THE virtual end of the pre-emptive war against Iraq does not signal the end of the casualties.
In fact it is likely that in the long term history will show that the most significant casualties were the Christian Churches rather than Iraqi soldiers and civilians and the few Americans who were killed, mostly by each other.
It is inevitable that civilian casualties will continue to occur far into the future. Iraq was still suffering “collateral damage” from the previous war, particularly from the residual effects of depleted uranium ammunition used by the US, when this war began. It is reliably estimated that in some areas up to 50 per cent of babies were either stillborn or born with gross deformities as the direct result of radiation.
However, it is within the Christian Churches, and particularly the Catholic Church which, because of its insistence on its right to tenure of the high moral ground, where the real long-term effects will be seen.
Since Vatican II perhaps the greatest problem the Church has found itself contending with has been the increasing drift from its ranks of young people.
One result of this is, of course, the current lack of recruits to the priesthood.
And the Iraqi war, for all its horror, provided an unequalled opportunity to reverse that trend. It was an opportunity the Church failed to grasp and the future damage resulting from that failure is incalculable.
Reports coming out of the Vatican indicate that far from being united against the US-led attack on Iraq in defiance of the United Nations, the Church hierarchy was and is deeply divided, with opinions ranging from extreme disapproval to outright support of the incursion.
This division is mirrored among Australian bishops with support for a nuclear attack “in certain circumstances” on the one hand and condemnation of the attack on the other.
Catholic Church action in response to the attack, which at best was simply an attempt to conquer evil with an even greater evil and at worst an act of outright terrorism, seems to have consisted mainly of appeals for prayer (and certainly prayer was needed) and diplomacy.
It was action that fell far short of what was required as far as most young people were concerned.
The essence of diplomacy is compromise and Jesus, to whom young people are initially attracted more than to the Church, wasn’t much inclined to compromise. If he had been he might well have lived a lot longer than he did.
Young people seek real leaders. And as Jesus explained to his friends on more than one occasion, real leaders need first of all to be servants. Men who are often referred to as princes of the Church are unlikely to be seen by young people in that light and are not generally seen as leaders either. Nor does it help that they talk a great deal about diplomatic efforts.
It matters little whether these efforts are genuine attempts to prevent war; they are seen as weak and ineffectual attempts to compromise and the suspicion remains that they are mainly directed at maintaining the Church’s standing in the world.
Many, perhaps most, young people are clear-eyed enough to see through the propaganda which takes the place of truth in the lead up to a war.
They know that what St James taught 2000 years ago is still true today. “What causes war and what causes fighting amongst you? … You desire and do not have so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and wage war.”
They know that ultimately wars are fought for power and are therefore evil, so they want more than diplomatic niceties, they want a firm, uncompromising and united stand against that evil regardless of the cost. They want to see the money-changers and the traders driven out of the temple again and they will not settle for less.
And if such a stand results in a Church that suffers poverty and persecution, well, that is the sort of Church that Jesus founded and people will flock to it as they did in the first days and the prayer of Pope John XXIII for a new Pentecost will at last be answered.
CLYDE COOK
Yungaburra, Qld
