presence expresses in itself an explosive situation.
Can arms play a meaningful role in limiting evil and insanity?
Even if they could, the sign of human division would remain, as would the urgent appeal to reconciliation.
7. Pope John Paul II sees the world situation in a different way. With his immediate condemnation of violence and terrorism, without mincing words, the pope did not limit himself to noting the facts and their apparent effects. He wanted to go to the problem in depth, tracing their causes and origins.
Peace cannot be imposed with force.
Instead of arms, the pope proposes a general culture of peace.
For him, the most effective means for building peace are dialogue and prayer.
This is the sense of the Second Meeting of Assisi, of January 24, 2002.
It could be said that the central point of the meeting were the resolutions of the assembly. These ten commitments in favor of peace - which have received the name of the “Decalogue of Assisi” - constitute a true and proper charter of peace: condemnation of terrorism and every kind of violence, mutual esteem, culture of dialogue, solidarity with those who suffer and are oppressed, friendship among peoples, a program of voluntarily accepted obligations and duties that point to the construction of a true peace in the world.
However, if we look more closely, the soul of the meeting of Assisi was prayer.
The meeting of Assisi was a day of prayer.
8. Why prayer?
If we look around ourselves, that is, at the history we suffer in zones of the world where there is war and violence, violations of human rights, injustices, enormous and shameful social differences, and an absurd culture of death, we would only dare to speak of peace on the basis of the promises of God, not the efforts and commitments of human beings.
Certainly it is not enough to reject war and violence, to radically oppose ourselves to everything that works against human life, and to elaborate strategies or fantasies that begin with diplomacy and human efforts.
All this would remain radically insufficient if there is no prayer.
US-President Bush with Arms and John Paul II with Assisi