Politics

Pope Leo gave the Lebanese what belongs to the Lebanese: recognition of their great resilience. But if we try to read his words on the serious global problem he identified for everyone through Lebanese eyes—let's say Lebanese eyes only, since he addressed these words to the whole world—we would understand that this resilience should be investigated: “A kind of pessimism and sense of powerlessness seem to have taken hold, where people are no longer able to ask themselves what they can do to change the course of history. Major decisions appear to be taken by a select few, often to the detriment of the common good, as if this were an inevitable destiny”. Being in Beirut over the past few weeks, I perceived this resilience, which is private rather than public or communal, as a problem of mistrust in politics. There is an air of disillusionment that leads to withdrawal or adaptation. And this makes foreigners wonder whether it makes sense to stick with a political framework that still refers, at least in large part, to the days of the civil war. In my opinion, for Lebanon to fully return to the message that John Paul II spoke of in 1997, there would need to be reconciliation between the political sphere and the common sentiment of the population. So, once again, I read the Pope's words in Lebanese terms: “There can be no lasting reconciliation without a common goal, or without openness towards a future in which good prevails over the evils that have been suffered or inflicted in the past or the present. A culture of reconciliation, therefore, does not arise only from below, from the willingness and courage of a few. It also needs authorities and institutions that recognize the common good as superior to the particular. The common good is more than the sum of many interests, for it draws together everyone’s goals as closely as possible, directing them in such a way that everyone will have more than if they were to move forward by themselves. Indeed, peace is much more than a mere balance – which is always precarious – among those who live separately while under the same roof. Peace is knowing how to live together, in communion, as reconciled people. A reconciliation that, in addition to enabling us to live together, will teach us to work together for a shared future side by side”. If this was, at least in part, the meaning of his speech, then we could think that his visit to Beirut was not only for Beirut but for the whole of the great or new Levant that I see in the succession of territories that have been tested, often brutally, from the Mediterranean to Mesopotamia. These are territories organized into countries that everyone knows and that have had a painful past, often marked by brutal stories, denials, protectorates, and vicious murders. But as Bishop of Rome, with a Roman education, Leo knows well that some countries here in Europe, one fine day after the Second World War, after fighting each other for centuries, discovered that they were neighbors, then traveling companions, then friends, contributing to the founding of the European Union experiment. Why couldn't Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq attempt the same undertaking? All in all, these are the territories over which various patriarchs of Antioch have jurisdiction. History can turn its pages, if it wants to, and sometimes it does, if it wants to. Of course, the problems are enormous, such as the weight of the past, the pain of wounds that have not yet healed, the still partial recognition, and the logical mistrust. But if the Churches of Antioch, many of which are based in Beirut, were to take on this strategic depth, this perspective, they would reduce the weight of nostalgia, of limited perspectives, of closures, and would become the outgoing Churches that Francis spoke of, or the missionary Church that Leone speaks of. Fears of downsizing also arise from the perspective one takes. If one looks at one's own mountain or valley, downsizing is inevitable. If one broadens one's horizons, if one can imagine wooded expanses and prairies while walking in one's own backyard, downsizing is rejected first and foremost within ourselves. This is where Beirut could once again see itself as the engine of a train made up of different carriages, each with its own history and identity, but linked by a common hook, that of the need to connect with the Mediterranean space, with trade not only in goods but also in ideas. In the streets of Jemmayze or Ashrafyeh, I felt that a Christian presence exists there, and as Europeans I recognize it as such, but it also needs to breathe, to be part of a broader discourse, and your city makes this possible and, above all, understandable to this pope who, like Francis, is attached to the idea of “polar tension.” The poles do not cancel each other out, they complement each other, they need each other. The poles of Beirut are, on the one hand, the mountains so close to you, with their wealth of traditions to be preserved, and on the other, the sea, with its horizons bringing exchange, encounters, and new ideas that are essential for change and growth, together. This in many eyes is the road of the train, the one you could help us to see again. Riccardo Cristiano is a Specialist in Vatican affairs on Italian public radio RAI; author of several works on interreligious dialogue and Pope Francis’s pontificate.

The “Gathering of Lebanese Shia” sent a message to Pope Leo XIV stating that the Lebanese State’s exclusive control of weapons “is the essential foundation for building a strong and just State.” Supporting peace “in accordance with Arab initiatives and international legitimacy,” the Gathering stressed its commitment to “acting exclusively under the authority of the State and the rule of law, and to supporting everything that strengthens its presence.” The “Gathering of Lebanese Shia” brings together academics, journalists, senior professionals, and Shiite citizens known for their sovereigntist stance, fundamentally opposed to Hezbollah’s political project. Below is the full text of the message addressed by the Gathering to the Holy Father. Your Holiness Pope Leo XIV, With reverence and respect, The Gathering of Lebanese Shia is honored to address Your Holiness on the occasion of your blessed visit to Lebanon — a visit we consider a pivotal moment that reflects your constant commitment to promoting a culture of peace, strengthening dialogue among members of the one human family, and standing by nations experiencing delicate conditions such as those our country is enduring today. We, in this Gathering, believe that Lebanon is a final homeland for all its children, and that its strength lies in its state and legitimate institutions, in the consolidation of coexistence, and in adherence to international legitimacy. From this conviction, we place before Your Holiness a clear statement of our steadfast positions: 1. We support the implementation of international resolutions related to Lebanon, in a way that safeguards its sovereignty, strengthens its stability, and restores order to its institutions. 2. We believe that the exclusive possession of arms by the Lebanese State is the essential foundation for building a strong and just state capable of protecting all its citizens without exception. 3. We are committed to working strictly under the authority of the State and the rule of law, and to everything that reinforces its presence, prestige, and unifying role. 4. We support the path of peace in accordance with Arab initiatives and international legitimacy, based on a firm conviction that a just and comprehensive peace is the only route to a stable future for the peoples of the region — in full harmony with the motto of your visit: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Your Holiness, The Shia community in Lebanon takes pride in its historic national role and reaffirms its sincere desire to be an active partner in the state-building project, and in shaping a society rooted in justice, equality, and mutual respect among all citizens. We regard your visit as spiritual and moral support for Lebanon’s path to recovery, and as an encouragement for dialogue — the essence of the Lebanese partnership. We deeply value Your Holiness’s concern for Lebanon, and we ask God to grant your health and strength to continue your noble mission in upholding human dignity and fostering a culture of peace in a world beset by crises. Please accept, Your Holiness, the expression of our highest respect and appreciation. From the Gathering of Lebanese Shiites Jad Al Akhaoui

By treating borders and constitutions as sacred and untouchable, today’s Lebanese politics forget that these tools exist for one purpose: the well-being of the human person — the one Your Holiness came to listen to in their suffering. Most Holy Father, During your visit to Lebanon, a grand national scene will be prepared to show prosperity and joy, where the splendor of religious sites will outshine that of state institutions. But has Your Holiness come to see the life of palaces, or the life of a people worn down by fifty years of conflict, poverty and exodus, with no light on the horizon? Allow us, Holy Father, to share words that you will not hear in official halls. Lebanon is exhausted. No society can survive endless wars and crises by treating only the symptoms without ever diagnosing the cause. There is, undoubtedly, corruption at the national level, and the expansionist ambitions of our neighbors at the regional level. But there is also a structural problem rooted in the very formation of our state. Diversity When Greater Lebanon chose to become, like France, a Jacobin republic, it denied the existence of its ethnic components. Turning away from the Mount Lebanon Constitution of 1864, Greater Lebanon misinterpreted in 1926 the Ottoman term millets (“nations”), translating it as “religious communities.” This removed the cultural dimension and erased the need for a governance model adapted to diversity. From that moment on, the differences among Lebanon’s populations could only be described in terms of religion and ritual practice. Through a centralist Jacobin ideology, the state erased historical identities. Confident that it respected belief and freedom of worship, the Lebanese state made no effort to legally recognize its cultural groups — their history, heritage, and allegiances. These groups, wrongly labeled “sectarian communities,” gradually turned toward foreign protectors in a race to control the central state, where both the national treasury and the definition of national identity are concentrated. Minorities Yet the Church and the international community recognize the right to diversity. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities affirms the right of national, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups to exist, to preserve their identity, culture, and language. These are collective identities that must be protected — not dissolved in the name of false inclusivity. The 1864 Constitution, written by Richard von Metternich and known as the “Organic Regulations,” described Lebanon’s groups as “nations.” Its governance model was based on demographic realities, not imported ideologies. Inspired by this wisdom, Robert de Caix de Saint-Aymour later proposed a federal system adapted to Lebanon’s demography. But once millet had been translated as “religious confession,” the cultural dimension was lost. The Teaching of Leo XIII Federalism, which protects diversity, is rooted in the Church’s principle of subsidiarity, developed in Quadragesimo Anno under Pius XI in 1931. But the first form of subsidiarity had already appeared forty years earlier in Rerum Novarum under Pope Leo XIII, who insisted on the importance of the individual and the family — values that must never be absorbed by the state. Subsidiarity means governance built from the bottom up. This system protects every entity from abuses by higher authorities. It stands in clear contrast to the model of “enhanced administrative decentralization” promoted by the Taif Constitution, which is managed from the top of the state. Coexistence Subsidiarity and federalism do not contradict the values of coexistence. Under John Paul II, the Church warned against misusing the principle: denying subsidiarity in the name of equality or democratization, it said, destroys freedom and initiative. The Church also notes that national borders often do not match ethnic borders, creating minority groups whose rights must be protected. Minorities, it adds, have the right to preserve their culture, language and religious convictions — and may legitimately seek greater autonomy or even independence. Most Holy Father, In a federal model rooted in respect for religious and cultural diversity, the struggle for control of the central government would likely diminish. Subsidiarity would help preserve national unity through flexible structures capable of adapting to regional diversity. It would also reduce the absurd gap between the “legal country” and the “real country.” State structures must be flexible, built for human beings and centered on human dignity. Laws should serve human flourishing, not submission. No authentic solution can place borders and constitutions at the center of its mission. Their sacralization marginalizes real people — their needs, affinities, and identity. Lebanese politics too often forgets that nations and constitutions exist for the well-being of the human person — the one Your Holiness came to hear in their pain. Any search for Lebanon’s future must place this truth at its core. The ultimate goal remains the human being, “autonomous, relational, and open to transcendence,” as the Church teaches.

Pope Leo XIV has chosen Lebanon – baptized by his predecessor, Saint John Paul II, as a “message-country” – for his first apostolic trip outside Italy. Under the theme “Blessed are the peacemakers,” the visit pierces through Lebanon’s war-scarred history like a ray of light. “Blessed are the peacemakers”: four words that set the tone. They leave their mark on the unfolding events and the course of history itself, as well as on the schedule of the visit, which is packed with official and ecumenical meetings, culminating in the solemn Mass to be celebrated along Beirut’s seafront. Yet, one must ask: does Lebanon truly need a communion of peace? Lebanon is a complex society, yet one enriched by its diversity and multi-confessional makeup. For this reason, its social contract – aligned with the Lebanese model and ensuring national unity – rests on a key principle: neutrality, enshrined in international law. It is an essential condition for preventing the polarizations that divide Lebanese society. In its positive sense, neutrality is not a retreat into isolation. On the contrary, it requires active engagement in regional and international affairs, while remaining free from political alignments and partisanship. It allows, for example, the pursuit of independent economic policies and the strengthening of preventive diplomacy, thereby separating the country’s religious communities from regional and international power axes. Hezbollah’s case stands in stark contrast to the structure and specificities of Lebanese society. The group has monopolized “resistance,” framing it as an Islamic resistance linked to Iran and the export of the Islamic Republic’s revolution. It has pulled Lebanese Shiites away from their communities and their country, subordinating them to the cross-border influence of the Wilayat al-Faqih. Hezbollah has drawn both Shiites and other Lebanese into a perpetual war, without clear objectives or prospects. Resist for the sake of resistance! Arming only to defend the arms! Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, yet Hezbollah’s arsenal remained a symbol of subordination to Iranian influence and its regional agenda. The group has fought in Syria and Yemen and has threatened Arab security, including in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt. Ultimately, its policies have left Lebanon trapped in a deadly isolation. After the liberation, Hezbollah was responsible for a return of occupation, and following reconstruction, for a return of destruction in South Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, as well as in Beirut and its southern suburbs. However, major shifts have occurred in the regional geopolitical landscape following Hamas’s military operation, “Al-Aqsa Flood,” against Israel. Tel Aviv’s response weakened the role of Iran’s proxies and, with the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, curtailed the influence of the Wilayat al-Faqih, which had extended to the Syrian coast. Hezbollah suffered a military defeat after opening the southern front to support Hamas, as part of Iran’s so-called “unity of fronts” project. All of these events have brought Lebanon to a moment of truth. And the truth is that, for Lebanese society as a whole, Hezbollah’s misfortunes represent opportunities for the state to reclaim what it had lost due to the group’s actions. Restoring the state’s role in defense, security, the economy, and social development, however, depends on conditions set by Lebanon’s neutrality project and the pursuit of peace with all its neighbors. The Pope’s visit thus comes at a pivotal moment, offering an act of peace grounded in Christian values at their most noble and humanist, for the benefit of every individual. It arrivers on the threshold of a new phase, within a regional and international context favorable to Lebanon, this “message-country.” It should be emphasized that the hoped-for peace poses no threat to Lebanon’s national identity or its security. On the contrary, its establishment helps reduce violations of the law and legal norms. In a multi-confessional country like Lebanon, the common identity that underpins the unity of the people is a composite one, built not on a single or dominant culture, but on ongoing intercultural dialogue and a shared commitment to coexistence. This commitment alone is enough to bring such an identity to life. Coexistence does not mean imposing one way of life on another community, nor attempting to shape individuals according to a single model. Peace also promotes the development of a national security diplomacy. This allows for the strengthening of legitimate security institutions – namely the army, security forces, and the police. Militias and parallel security systems can no longer coexist with the state or circumvent its exclusive right to monopolize arms. However, a national security strategy is not limited to the role and function of weapons alone: Lebanon cannot be protected by arms alone. Lebanon, this “message-country,” is not Sparta, and the communities that compose it – including the Shiite community – are not made up solely of soldiers, fighters, and martyrs! Peace, grounded in national security considerations, requires the development of the economy as an essential component of a comprehensive security system, ensuring internal stability, civil peace, and national unity through equitable development. The political system must strengthen the concept of citizenship rather than obstruct it or rise against it under the pretext of sectarian dominance. National security diplomacy also entails reinforcing all of Lebanon’s international relations, not just those with its neighbors. It calls for the restoration of ties severed with its regional and global environment through a policy that safeguards the country’s highest national interests. How can peace automatically strengthen the mechanisms of the rule of law and judicial independence? In this long-awaited period of peace, the transfer and stockpiling of weapons are no longer necessary, nor are the pretexts used to justify ideological mobilization and the parallel economy, which leads to sanctions. The survival of Lebanon, this “message-country,” depends on the project of national neutrality and the embrace of peace. The Pope is therefore warmly welcomed, along with his message: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Let the Lebanese Parliament adopt Lebanon’s neutrality and enshrine it in the preamble of the Constitution, while working to have this principle recognized internationally. Let Lebanon engage in peace negotiations with Israel, in pursuit of national interest, the country’s security, and… its vocation, which gives meaning to its very existence.

What a source of concern—and even of irritation—for Roman authorities, these Eastern Catholics do indeed generate! Had they vanished from the Levant, diplomatic relations between Rome and the Muslim countries of the Eastern Mediterranean would have been far smoother. That being said , things were never simple for Vatican diplomacy, on dealing deal with the Maronite community. Very early on, the Maronites asserted themselves politically as an autonomous entity rooted in a mountain stronghold, and what is more they never hesitated in insisting upon their distinctiveness. This set them apart from the other Christian communities of Syria and Iraq, which had long submitted to the rule of the majority and produced, for the most part, quiet individuals and compliant citizens. No genuflection A source of irritation, yes—but also of a source of pride for Rome. Listen to what Pope Pius IV wrote in September 1562 to the Maronite Patriarch Musa Saadeh al-Akkari: “From the bottom of our heart, we congratulate you and your nation, giving thanks to divine mercy, which has preserved in these distant lands so many thousands of men ‘who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’” (1) This passage, written some five centuries ago, remains strikingly relevant today: neither the Maronites nor their patriarch bowed before the Baal of Damascus—whether Hafez al-Assad or his son Bashar (2). Yet this defiance carried a heavy price. These Eastern Catholics endured, for decades, the blows of the Syrian occupation army and its intelligence services. How much longer will Lebanese Christians—of all denominations—be able to preserve their project of national independence and cultural liberalism, they who, long before their Muslim compatriots, had enrolled in the “school of the West”? A shrinking presence If Pope Leo XIV is visiting his flock in Turkey and Lebanon as a shepherd, then he should be reminded that, on the eve of the First World War, 20% of the population of Asia Minor and Bilad al-Sham was Christian. Today, there are no more than 100,000 left in the Republic of Turkey—less than 0.5% of the population. In Syria, the followers of Jesus, the qawm ‘Issa , who numbered two million before the civil war, are now down to about 500,000 souls. And in Iraq, they barely reach 300,000, whereas they were 1.5 million before the American invasion (3). As for Lebanon—well, counting stopped the day Hariri declared it would stop. Who is to be the rescuer? Christians of the East, you are living under siege in what has become nothing more than the backyard of Christianity. Who today could still wear the obsidional crown, and from where could deliverance come, when in Turkey you were crushed, and in Syria and Iraq slowly eaten away? In 1994, Jean-Pierre Valognes asked the question: “Will there still be Christians in the East in the third millennium?” He added: “Without the foothold that Lebanon represented—where they once walked with their heads held high—they will be forced to conform to the dominant values and, merely to survive, cease to assume their Christian identity.” (4) Walking with one’s head held high means preserving one’s human dignity and freeing oneself from religious or political servitude. And whatever certain Curia diplomats may think—those enamored with interreligious dialogue and intellectual contortions—walking with dignity does not mean bending the knee before Baal, whether he sits in Damascus or in Tehran. 1-I owe this citation to Professor Mireille Issa, author of Bullarium Maronitarum. Bullaire Maronite , Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2019, pp. 102-107. 2-To the exception of certain individuals and for short periods of time. 3- These are but rough figures! 4-Jean-Pierre Valognes, Vie et mort des chrétiens d’Orient , Fayard, 1994.