c. 1999 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.)

ROME _ Sometime soon, perhaps in the next papacy, the Vatican should begin to re-examine the way it relates to nations and the world.

The weakness of the present policy of thoroughgoing”neutrality”in conflicts has revealed itself in the Vatican’s cautious and soft-spoken approach to the war crimes in Kosovo.

The pope works almost every day for peace in the Balkans, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Vals says in response to calls for John Paul II to condemn the atrocities in Kosovo.

Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano has met with the ambassadors to the Vatican from the NATO countries. The pope has sent a letter to the archbishop of Belgrade to pass on to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, and written letters to the patriarch of Moscow and the secretary general of the United Nations. He constantly expresses in public his wish for peace.

But such responses are so inadequate as to be embarrassing.

They do not even begin to address the question of why the pope is silent on the murder, rape, separation of families and expulsion of people from Kosovo. It would appear Navarro-Vals doesn’t get it.

The worst crimes against humanity in Europe since the death of Hitler are occurring right across the Adriatic Sea from Italy and John Paul writes letters and prays for peace. It is the same policy of cautious neutralism Pope Pius XII followed during World War II.

It would almost seem the Vatican’s sense of moral outrage is a prisoner of its traditional foreign policy.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson at least puts himself on the line. He flies to Belgrade, rescues three American prisoners and calls for a bombing halt while the pope writes letters.

Might not the pope fly to Pristina and protect the Kosovar people from genocide? That would gain the attention of the world, that would stop both the bombing and the ethnic cleansing, that would be a moral stance of the highest order _ one that would create admiration and respect all over the world.

For all I know, John Paul might want to do just that. Those around him, however, strongly advise him against acting like a light on the mountaintop. When there is mass murder, we write letters and pray for peace because that’s what we’ve always done.

At least the Vatican could condemn mass rape as a crime against humanity. Given the attitude of many Catholic women all over the world on the church’s insensitivity, is it enough to decry the use of morning-after pills for rape victims?

I do not blame the Vatican for its silence on the crimes against humanity in Kosovo. I am suggesting, rather, that at some point those responsible might stop and ask themselves whether the style of moral leadership to which they are committed might not be appropriate for the world of the TV sound bite, CNN reporters and jet-age diplomacy.

Might silence at the time of moral outrage diminish the power of papal authority far more than would violating its traditional style of neutrality?

The Kosovar refugees are on television every night. Many of them have slipped into Italy. Are not the crimes committed against them such as to cry to heaven for vengeance? How can those who occupy the world’s most influential and prestigious religious leadership position remain silent and persuade themselves that writing letters is an adequate response?

As a social scientist, I can understand how the structures _ the behavior patterns and motivations of the past _ inhibit any other reaction than the pretense that the Vatican is doing everything it can by pleading for peace. I condemn no one. The most I can reasonably expect is change over time.

As a Catholic, however, I am angry and embarrassed.

How can they be silent? What, indeed, would happen if a papal helicopter landed in Pristina?

IR END GREELEY