Pope Francis seeks ‘peace’ between Israel and Hamas, but it may promote injustice.
The day after Hamas’ onslaught against Israel, Pope Francis expressed: “Every war is a defeat.” A preemptive protest against retaliation, it contradicted centuries of the Catholic Church’s understanding of a just response to aggression. The ancient command to will good to all men does not mean leaving some of them loose to do evil to others.
Careful not to name Hamas, Francis pleaded that “the armed attacks stop.” His use of the plural “attacks” placed terrorists and Israelis on the same moral plane. It avoided distinction between a war of extermination against Jews and Israel’s defensive action against genocidal barbarians. Francis broadened lament to conflicts everywhere (especially in “beloved Ukraine”), and added: “Let us pray that there be peace in Israel and Palestine.”
America magazine, the Jesuits’ flagship magazine, praised Francis’ avoidance as “a measured appeal.” Papal reluctance to identify a clear aggressor sets the tone of reaction down the chain of command to bishoprics and parishes.
My own neighborhood parishes have been calling for prayers for peace between Israel and Palestine since Oct. 7. The focus of this urging is the elusive dream of peace in general. Hamas is not mentioned. The words “depravity” and “Jew-hatred” go unspoken. Congregants are discouraged from praying for Israelis to triumph over their tormentors. Pressure is on to remain neutral.
Victory is the one outcome that Western media and the “international community” will not accept. Neither will Francis. His “measured appeal” applies the tactic of “accompaniment” to geopolitical issues. Accompaniment is Francis’ pretext for withholding judgment on moral issues. Here, it provides a hedge that suggests moral equivalence between Israel and Gaza without explicitly stating so.
Why is it so difficult for decent men to take a stand in the face of atrocity? What holds them back?
It helps to look at their superiors, men who have risen in a clerical bureaucracy that leans left. At this moment, the spotlight is on Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa. Francis appointed him Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem three years ago. He received his red hat on Sept. 30, less than a month ago. That was just in time to insinuate sympathy for the homicidal Gazans.
Cardinal Pizzaballa described the Gaza Strip as “an open-air prison,” a catchphrase from the alternative universe of leftist grievances. He spoke of “occupied territories,” the prevailing term used to criticize Israel as a colonial oppressor. Successfully promoted by Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA), this term does not align with historical facts.
Palestinian resentment towards Israel’s existence predates Israel’s presence in Gaza. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964 — three years before Israel gained legitimate control of the West Bank and Gaza by defending itself in the Six Day War of 1967. The PLO’s stated objective was to eliminate Israel through armed struggle. Furthermore, Israel completely withdrew — settlements and military installations — from Gaza in 2005. If Gaza can be considered a colony, its elected colonizer is Hamas.
But history is malleable to Pizzaballa, who adopts the language of the left. Francis is aware of this.
On the day of Gaza’s attack, the cardinal issued a revealing statement: “The operation launched from Gaza and the reaction of the Israeli army … will destroy more and more any perspective of stability.” While blood was still fresh on the walls of kibbutzim, he erased any distinction between Gaza’s deliberate massacre of Jews and Israel’s defensive response. This toxic pretense of impartiality from a Vatican appointee trickles down to the parish level.
On Oct. 18, the pope declared Oct. 27 a day of prayer. He urged believers “to take only one side in the conflict, that of peace.” But peace does not simply materialize. It must be achieved on the ground through the victory of one side over another. Which side of the Israeli-Gaza border holds greater promise for establishing and maintaining a just peace? Francis refuses to say.
My local church asks us to pray without moral clarity. Can God find a middle ground between a humane society and a perpetually inflamed, murderous one? Prayers for an idyllic fantasy are self-congratulatory gestures no more effective than trance music at a peace and love festival in the Negev. They do not halt rockets or deranged killers.
The word “peace” carries a very different meaning in Islam. It signifies a world in which everyone is Muslim and everyone is subservient to Islamic law. The ultimate goal of Islamic terrorism is to advance Islam — an enduring objective that extends far beyond the Middle East. The extent of this has been evident in our streets and on our campuses in recent weeks.
Let my pastor pray for an innocent peace. I am praying for a decisive victory by Israel over Hamas.
rnrn
Why does Cardinal Pizzaballa fail to identify the group responsible for the attacks on civilians?
Argeting the civilian population is inhumane and represents an unacceptable escalation of violence.” While he does acknowledge the targeting of civilians, he fails to identify the group responsible for these attacks. This deliberate omission reflects a dangerous tendency to equate the actions of terrorists with those defending themselves against aggression.
This pattern of ambiguity is not limited to Cardinal Pizzaballa. It is evident in the broader leadership of the Catholic Church, including Pope Francis himself. The Pope’s recent statement, calling for an end to armed attacks without explicitly naming Hamas, undermines the moral clarity necessary in times of conflict. By failing to distinguish between the perpetrators of violence and those defending themselves, the Pope risks perpetuating a false narrative of moral equivalence.
This reluctance to take a stand against aggression and condemn the actions of terrorist groups raises important questions. Why is it so difficult for decent men, even within the higher ranks of the Church, to unequivocally denounce acts of terror? What drives this inclination towards neutrality and equivocation?
One possible explanation lies in the prevailing progressive ideology within the Church hierarchy. Over the years, many high-ranking clerics have risen through a bureaucratic system that often leans left. This ideological bias influences their perception of geopolitical issues and shapes their response to conflicts such as the one between Israel and Gaza.
Cardinal Pizzaballa’s recent comments exemplify this left-leaning perspective. By characterizing Gaza as an “open-air prison” and using the term “occupied territories” to criticize Israel, he aligns himself with a narrative that portrays Israel as a colonial oppressor. This narrative, promoted by Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, does not accurately reflect the historical facts.
The establishment of the PLO in 1964, three years before Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza, demonstrates that Palestinian resentment towards Israel’s existence predates its presence in Gaza. The PLO’s objective was to eliminate Israel through armed struggle, and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 further undermines the claim of occupation.
Despite these facts, Cardinal Pizzaballa adopts the language of the left, perpetuating a distorted understanding of the conflict and undermining efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace. Pope Francis must recognize the danger inherent in this kind of rhetoric and actively work towards fostering a more balanced and informed
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...