The frequent emphasis the Pope’s collaborators placed - prior to his visit to Lebanon - on the fact that Benedict XVI is not a political leader, together with the content of the six speeches pronounced by the Pope in Lebanon, may have given the impression that having arrived in the Middle Eastern tinderbox at a time of extreme tension, Benedict XVI preferred to address primarily the Christian community, limiting himself to general appeals for peaceful co-existence among religions. But hidden behind the words he used, particularly in the off-the-cuff responses given to journalists during his flight to Beirut on Friday and in today’s Angelus, lies a clear message. During the press conference, the Pope spoke about the Arab Spring, defining the “desire for greater democracy” and “more freedom” as positive things.
But he also recalled that “the history of revolutions tells us that the incredibly important and positive cry for freedom is always in danger of omitting one fundamental aspect of freedom and that is tolerance of others.”
Answering a specific question about Syria during Friday’s on-flight press conference, Benedict XVI asked for an end to the importation of arms, which he defined as a “grave crime”.
In the special prayers he pronounced during today’s Angelus for the people of Syria and the neighbouring countries, the Pope said: “Sadly, the din of weapons continues to make itself heard, along with the cry of the widow and the orphan. Violence and hatred invade people’s lives, and the first victims are women and children. Why so much horror? Why so many dead? I appeal to the international community! I appeal to the Arab countries that, as brothers, they might propose workable solutions respecting the dignity, the rights and the religion of every human person!”
Benedict XVI placed a greater emphasis on violence, the horror of war and the deaths it causes, than on the need for democracy and freedom expressed during the Arab Spring.
The Pope put across the Holy See’s realistic approach to the Syrian crisis.
Tusinia and Egypt’s revolutions have coincided with the rise to power of historic Islamist parties which have now become stabilising forces.
But situations vary from country to country and although everyone, including the Vatican is aware of the now inevitable decline of the Assad regime, Ratzinger avoided referring to the rhetoric used during “the people’s spring” to legitimise or bless revolutions.
This shows he is asking himself what will happen in the light of a government change, also to the forces that encourage and arm rebels.
For the moment, his appeal to the international community to suggest feasible solutions and end the spiral of violence is the most “political” message pronounced by a religious leader who spoke to a turbulent Middle East with his presence more than with his words.
His approach is by no means the result of an estrangement from the real sufferings and problems of the people.
Quite the contrary.
It shows the Pope is someone who does not settle for easy slogans to complex situations.