The constant newsfeed on mass and social media makes us vicarious victims of terror. Swamped by a spate of news-borne violence, I recently reached for a lifeline from a buoyant era of the Catholic Church: a document titled “Joy and Hope.”
“Gaudium et Spes” (GS) was issued by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council a day before it concluded 50 years ago on Dec. 8, 1965. Also titled “Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World,” it signified the Church’s embrace of a modernity once regarded with hostility. GS recognized some modern developments as sources of joy and hope: growing prosperity, growing awareness of human rights, a growing sense of global solidarity.
But GS also saw persistent poverty and inequality, suppression of religious freedom and other human rights by state-sponsored atheism, escalating conflict and “the peril of a war which would reduce everything to ashes.”
Our situation differs from GS’ 1965 reading in one vivid respect: religious freedom, human rights and peace are threatened today not mainly by atheist communism, but by violent religious movements. These may not have the 1960s Cold War states’ nuclear capacity to “reduce everything to ashes.” But they have the capacity to disrupt and destroy vast numbers of lives.
While some of these movements claim to be Islamic, Islam is not the problem, nor is religion. The problem is a variety of Islam—or any religion—that abides no dissent, regulates every aspect of human behavior and society, and terrorizes and kills to secure hegemony and universal adherence. Followers of such movements are more obdurate opponents than the personnel of Cold War states, who could be reached by appeals to institutional and individual self-interest. It is harder to bargain with warriors of God who have no stable institutions to preserve, and who consider self-immolation in the war upon the infidel a sacred act with rewards in the afterlife.
Against such religious totalitarianism, what can we do? GS did not foresee that religions would threaten world peace, but it may offer some guidelines.
GS rejects purely military solutions which escalate conflict. Military action may be necessary against adversaries impermeable to dialogue—take the Islamic State (IS), the movement behind the Paris attacks. But IS is partly the product of an invasion, now considered unjustified, which destabilized Iraq and radicalized many Muslims. Filipinos who urge “all-out war” against Muslim rebels in Mindanao make excellent recruiters for IS.
GS prefers to avert violence by sowing seeds of peace. One seed is justice based on human dignity. This includes correcting historical disempowerment and creating structures for social, political and economic inclusion: For instance, a law allowing Filipino Muslims self-determination and incorporating them politically without erasing their religious and cultural identities.
Justice means that defensive measures must not lead to further exclusion. Stricter border regulations against Muslims and other forms of religious profiling unjustly punish an entire religion for the actions of individuals and, like military solutions, provoke anger.
We can influence such policy-level action by joining social media campaigns, voting for pro-peace politicians, and lobbying legislators. We can also support interreligious collaboration and make friends across religious lines. Such collaboration is an exercise in “the studied practice of brotherhood” and sisterhood that GS deems “absolutely necessary for the establishment of peace.” That is the second seed: “Peace is likewise the fruit of love, which goes beyond what justice can provide.”
The 31-year-old Silsilah Dialogue Movement runs peace-building programs for Muslims and Christians at Harmony Village in Zamboanga. The Bishops-Ulama Conference has forged cooperation on the Mindanao peace process among Christian and Muslim religious leaders for more than 20 years. Since 1994 it has sponsored a yearly festival across Mindanao, the Mindanao Week of Peace. Peace Advocates Zamboanga (PAZ) unites Muslims and Christians in peace campaigns. The Zamboanga-Basilan Integrated Development Alliance (Zabida) builds integrated Muslim-Christian neighborhoods. Notre Dame University in Cotabato, run by the Catholic Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, has a student population that is 60-percent Muslim. Its Institute for Autonomy in Governance helped craft and critique proposals for Muslim self-rule. Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, a secular organization run by Catholics, also works with Muslims to lobby for autonomy. Muslim and Christian women have for two decades formed friendships and political alliances in a feminist organization, Pilipina.
Such collaboration is also an exercise in hope. Dr. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta of the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies broaches one reason why Indonesia is not a fertile recruiting ground for IS: “Many Muslims in Indonesia have hope. Violence and death is not an attractive life plan, if you have hope.” That is the third seed, implicit in GS’ title—to grow peace, sow hope.
Hope comes from efforts to improve the life prospects of the marginalized, and to cultivate its inner sources—trust in a loving God, or trust in humanity’s basic goodness. Hope may also come from the very act of peace-making. Victims of terror, primary or vicarious, can drown in hopelessness. Small actions for peace throw out a lifeline. So it also works the other way: to grow hope, sow peace.
Hope in a time of terror
The constant newsfeed on mass and social media makes us vicarious victims of terror. Swamped by a spate of news-borne violence, I recently reached for a lifeline from a buoyant era of the Catholic Church: a document titled “Joy and Hope.”
“Gaudium et Spes” (GS) was issued by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council a day before it concluded 50 years ago on Dec. 8, 1965. Also titled “Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World,” it signified the Church’s embrace of a modernity once regarded with hostility. GS recognized some modern developments as sources of joy and hope: growing prosperity, growing awareness of human rights, a growing sense of global solidarity.
But GS also saw persistent poverty and inequality, suppression of religious freedom and other human rights by state-sponsored atheism, escalating conflict and “the peril of a war which would reduce everything to ashes.”
Our situation differs from GS’ 1965 reading in one vivid respect: religious freedom, human rights and peace are threatened today not mainly by atheist communism, but by violent religious movements. These may not have the 1960s Cold War states’ nuclear capacity to “reduce everything to ashes.” But they have the capacity to disrupt and destroy vast numbers of lives.
While some of these movements claim to be Islamic, Islam is not the problem, nor is religion. The problem is a variety of Islam—or any religion—that abides no dissent, regulates every aspect of human behavior and society, and terrorizes and kills to secure hegemony and universal adherence. Followers of such movements are more obdurate opponents than the personnel of Cold War states, who could be reached by appeals to institutional and individual self-interest. It is harder to bargain with warriors of God who have no stable institutions to preserve, and who consider self-immolation in the war upon the infidel a sacred act with rewards in the afterlife.
Against such religious totalitarianism, what can we do? GS did not foresee that religions would threaten world peace, but it may offer some guidelines.
GS rejects purely military solutions which escalate conflict. Military action may be necessary against adversaries impermeable to dialogue—take the Islamic State (IS), the movement behind the Paris attacks. But IS is partly the product of an invasion, now considered unjustified, which destabilized Iraq and radicalized many Muslims. Filipinos who urge “all-out war” against Muslim rebels in Mindanao make excellent recruiters for IS.
GS prefers to avert violence by sowing seeds of peace. One seed is justice based on human dignity. This includes correcting historical disempowerment and creating structures for social, political and economic inclusion: For instance, a law allowing Filipino Muslims self-determination and incorporating them politically without erasing their religious and cultural identities.
Justice means that defensive measures must not lead to further exclusion. Stricter border regulations against Muslims and other forms of religious profiling unjustly punish an entire religion for the actions of individuals and, like military solutions, provoke anger.
We can influence such policy-level action by joining social media campaigns, voting for pro-peace politicians, and lobbying legislators. We can also support interreligious collaboration and make friends across religious lines. Such collaboration is an exercise in “the studied practice of brotherhood” and sisterhood that GS deems “absolutely necessary for the establishment of peace.” That is the second seed: “Peace is likewise the fruit of love, which goes beyond what justice can provide.”
The 31-year-old Silsilah Dialogue Movement runs peace-building programs for Muslims and Christians at Harmony Village in Zamboanga. The Bishops-Ulama Conference has forged cooperation on the Mindanao peace process among Christian and Muslim religious leaders for more than 20 years. Since 1994 it has sponsored a yearly festival across Mindanao, the Mindanao Week of Peace. Peace Advocates Zamboanga (PAZ) unites Muslims and Christians in peace campaigns. The Zamboanga-Basilan Integrated Development Alliance (Zabida) builds integrated Muslim-Christian neighborhoods. Notre Dame University in Cotabato, run by the Catholic Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, has a student population that is 60-percent Muslim. Its Institute for Autonomy in Governance helped craft and critique proposals for Muslim self-rule. Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, a secular organization run by Catholics, also works with Muslims to lobby for autonomy. Muslim and Christian women have for two decades formed friendships and political alliances in a feminist organization, Pilipina.
Such collaboration is also an exercise in hope. Dr. Bernard Adeney-Risakotta of the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies broaches one reason why Indonesia is not a fertile recruiting ground for IS: “Many Muslims in Indonesia have hope. Violence and death is not an attractive life plan, if you have hope.” That is the third seed, implicit in GS’ title—to grow peace, sow hope.
Hope comes from efforts to improve the life prospects of the marginalized, and to cultivate its inner sources—trust in a loving God, or trust in humanity’s basic goodness. Hope may also come from the very act of peace-making. Victims of terror, primary or vicarious, can drown in hopelessness. Small actions for peace throw out a lifeline. So it also works the other way: to grow hope, sow peace.
Published in Commentary