KOSOVO, THE U. S. BISHOPS,
AND DANTE FASCELL

by

Thomas A. Horkan, Jr.

June 3, 1999

   The war in Kosovo and the scenes and reports of the refugees and ethnic cleansing command our attention today.  Our decision to conduct an air war has brought greater suffering to both the Kosovars and the Serbians, albeit no casualties to our our armed forces. This brings to mind the U. S.  bishops' pastoral letter on war and peace, issued in 1983, at the height of
the cold war.  It also makes me think of Dante Fascell, who died last November.

    The pastoral letter, titled "The Challenge of Peace:  God's Promise and Our Response," was several years in the making. Drafting was done by a committee under the leadership of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, a master at the development of consensus. Earlier drafts were not only submitted to the Vatican for review, the usual practice, but were also reviewed by the military, the administration of President Ronald Reagan and experts in many fields.

    Some Reagan administration officials had expressed strong reservations to the earlier drafts, and to the bishops commenting on the subject of nuclear deterrence.

   The consultations with the administration and with others were open and attracted substantial public attention. The drafts dealt with moral principles and were critical of the nuclear arms race. For the first time, there was public debate about the moral dimensions of defense policy. This made many uncomfortable, but also forced people, including the administration, to think and talk in these concepts. The process was revolutionary.

   The final draft was approved by an overwhelming vote of the bishops at a two-day meeting in Chicago.

   The document was well received in many places, and severely criticized in others.

    Dante Fascell had assumed the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives.  He was a long time congressman from South Dade County and a friend of mine. Father Bryan Hehir, staff director of Cardinal Bernardin's committee, Frank Monahan, director of Governmental Relations at USCC; and I met with Rep. Fascell  at his office concerning it.

   He was enthusiastic about it, and scheduled a presentation of the pastoral before the full committee. Cardinal Bernardin and Cardinal John O'Connor gave a detailed presentation, and responded to positive questioning by Rep. Fascell and some critical questions by the senior minority member, Rep. Henry Hyde, another friend.

   I don't remember high-level public discussion about targeting civilians, the morality of nuclear warfare or deterrence or the right to use force in national defense, before the pastoral, but it has gone on since.

   Many who were originally critical accepted the final statement, and others who were still critical were at least talking about the issues.

   The pastoral pointed out:  "Peace is not just the absence of war.  It involves mutual respect and confidence between peoples and nations. It involves collaboration and binding agreements."
   
   "Christians are aware that plans based on aggression, domination and the manipulation of others lurk in human hearts, and sometimes even secretly nourish human intentions in spite of certain declarations or manifestations of a pacifist nature. For Christians know that in this world a totally and permanently peaceful human society is unfortunately a utopia and ideologies
that hold up that prospect as easily attainable are based on hopes that cannot be realized, whatever the reason behind them" (Quoted from the 1982 World Day of Peace Message of Pope John Paul II).

   The bishops did not offer specific solutions to the problems of 1983, or 1999 but pointed out: "The Catholic tradition on war and peace is a long and complex one, reaching from the Sermon on the Mount to the statements of John Paul II. Its development cannot be sketched in a straight line, and it seldom gives a simple answer to complex questions."

   The pastoral pointed out that governments have a duty, not just a right, to defend their people against an armed, unjust attack It quotes Pope Pius XII as saying that when a people are threatened or are victims of unjust aggression, "the solidarity of the family of nations forbid others to behave as mere spectators, in any attitude of apathetic neutrality . . .  Their defense is even an obligation for nations as a whole, who have a duty not to abandon a nation that is attacked."

   Thus the statement seems to well justify the efforts of NATO and the United States in exercising this duty by intervening.

   The statement usually dealt with attacks on nations, but here, the Kosovar Albanians were certainly a people who were being attacked and terribly abused.

   Binding principles were set forth that civilians and noncombatants must be immune from direct attack, and that proportionality be followed, i.e., that military attacks not disproportionally attack or threaten civilian populations. This is where our government's actions fall short.

   Perhaps the early decision for a two-day air war could be justified.  But its continuation into the third month, with the destruction of electrical, fuel and water supplies for the whole populace of Serbia, and especially Belgrade, seem to me to be indefensible.

   If we want to fight a war, it should be done by armed forces, not by attacking civilians with the hope that their leader will surrender. Our leaders are still insisting on the air war, refusing to either negotiate or send in troops.  Maybe they have some secret plan.  I hope so.