By Ray McGovern
23/04/08 "ICH" -- -- Pope Benedict XVI arrived in the United States last week against a macabre backdrop featuring reports of torture, execution and war. He chose not to notice.
Torture: Fresh
reporting by ABC
from inside
sources depicted
George W. Bush’s
most senior
aides (Cheney,
Powell, Rumsfeld,
Ashcroft, Rice
and Tenet)
meeting dozens
of times in the
White House
during 2002/03
to sort out the
most efficient
mix of torture
techniques for
captured
“terrorists.”
When initially
ABC attempted to
insulate the
president from
this sordid
activity, Bush
abruptly bragged
that he knew all
about it and
approved. That
comment and the
action
memorandum Bush
signed on Feb.
7, 2002,
dispelled any
lingering doubt
regarding his
personal
responsibility
for authorizing
torture.
Execution: Meanwhile,
the U.S. Supreme
Court, with a
majority of
judges calling
themselves
Catholic, was
openly
deliberating on
whether one
gram, or two, or
perhaps three of
this or that
chemical would
be the preferred
way to execute
people.
Always colorful prominent Catholic layman Antonin Scalia complained impatiently, “Where does it say in the Constitution that executions have to be painless?”
Scalia did not seem at all concerned that the pope might remind him and his Catholic colleagues about the Church’s teaching on capital punishment, i.e., the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (Evangelium Vitae 56).
It was enough to bring this student of German history (and five-year resident there) vivid memories of frequenting those places where precisely these kinds of torture and execution policy reviews were conducted at similarly high levels by Hitler’s inner circle – yes, including judges.
War: Can the
pope possibly be
so suffused with
his peculiar
brand of
theology that he
is oblivious to
what happened
when he was a
young man during
the Third Reich.
Is it possible
that papal
advisers forgot
to tell him that
the post-WWII
Nuremberg
Tribunal
described an
unprovoked war
of aggression,
of the kind that
the Third Reich
and George W.
Bush launched,
as the “supreme
international
crime, differing
from other war
crimes only in
that it contains
the accumulated
evil of the
whole?”
Could they have
failed to tell
the pope he
would be
hobnobbing with
war criminals,
torturers and
the enabling
cowards in
Congress who
refuse to remove
them from
office?
For this
Catholic, it was
a profoundly sad
spectacle –
profoundly sad.
Not since WWII, when the Reich’s bishops swore personal oaths of allegiance to Hitler (as did the German Supreme Court and army generals) have the papacy and bishops acted in such a fawning, un-Christ-like way.
With very few
exceptions, the
bishops
(Catholic and
Evangelical
Lutheran)
collaborated
with the
Nazis. Meanwhile,
Hamlet-like Pius
XII kept trying
to make up his
mind as to
whether he
should put the
Catholic Church
at some risk,
while Jews were
being murdered
by the
thousands.
Albert
Camus
In 1948, in the
shadow of that
monstrous world
war, the French
author/philosopher Albert
Camus accepted
an invitation
from the
Dominican
Monastery of
Latour-Maubourg.
To their credit,
the Dominicans
wanted to know
what an
“unbeliever”
thought about
Christians in
the light of
their behavior
during the
Thirties and
Forties. Camus’
words seem so
terribly
relevant today
that it is
difficult to
trim them:
“For a long time
during those
frightful years
I waited for a
great voice to
speak up in
Rome. I, an
unbeliever? Precisely. For
I knew that the
spirit would be
lost if it did
not utter a cry
of condemnation…
“It has been
explained to me
since, that the
condemnation was
indeed
voiced. But that
it was in the
style of the
encyclicals,
which is not all
that clear. The
condemnation was
voiced and it
was not
understood. Who
could fail to
feel where the
true
condemnation
lies in this
case?
“What the world
expects of
Christians is
that Christians
should speak
out, loud and
clear, and that
they should
voice their
condemnation in
such a way that
never a doubt,
never the
slightest doubt,
could rise in
the heart of the
simplest man.
“That they
should get away
from abstraction
and confront the
blood-stained
face history has
taken on today.
“It may be …
that
Christianity
will insist on
maintaining a
compromise, or
else on giving
its
condemnations
the obscure form
of the
encyclical. Possibly
it will insist
on losing once
and for all the
virtue of revolt
and indignation
that belonged to
it long ago.
“What I know –
and what
sometimes
creates a deep
longing in me –
is that if
Christians made
up their mind to
it, millions of
voices –
millions, I say
– throughout the
world would be
added to the
appeal of a
handful of
isolated
individuals,
who, without any
sort of
affiliation,
today intercede
almost
everywhere and
ceaselessly for
children and
other people.”
(Excerpted from
Resistance,
Rebellion, and
Death: Essays)
Sixty years ago!
Perhaps the Dominican monks took Camus seriously; monks tend to listen. Vatican functionaries, on the other hand, tend to know it all, and to urge the pope to be “discrete.”
You saw that
this past week
with the pope in
Washington and
New York, as he
forfeited the
opportunity to
follow the
biblical
injunction to
speak truth to
power – to speak
out clearly, as
Camus suggested,
with moral
authority.
Catholics All
Around
Think back to
last week and
all the
prominent
Catholics who
flocked to see
the pope – many
of them
officials with
considerable
influence in the
Judiciary and
Legislature,
with some
important
players in the
Executive Branch
as well.
There they were,
with their
families, the
five Catholic
Supreme Court
justices, fresh
from detailed
deliberations on
how best to
implement
state-sponsored
killings,
executions that
are banned by
virtually every
civilized
country.
Justice Scalia
audibly
salivated over
how much noxious
chemical should
be shot into the
veins of a
“condemned,” and
how
quickly. (For
those with
strong stomachs,
C-SPAN captured
the
proceedings.)
I am embarrassed
to acknowledge
that, like me,
Scalia is the
product of a
Jesuit education
(Xavier H.S. in
Manhattan and
Georgetown
College). Despite
his advocacy of
“soft” torture
techniques like
driving nails
under
fingernails,
Scalia continues
to be lionized
by many Jesuits
and bishops
alike.
In the House?
Speaker Nancy
Pelosi,
erstwhile
doyenne of the
Archdiocese of
Baltimore and
now San
Francisco, and
minority leader
John Boehner,
R-Ohio –
Catholics both –
are about to
allocate another
hundred billion
dollars to death
and destruction
in Iraq and
Afghanistan for
the most
reprehensibly
crass of
political
purposes – the
coming election.
Rep. Jim
McGovern,
D-Massachusetts,
last week tried
to guild the
lily, noting
that Pelosi now
insists that, in
McGovern’s
words, “We’re
an equal branch
of government;
we’re no longer
a cheap
date.” Right.
Sadly, it
appears that
Pelosi’s key
functionaries on
House
Appropriations
(both of them
Catholics) will
cave in once
again.
It is not as
though they do
not know the
right thing to
do. Just six
months ago,
Appropriations
chair Dave Obey,
D-Wisconsin,
declared, “I
have no
intention of
reporting out of
committee
anytime in this
session of
Congress any
such [funding]
request that
simply serves to
continue the
status quo.”
Subcommittee
chair John
Murtha,
D-Pennsylvania,
put it even more
strongly a year
before Obey did,
and came close
to calling the
occupation of
Iraq a lost
cause – which,
of course, it
is. But it is
not politic to
say that before
the
election. Never
mind the troops
on the front
lines.
Obey and Murtha
caved last
time. I will
find it
particularly
devastating if
Obey caves again
now, for I have
always
considered him
among the best
legislators in
Congress.
And since he is
from Wisconsin,
Obey recognizes
better than
others the
McCarthy-ite
demagoguery
coming from the
likes of Texas
Republican
Michael Burgess,
to the effect
that anything
short of giving
the president
all the war
funding he
demands is
“basically
giving aid and
comfort to the
enemy.”
Pelosi also has
been unusually
candid in
admitting that
it is electoral
politics, pure
and simple, that
explain her
resistance to
holding
President George
W. Bush and Vice
President Dick
Cheney
accountable for
high crimes and
misdemeanors via
the orderly
procedure given
us by the
Founders for
precisely this
purpose –
impeachment in
the House; trial
in the Senate.
If, as widely
expected, the
war funding goes
through, several
hundred more
American troops
are likely to
die before some
common sense can
be injected into
U.S. policy next
year – not to
mention how many
Iraqis.
Iraq is a
shambles. Two
million Iraqis
have fled
abroad; another
two million are
internal
refugees. Am I
the only one who
finds macabre
the raging
debate as to
whether the
attack and
occupation of
Iraq has
resulted in a
million or “only
300,000” Iraqis
dead?
Apparently, the
pope did not
have any opinion
on the Iraq War.
But
Torture?
Surely the pope
would speak out
against the kind
of torture for
which our
country has
become famous:
Abu Ghraib,
Guantanamo, CIA
“black sites” –
the more so,
since Jesus of
Nazareth was
tortured to
death.
The pope chose silence, which presumably came as welcome relief to four-star torturer’s apprentice, Gen. Michael Hayden, now head of the CIA.
The White House
has made clear
that Hayden is
ready to
instruct his
torturers to
waterboard
again, upon
Caesar’s
approval.
Hayden proved
his mettle when
he was head of
the National
Security
Agency. He
saluted smartly
when the
president and
vice president
told him to
disregard the
Foreign
Intelligence and
Surveillance Act
and his oath to
defend the
Constitution.
One of Hayden’s
predecessors as
NSA director
asserted that
Hayden should
have been
court-martialed. Pelosi
was briefed both
on the illegal
surveillance and
the torture, but
did nothing.
Having
demonstrated his
allegiance to
the president,
Hayden was
picked to head
the CIA. The
general likes to
brag about his
moral training
and Catholic
credentials. At
his nomination
hearing, he
noted that he
was the
beneficiary of
18 years of
Catholic
education.
All the while it
was quite clear
he was
positively
lusting to be in
charge of
waterboarding
and other
torture
techniques –
whatever you
say, boss.
I was somewhat
crestfallen
after adding up
my own years of
Catholic
education – only
17. Clearly I
missed “Enhanced
Interrogation
Techniques 301.”
Keep It
General; Focus
on Others’ Sins
Saturday at the
UN, the pontiff
pontificated on
“God-given human
rights” and
“massive human
rights abuses,”
but pretty much
left it at that.
The Washington
Post reported
that the pope
was “short on
specifics and
long on broad
themes.”
But there was
one
specific. Here
in the U.S., the
pope seemed to
prefer to dwell
on the
pedophilia
scandal – to the
exclusion of
much else. He is
to be applauded
for meeting with
victims of
clergy sexual
abuse and
expressing deep
shame, but he
got a free pass
from the media
in disguising
his own role in
trying to cover
the whole thing
up.
While still
Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, he
headed The
Congregation for
the Doctrine of
the Faith – the
Vatican office
that once ran
the
Inquisition. In
that capacity he
sent a letter in
May 2001 to all
Catholic bishops
throwing a
curtain of
secrecy over the
widespread
sexual abuse by
clergy, warning
the bishops of
severe
penalties,
including
excommunication
for breaching
“pontifical
secrets.”
Lawyers acting
for the sexually
abused accused
Ratzinger of
“clear
obstruction of
justice.”
Very few
American bishops
have been
disciplined. And
when Bernard
Cardinal Law was
run out of
Boston for
failing to
protect children
from predator
priests, he was
given a cushy
sinecure in
Rome; many
believe he
should be behind
bars.
In an interview
with the
Catholic News
Service in 2002,
Ratzinger
branded media
coverage of the
pedophilia
scandal “a
planned campaign
… intentional,
manipulated, a
desire to
discredit the
Church.”
It is nice that
the pope has now
changed his
tune. Nicer
still for him,
he found himself
mostly in the
congenial
atmosphere of
Washington,
where very few
powerful
miscreants are
held
accountable.
So What
Did You Expect?
I do wish my
friends would
stop asking me
that.
While it was
good that the
pope addressed
the pedophilia
issue head on,
it seemed as
though he made a
decision to
devote time and
energy to the
issue.
The
side-benefit, of
course, was
being able to
speak in
glorious
generality on
other major
issues – war,
torture, capital
punishment – in
all of which, as
we have seen,
many of “the
faithful” are
deeply engaged –
embarrassingly
engaged.
I had hoped –
naively, it
turned out –
that the pope
might encourage
his brother
bishops to find
the courage to
state plainly
what 88 bishops
of the Methodist
faith, George W.
Bush’s
tradition,
declared on Nov.
8, 2005:
“We repent of
our complicity
in what we
believe to be
the unjust and
immoral invasion
and occupation
of Iraq. In the
face of the
United States
Administration’s
rush toward
military action
based on
misleading
information, too
many of us were
silent.
“We confess our
preoccupation
with
institutional
enhancement and
limited agendas
while American
men and women
are sent to Iraq
to kill and be
killed, while
thousands of
Iraqi people
needlessly
suffer and die.”
I thought that
perhaps the U.S.
Catholic bishops
could adopt the
kind of
resolution that
125 Methodist
bishops signed
on Nov. 9,
2007. It called
for an immediate
withdrawal of
troops from Iraq
and the reversal
of any plans to
establish
permanent
military bases
there.
The Methodist
bishops’
resolution
noted: “Every
day that the war
continues, more
soldiers and
innocent
civilians are
killed with no
end in sight to
the violence,
bloodshed, and
carnage.” And
Bishop Jack
Meadors summed
up the situation
nicely:
“The Iraq War is
not just a
political issue
or a military
issue. It is a
moral issue.”
Holocaust Museum
in Jerusalem
Visiting Yad
VaShem, the
Holocaust museum
in West
Jerusalem last
summer, I
experienced
painful
reminders of
what happens
when the church
allows itself to
be captured by
Empire. An
acquiescent
church, it is
clear, loses
whatever
residual moral
authority it may
have had.
At the entrance
to the museum, a
quotation by
German essayist
Kurt Tucholsky
set a
universally
applicable tone:
“A country is
not just what it
does – it is
also what it
tolerates.”
Still more
compelling words
came from Imre
Bathory, a
Hungarian who
put his own life
at grave risk by
helping to save
Jews from the
concentration
camps:
“I know that
when I stand
before God on
Judgment Day, I
shall not be
asked the
question posed
to Cain: ‘Where
were you when
your brother’s
blood was crying
out to God?’”
According to
former President
George H. W.
Bush, George W.
has “read the
Bible straight
through –
twice.” Perhaps
he skipped by
that passage too
quickly; or
maybe he is
highly selective
as to whom he
considers his
brothers.
No excuse for
Benedict,
though; he knows
better. And yet
he opted to
squander his
glorious chance
to speak out and
make a
difference.
Methodist Bishop
Meadors is
right; the war
is a moral
issue. But
President Bush
has refused,
time and time
again, to meet
with his
Methodist
bishops. And now
he has the
imprimatur of
the pope.
The bottom line
is challenging:
to the degree
that right and
wrong, moral and
immoral
considerations
are to be
injected into
discussions
about war,
executions,
torture – well,
let’s face
it. There is
only us.
Ray McGovern
works with Tell
the Word, the
publishing arm
of the
ecumenical
Church of the
Saviour in
inner-city
Washington, DC.
He is on the
Steering Group
of Veteran
Intelligence
Professionals
for Sanity
(VIPS).
This article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com
