Fr. Pizzaballa: Pope Spoke with Great Clarity to Everyone
by Giuseppe Caffulli | May 20, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI with Custos Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. (Photo: F. Proverbio)
"Controversy was expected. A Pope's visit to Israel cannot fail to arouse strong emotions, but also great expectations - and inevitably great disappointments as well. I think that, calmly, the Israelis will look at the speeches again and will consider the attitudes expressed in a different way, to really understand what was said and what was not said."
Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Custos of the Holy Land, accompanied Benedict XVI to the Holy Land step by step, from its beginning in Jordan on 8th May. After some reflection, he assesses here a visit which can already be defined historic. One of the obsessions of the Israeli papers, from the time the Pope arrived in Tel Aviv, was to measure his words, silences and presumed reluctances to talk about the Shoah and revisionism. "The Israeli papers had their expectations," acknowledges Father Pizzaballa, "but the Pope had another agenda, in continuity with the teachings of his predecessor."
The Pope stressed an indissoluble link with Judaism, he had harsh words for Nazism, which he defined as a "godless regime", and he condemned revisionism. And yet that was not enough.
There have been two thousand years of difficulties between the Church and Judaism which cannot be overcome overnight. They are slow processes, they involve experience and feelings, not only reason. There are still many people here in Israel who have a number on their arm [the number tattooed by the Nazis on the prisoners in the concentration camps]. However, I believe that Israeli public opinion has already begun to have second thoughts. One of the latest editorials in Yedioth Aronoth [one of the most important Israeli newspapers] says exactly this: the Church has already apologised and the Pope has already made himself clear on revisionism. We can't always demand the same things.
The controversies triggered off by the papers include the presumed list of places claimed by the Church...
This is a sectarian controversy, without any foundation. In the first place, there is no request by the Church of sovereignty over any place. There is not even any request of property, because we already own the sanctuaries. There are talks under way, negotiations with the government, which have gone into the question of the Holy Places. The Church wants to give the Holy Places the guarantee that in the future they will not in any way be confiscated or used for other purposes. How this guarantee is to be expressed is the subject of discussion.
Before the Pope's visit, we were expecting that the talks by the bilateral commission on the question of the taxes on the Church's property would be accelerated. But then everything was postponed once again.
An agreement will definitely be reached by the end of the year. Most of the question has already been settled. The delicate point of the Holy Places, as I said, has yet to be settled, but we mustn't be in a hurry. We have waited thirteen years and we mustn't come to a conclusion in a few months with the risk of ruining what we have done so far...
Is the Cenacle included in these negotiations as well?
The Cenacle does indeed come under these negotiations, although I personally would separate this point from the agreements to be made. If you are asking me about the return, I can only answer that it has been given as imminent since 2000, but it is not an easy path. The problem has to be studied carefully, due to the implications that there could be. We still need time.
The Israelis accused the Pope of not having understood the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He understood it very well. It's the Israeli press that finds it hard to understand the Palestinian perspective. The Pope is not an Israeli citizen and cannot stop at the fears or problems of the Israelis. The Pope has to be a spokesman of everyone's requests. This is what the Israelis have not understood.
If you were to attempt to make an assessment of this visit, what would it be?
From the pastoral point of view, it was absolutely positive. The Christian community has to stop it; it can no longer afford to feel sorry for itself, because it heard words that were said loudly and clearly: you are not alone, you are not abandoned. The Pope said it on many occasions, He spoke very clearly, but without closing the door on anyone, showing that it is possible, although being few in number, to meet and speak to everyone. He gave great visibility to the Christian community, which was not to be taken for granted. We have to cherish this experience.
And from the political point of view?
It was a wide-ranging trip, beginning in Jordan. If I have to recall one moment, for me the day in Bethlehem was memorable, because of the meeting with the local community and with President Abu Mazen and the visit to the Aida refugee camp... The Pope was very clear in his messages. I don't think that his words can be misconstrued or his clarity and sincerity fail to be appreciated.
However, the peace process has its time. The Pope's trip has certainly helped to dissolve many fears but very many still remain. It is up to us to carry on along the path that Benedict has laid out. I hope that the Palestinians are able to reflect, without being carried away too much by their emotions and regain their unity to make strong and courageous choices, and that the Israelis recognise the just aspirations of the Palestinians.
Benedict XVI saw the Premier Benjamin Netanyahu in Nazareth. The press reported that the points touched on included the request to obtain visas for priests and men and women of religious orders - said to number 500 - from Arab countries... A question that never seems to find an end.
Honestly, I do not know the details of what was said at that meeting. I myself found out from the papers that there was a refusal on the Israeli side. I think that in this case too we have to be patient. The Israelis and the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Holy Land have very different sensitivities on this point. We have to work together to find a path that protects the possibility of the Church to have the priests that serve her, wherever they come from, without conditions, but on the other hand that takes into account the Israeli point of view.
The Pope had to cross the Wall to reach Bethlehem.
I think that it impacted him very much and he was moved by the experience of crossing the Wall, but also meeting the population in the Aida refugee camp, the children and their faces...
The trip was also characterized by the attention paid to ecumenical and inter-religious aspects...
The dialogue with the Islamic world began in Jordan where a very important part of this trip took place. There were also some very strong moments in that country as well. Here in Israel the two inter-religious meetings gave us the real extent of the state of the dialogue: in Jerusalem we witnessed the difficulty, the prejudices and the political manipulation [reference is to the unscheduled and strongly argumentative speech by the imam al-Tamimi with regard to Israel]. In Nazareth, on the other hand, we saw a sincere desire for encounter. Inter-religious dialogue has these ups and downs.
As far as the relationship with the Churches is concerned, I think that in this trip, the climate of openness and sympathy shown by the two Churches (Greek and Armenian) visited by the Pope was more important than the speeches. It was not all so predictable. It is no mystery that the Orthodox Churches have great sympathy for this Pope. Whenever we have meetings between Churches, they are always the ones to mention the speeches by Benedict XVI, whom they greatly appreciate.
The Pope mentioned St. Francis and Franciscanism on several occasions. He invited everyone to be "instruments of peace".
It was a very pleasant surprise. The reference to St. Francis and to Franciscan life in the Aida camp was a very strong moment. As a Franciscan, I interpreted this as a reference to my responsibility here. We have to become even more aware of the task that the Church has entrusted to us, here in this land. We have a mission to accomplish and a Word to be made known to the people who live here.
One of the characteristics of this visit was the level of co-responsibility between the Catholic Churches of various rites in the organization of the different events. The trip also revealed - and this has to be said in all frankness - the limits and difficulties in the relations between us. We have to draw a lesson from this - and work together to improve.