www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Response To The Arab Revolutions

So Pius XII was wrong to oppose the Nazis in World War II because it made life difficult for Roman Catholics? That must mean John Paul II was wrong to oppose the Soviets in the Cold War, because it made life hard for Catholics in the Soviet Union. Sometimes peace and love, dude, just ain't enough: you have to call out evil, and even take active measures for its destruction.

At the end of the day, the resolution of the situation is fairly straightforward: the military will negotiate a bloodless coup, Mubarak is allowed to leave Egypt with his skin intact, a caretaker government under al Baradei is installed by the military, basic reforms of the government and economy are implemented, elections are scheduled for a year or 18 months hence, and elections will result in a more (but not necessarily perfectly) representative government that will, for pragmatic reasons, avoid following a militant islamist line. And, as in Turkey, the Army will serve as guarantor of the settlement. Whether this arrangement lasts or not is an open question. Just remember that Mubarak is 82, and would not have lasted much longer in any case. What is happening today would have happened as soon as the man dropped dead, because the whole issue of orderly succession was scrupulously avoided by him (designated successors often get tired of waiting to assume power).

As the story goes, "This has happened before, and it will all happen again".

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Sorry that I do not get to get on the board often. I have to say that this thread has been interesting to read. I find it interesting that many of my fellow Antiochenes and Alexandrians are very silent on this issue on the board. I was hoping to hear from them expecially.

A few of the Eastern Eparchs have spoken out, Coptic Catholic Bishop Youhannes Ezzat Zakaria Badir of Luxor-Tebe has an article on the Catholic News Agency's [catholicnewsagency.com] site about what his happening in his homeland.

What is interesting to me is what is happening in Syria and Lebanon. The news for both is proving to be interesting. Hezbollah has its candidate in power in Lebanon, but Syria is not in position to help it as much.

I hope that with these revolutions, the Arab peoples will be free and have the government they want.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

I'd settle for good government. People seldom want what is good for them.

I hope our response is to stop giving Egypt a billion every year.

Don't you mean four billion? But that's probably what will keep them on our side.

By the way, it's always cheaper to bribe someone than to fight him. Bribery and subversion are the true Byzantine way. Pity we aren't very good at it.

I thought it was around 1 billion a year, but there may be things that go to them that aren't direct assistance, so you could be right. It will probably keep them on our side until the populace has had enough of us funding their oppression, which may be happening now. The fact that it's money we don't even have now that we're in record deficit territory just makes it more insane.

It is interesting to see how completely unprepared and incoherent our political leadership (on both sides of the spectrum) is in the face of this crisis.

Maybe you're right. Heck, the Church could even raise its own army, cut out the middle man! Quash evil wherever it finds it. Any idea if that's been tried before?

Or maybe we can ask the Russian Othodox to mediate disputes between Moscow and its neighbors. I'm sure they could find some evil going on close by to stamp out.

The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the negative consequences of the Church playing kingmaker, and I am sure you could list a zillion more times it went badly than I can.

Either way, why do you reject Christ as a model in this regard?

The Church does not use force. That does not mean it should not take sides when the world is confronted by evil.

Historically it did.

The Church could never use force because, Papal States aside, as Stalin said, "How many battalions does the Pope have (and those Papal State armies were pretty pathetic, by the way).

Your approach to Christianity smacks of pietism, which is not really all that admirable a trait, either in individuals or communities. It's a refusal to take responsibility for opposition to the evil that exists in the world, and to do something about it (even if only to denounce it) when it oppresses the weak and innocent.

Stalin's statement was rhetorical, knowing the days of Julius II were long gone. Ultimately his belief in the ability to conquer the spirit, which I think is the true underlying meaning of what he said, was proven wrong.

I was only pointing out the church at one time did use (or did advocate) force, both to protect its own temporal holdings and to suppress what it deemed error. The Albigensian Crusade is a good example.

I believe what the church says tends to ring hollow in terms of pointing out the failings of others, and it is largely the actions of individuals influenced by the message of Christianity that make a difference in line with Matthew 22:21.

So, I will ask you again, should Pius XII have done that which he is accused of doing: remaining silent and passive in the face of Nazi aggression and genocide?

Was John Paul II wrong in actively opposing Communist rule in his native Poland, in the rest of Eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union?

If you think so, make a stringent moral case for remaining above the fray.

No, they were not "wrong" but that is a strawman, nobody suggested that opposing Nazis is or was a wrong thing to do, in a vacuum.

Is it wrong for Putin and elements of the RO Church to be so cozy, for lack of a better term, especially in regards to the church in Ukraine? What's the difference? Stuart agrees with one political stance by the Church and not another? Is that enough of a distinction? Putin might call me a Piestest as well.

Is it counter productive for the Church to "speak out" against Mubarak while not "speaking out" against the nations that have enabled his dictatorship to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in military and economic aid? Where would you draw the line in what the Church does or does not involve itself with in geopolitics?

Is it wrong for Melkites to come out against Israel?

There are many more ambiguous and questionable political stances that arguably do much more harm to the reputation of the Church than there are no-brainers like "Communisim is bad." If the Church is doing its job, such a stance should be redundant anyways.

Action, or what I called "tending to the flock" is apolitical. Helping Jews escape Hitler is a work of Chriatian duty.

That's different than formally choosing sides.

This is why Christ spent his time on Earth in personal ministry rather than the overthrow of a Roman regime that makes Mubarak look like a saint. As He explained to Pilate, His Kingdom (and the Church's) is not an Earthly one.