Yesterday concluded in the sacred monastery of St. Francis in Assisi, the Triduum of prayer and reflection on the occasion of the 28th anniversary of the Interreligious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, established in 1986 by John Paul II. The event (promoted by the Diocese of Assisi, the city council and the Franciscan family, along with thirty other entities including the monastic community of Bose) brought together Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives and leaders. Yesterday, in an afternoon buffeted by an icy wind, the Custos of the Holy Land, Father Pizzaballa, took the floor in a moment of reflection. In the novice garden cloister, next to the great basilica, father Custos reflected on the event convened by Pope Francis in the Vatican gardens with Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas last June 8. The speech focused mainly on the papal visit to the Holy Land in May, from two points of view: the ecumenical level and the one related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prayer is the key to understand this problem.
In an enthusiastic speech worth to be entirely read (click here to view the PDF version in Italian), Pizzaballa stressed that regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Pope has not made any “political discourse. He has not said almost anything concerning this issue. He has not added a proposal of resolution to the useless thousands. He has only wanted to carry his word of solidarity and above all his prayer, inviting everyone to join him without showing any judgment. He has invited us to pray the Lord so He could give the strength to bring peace to those who have power. Nothing more”
Thus, “The Pope has brought his speech to a completely different level. He neutralized the hopes and fears of politics and invited men to broaden their perspectives so they could see everybody from a different and maybe new point of view. He wanted to be present with his humanity without doing any judgment, condemnation, indication and without trying to give any lesson. Consequently he has almost completely eliminated any mutual rejection.
An unarmed and spiritual approach led to something new especially in the ecumenical field. The pilgrimage of Francis and of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a novelty because the embrace between the two successors of Paul VI and Athenagoras was not carried out in the periphery like fifty years ago, but in “the heart of the Christian Jerusalem: the Holy Sepulchre.”
The uniqueness of this situation has not been fully understood, but according to the Custos “…at that moment a stronghold collapsed. One of the greatest buttresses holding the dividing wall between the two Churches felt down. Beyond this touching and strong moment, the preparation of such meeting was very important. This preparation was arranged exclusively in Jerusalem and by the local churches. Therefore, this was not a foreign event hosted by the local churches, but a moment of prayer organized, prepared and desired by the local churches which have joined their pastors.”
“Months of discussion on the smallest and even minor details, on what to do and where, about responsibility, about history, about the division of responsibilities, presences, invitations [...]. After initial difficulties due to the nature of the event, gradually and unconsciously we have found ourselves preparing the liturgy together, as is done in every ecclesiastic sphere: biblical texts, songs, gestures and others. A banality if you will, but with an extraordinary value of novelty and renovation since it was carried out for the first time in centuries. Only after, we realized that we have worked for months to prepare a simple liturgy when normally our ordinary concern in Jerusalem is to mark the distinctions between us. We have done the opposite of what we do every day, and we have found a new way. In our “monthly meetings” we usually discuss how to preserve the inherent rights of each other. At that meeting, our main concern was how to share responsibilities. That was an important novelty.”
Notwithstanding, tensions came up and Fr. Pierbattista did not hide them: “I must say that it has not been easy and that the past is not totally forgotten. There were squabbles, difficulties and even the impulse to give up. There were pointless discussions as well as strong oppositions to the initiative. It would be naive to think that it could be otherwise. The circumstance that increased tension was the impossibility to have more involvement of other churches. The disappointment of some communities unable to participate in such a meeting was strong. I think this is also noteworthy. Disappointment came when the desire of visibility was denied. We must recognize it. But we must say that there was a genuine desire of all to be part of this new and extraordinary embrace, to be part of this historic moment.”
The invitation of Pope Francis to the Palestinian and Israeli presidents to pray together for peace also disorientated many. “Time restrictions, technical difficulties and strong local constraints made impossible to carry out this proposal in Jerusalem. But the proposal did not fall on deaf ears. The public invitation was followed by the positive public response of the two presidents, who accepted the invitation going beyond the shortcomings of motion, forcing their teams to solve their difficulties and show their availability to the initiative. Thus, it was decided to arrange this meeting by changing each one the agenda in order to prioritize it. And if in Jerusalem was still difficult because, as abovementioned, the constraints linked to political and religious tensions were too many, Rome would be the place to perform the prayer. So, it will not only be with the Pope but also in his home. This is impossible to refuse. Once again, politicians and politics were taken out of their arena and out of their own house as well.”
The election of time was providential. Initially- reveals Fr. Pierbattista, to whom the Pope himself involved in the organization of the meeting in Rome- “the common thought was that such a moment would take place in the coming months. We were told, however, that it had to be done quickly, in a few days.” Considering what happened a few months after, during the summer, it is evident that “if we had not taken advantage of that moment of grace linked to the peregrination to the Holy Land, probably it would not have been possible to celebrate that moment and we would still without any sign of possible peace between the two peoples, but only with the wounds of war.”
“Same as the meeting in the Holy Sepulchre, the determination of the two presidents to participate in the prayer, forced their teams to align and set in the background their interests, agendas and goals. They were compelled to adapt oneself to the other, to re-read their own texts to find consensus with the other and vice versa. Not only the event itself was important, but also its preparation. It is clear that when there is a strong motivation it is possible to overcome all kinds of obstacles”, says the Custos of the Holy Land.
According to the Minor Friar “…much has been said about the fruits of the meeting. Or rather, much has been said about the “failure”, because almost immediately after outrageous violence broke out (…). Do not approach the prayer with consumerist mentality that does not produce any result, and never immediately. The prayer brings a disposition, a condition and a relation. The prayer does not produce but generates. It does not replace the work of man but illuminates it. It does not exonerate you from following the path but points it out. In this regard, the meeting in Rome was and remains a powerful, strong and binding sign. It is a reference to bear in mind, an image that provides hope to those who do not resign to the sad reality of our times. Nobody really thought –and this was clearly said- that peace would arrive immediately. Peace is a long term project that can only be built if we are together. Indeed, the power of Satan which generates division could not remain inert. But we know that this will end one day and we need a sign that leads us to the common desire of peace, to find the way to be together in a different way, to recognize ourselves.”
From the perspective of Pierbattista “the interpretations and political analyzes that have been done after the visit and after the event in Rome are irreconcilable with the gestures of Pope Francis, his personality, the essence of his teaching, with his simplicity that is an expression of honesty. I think they do not reflect the due respect for the figure of the Pope, regardless the figure of Francis, the Pope that came from the other side of the globe. The Pope is a religious person and his speech should go wherever we cannot pretend to ourselves. If we do not start from this point, we invalidate our expectations, our judgments, the balance itself of the meeting and the visit to the Holy Land, a place that suffers from the superficial analysis and is wounded by biased prejudices. We forget that this is a land of salvation, the Land of God. These interpretations are also unfair to many Palestinians and Israelis, religious and secular, who work every day against the current wanting to struggle to love each other. Therefore, I like the high-flying of the Pope: his embrace to all the faiths of the Holy Land expressed in the hug to his two friends; the fact that he gathered in his heart Israelis and Palestinians, mainly addressing the man; to put the poor in the first place, highlighting the diverse needs of these people. Pope Francis wanted to fly higher, away from the daily shackles, to get into the heart of everyday life with motivations that make it worth living and to discover a new way far from the insurmountable tangle of obstacles. Fly higher is not to hide the problems, but to get rid of fear: it is to dare to accept the challenge and to trust in the future.”
Father Custos concluded that the “spirit of Assisi has not exhausted his vocation. The day of prayer in Rome was not useless. Many people in the world, including the Holy Land, need a sign, an incentive to keep looking to their eyes, to raise their look to the only Father of all and recognize each others as brothers. It may seem like a dream to say this now. However, it is the most authentic thing, the most beautiful reality of the Holy Land and the meeting in Rome is the most powerful, indelible and comforting of its signs.”
Giampiero Sandionigi, Terrasanta.net
In an enthusiastic speech worth to be entirely read (click here to view the PDF version in Italian), Pizzaballa stressed that regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Pope has not made any “political discourse. He has not said almost anything concerning this issue. He has not added a proposal of resolution to the useless thousands. He has only wanted to carry his word of solidarity and above all his prayer, inviting everyone to join him without showing any judgment. He has invited us to pray the Lord so He could give the strength to bring peace to those who have power. Nothing more”
Thus, “The Pope has brought his speech to a completely different level. He neutralized the hopes and fears of politics and invited men to broaden their perspectives so they could see everybody from a different and maybe new point of view. He wanted to be present with his humanity without doing any judgment, condemnation, indication and without trying to give any lesson. Consequently he has almost completely eliminated any mutual rejection.
An unarmed and spiritual approach led to something new especially in the ecumenical field. The pilgrimage of Francis and of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a novelty because the embrace between the two successors of Paul VI and Athenagoras was not carried out in the periphery like fifty years ago, but in “the heart of the Christian Jerusalem: the Holy Sepulchre.”
The uniqueness of this situation has not been fully understood, but according to the Custos “…at that moment a stronghold collapsed. One of the greatest buttresses holding the dividing wall between the two Churches felt down. Beyond this touching and strong moment, the preparation of such meeting was very important. This preparation was arranged exclusively in Jerusalem and by the local churches. Therefore, this was not a foreign event hosted by the local churches, but a moment of prayer organized, prepared and desired by the local churches which have joined their pastors.”
“Months of discussion on the smallest and even minor details, on what to do and where, about responsibility, about history, about the division of responsibilities, presences, invitations [...]. After initial difficulties due to the nature of the event, gradually and unconsciously we have found ourselves preparing the liturgy together, as is done in every ecclesiastic sphere: biblical texts, songs, gestures and others. A banality if you will, but with an extraordinary value of novelty and renovation since it was carried out for the first time in centuries. Only after, we realized that we have worked for months to prepare a simple liturgy when normally our ordinary concern in Jerusalem is to mark the distinctions between us. We have done the opposite of what we do every day, and we have found a new way. In our “monthly meetings” we usually discuss how to preserve the inherent rights of each other. At that meeting, our main concern was how to share responsibilities. That was an important novelty.”
Notwithstanding, tensions came up and Fr. Pierbattista did not hide them: “I must say that it has not been easy and that the past is not totally forgotten. There were squabbles, difficulties and even the impulse to give up. There were pointless discussions as well as strong oppositions to the initiative. It would be naive to think that it could be otherwise. The circumstance that increased tension was the impossibility to have more involvement of other churches. The disappointment of some communities unable to participate in such a meeting was strong. I think this is also noteworthy. Disappointment came when the desire of visibility was denied. We must recognize it. But we must say that there was a genuine desire of all to be part of this new and extraordinary embrace, to be part of this historic moment.”
The invitation of Pope Francis to the Palestinian and Israeli presidents to pray together for peace also disorientated many. “Time restrictions, technical difficulties and strong local constraints made impossible to carry out this proposal in Jerusalem. But the proposal did not fall on deaf ears. The public invitation was followed by the positive public response of the two presidents, who accepted the invitation going beyond the shortcomings of motion, forcing their teams to solve their difficulties and show their availability to the initiative. Thus, it was decided to arrange this meeting by changing each one the agenda in order to prioritize it. And if in Jerusalem was still difficult because, as abovementioned, the constraints linked to political and religious tensions were too many, Rome would be the place to perform the prayer. So, it will not only be with the Pope but also in his home. This is impossible to refuse. Once again, politicians and politics were taken out of their arena and out of their own house as well.”
The election of time was providential. Initially- reveals Fr. Pierbattista, to whom the Pope himself involved in the organization of the meeting in Rome- “the common thought was that such a moment would take place in the coming months. We were told, however, that it had to be done quickly, in a few days.” Considering what happened a few months after, during the summer, it is evident that “if we had not taken advantage of that moment of grace linked to the peregrination to the Holy Land, probably it would not have been possible to celebrate that moment and we would still without any sign of possible peace between the two peoples, but only with the wounds of war.”
“Same as the meeting in the Holy Sepulchre, the determination of the two presidents to participate in the prayer, forced their teams to align and set in the background their interests, agendas and goals. They were compelled to adapt oneself to the other, to re-read their own texts to find consensus with the other and vice versa. Not only the event itself was important, but also its preparation. It is clear that when there is a strong motivation it is possible to overcome all kinds of obstacles”, says the Custos of the Holy Land.
According to the Minor Friar “…much has been said about the fruits of the meeting. Or rather, much has been said about the “failure”, because almost immediately after outrageous violence broke out (…). Do not approach the prayer with consumerist mentality that does not produce any result, and never immediately. The prayer brings a disposition, a condition and a relation. The prayer does not produce but generates. It does not replace the work of man but illuminates it. It does not exonerate you from following the path but points it out. In this regard, the meeting in Rome was and remains a powerful, strong and binding sign. It is a reference to bear in mind, an image that provides hope to those who do not resign to the sad reality of our times. Nobody really thought –and this was clearly said- that peace would arrive immediately. Peace is a long term project that can only be built if we are together. Indeed, the power of Satan which generates division could not remain inert. But we know that this will end one day and we need a sign that leads us to the common desire of peace, to find the way to be together in a different way, to recognize ourselves.”
From the perspective of Pierbattista “the interpretations and political analyzes that have been done after the visit and after the event in Rome are irreconcilable with the gestures of Pope Francis, his personality, the essence of his teaching, with his simplicity that is an expression of honesty. I think they do not reflect the due respect for the figure of the Pope, regardless the figure of Francis, the Pope that came from the other side of the globe. The Pope is a religious person and his speech should go wherever we cannot pretend to ourselves. If we do not start from this point, we invalidate our expectations, our judgments, the balance itself of the meeting and the visit to the Holy Land, a place that suffers from the superficial analysis and is wounded by biased prejudices. We forget that this is a land of salvation, the Land of God. These interpretations are also unfair to many Palestinians and Israelis, religious and secular, who work every day against the current wanting to struggle to love each other. Therefore, I like the high-flying of the Pope: his embrace to all the faiths of the Holy Land expressed in the hug to his two friends; the fact that he gathered in his heart Israelis and Palestinians, mainly addressing the man; to put the poor in the first place, highlighting the diverse needs of these people. Pope Francis wanted to fly higher, away from the daily shackles, to get into the heart of everyday life with motivations that make it worth living and to discover a new way far from the insurmountable tangle of obstacles. Fly higher is not to hide the problems, but to get rid of fear: it is to dare to accept the challenge and to trust in the future.”
Father Custos concluded that the “spirit of Assisi has not exhausted his vocation. The day of prayer in Rome was not useless. Many people in the world, including the Holy Land, need a sign, an incentive to keep looking to their eyes, to raise their look to the only Father of all and recognize each others as brothers. It may seem like a dream to say this now. However, it is the most authentic thing, the most beautiful reality of the Holy Land and the meeting in Rome is the most powerful, indelible and comforting of its signs.”
Giampiero Sandionigi, Terrasanta.net