No Christmas in Bethlehem, Breakthrough in Vatican, and Himalayan Declaration

by Rajan Philips

In Bethlehem where it all began, there is no Christmas this year. Bethlehem is located in Israeli occupied West Bank of Palestine. Palestinian churches have reportedly cancelled Christmas celebrations and some of them have set up nativity scenes showing the symbolic Baby Jesus lying in a manger of rubble destruction. Death and destruction now define life in Gaza less than 100 km to the west, but Palestinians on the West Bank are also subject to unchecked attacks by illegal Jewish settlers and retaliation by the Israeli army against Palestinian protests.

It is all Christmas in the US but in a climate of national political confusion in spite of a robustly performing economy. The confusion about the war in Israel, not to mention the one in Ukraine; the hysteria over antisemitism, with the US Congress declaring opposition to Zionism as antisemitism; the for and against moves centered on Donald Trump; and competing expectations and forebodings for the great election year of 2024.

There will be little Christmas time in Washington for the Biden Administration, which is literally on the horns of its own dilemma of simultaneously supporting and restraining the Israeli government’s devastation of Gaza.

At the last UN General Assembly vote on October 12 when 153 countries called for a ‘humanitarian ceasefire,’ 20 countries abstained, and the US voted against the resolution along with Israel and eight other minions. But the US encouraged its allies (e.g., Australia, Canada and New Zealand, three of the Five Eyes along with the US and the UK) to take up a united position and support the resolution.

At the time of writing (Thursday evening, New York / Friday morning, Colombo), the US is finally trying to give support to a UN Security Council resolution calling for “suspension of hostilities” and “scaled-up humanitarian aid access to Gaza.” Unlike the General Assembly resolutions, Security Council resolutions have legal teeth.

The Security Council vote has been delayed several times at the US’s asking to find acceptable wording to support it and not veto it. If the resolution passes, that would be the first in the current crisis. With Hamas insisting that there will be no more release of hostages until Israel completely stops its attacks on Gaza, the US and its Middle East allies are looking for alternative avenues to bring about a ceasefire, howsoever it might be called.

As Canadian academic and international relations expert Janice Stein observed after the UN General Assembly vote, the US has “significant influence over what comes next … Starting in 1956 the United States has frequently forced Israel both to stop the fighting, accept the ceasefire and at times to pull back.” So, this will not be the first time that the US might use its influence to bring about a ceasefire.

How soon the US will be able to do it this time is the question. Otherwise, there is no immediate end in sight to this conflict even well into the New Year. With Yemen’s Houthis emboldened to attack merchandise ships in the Red Sea, the whole conflict may take a different turn. The other conflict in Ukraine has entered a stalemate favourable to Russia, with fatigue setting in among Ukraine’s sponsors about continuing their material support of the war.

Breakthrough in Vatican

Lost in the din of war is what otherwise would have been an excellent Christmas gift and news. Last Monday, a week before Christmas, Pope Francis, the Jesuit Pope, issued a landmark authorization for priests to administer blessings on same-sex couples but outside the Church’s regular mass or formal rituals. This is a reversal of the Church’s 2021 declaration disallowing such blessings in keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The change is considered as providing a “simple blessing” and not the sacrament of (heterosexual) marriage. Yet, it is a huge step for the Vatican.

The change will have its supporters and decriers, and more so in the US than anywhere else. American Jesuit Father James Martin who works among LGBT communities, has welcomed the change as “a major step forward in the church’s ministry” to them. Many same sex-couples are delighted. The conservatives in the Church are obviously opposed to it. Ulrich L. Lehner, a US theology professor, reflecting his nation’s penchant for culture wars, has called it “an invitation to schism”.

The Vatican breakthrough comes two months after the conclusion of the historic synod that Pope Francis had convened to guide the future of the Catholic Church. For the first time in its history the Church convened an official gathering of 364 members that included non-clerical members of the Church including 54 women. The Pope called for the meeting in 2021 as part of his efforts to reform the church and to bring the superstructure of the Church into alignment with the base of its faithful followers. Preparations over two years included consultations among Catholics around the world. Women’s role in the Church emerged as a central question with almost universal call for opening up opportunities for women to take on decision-making roles in the Church.

After nearly a month of deliberations the Synod issued a Synthesis Report of 41 pages with each paragraph voted separately and receiving over two-thirds majority. The synod process and experience were based on listening and formulating positions rather than receiving top down resolutions. The report covered all the current challenges facing the Church including clerical sexual abuse, women’s roles in the church, outreach to poor and the concept of “synodality” itself.

The report noted that throughout the synod process, “many women expressed deep gratitude for the work of priests and bishops. They also spoke of a Church that wounds. Clericalism, a chauvinist mentality and inappropriate expressions of authority continue to scar the face of the Church and damage its communion.” “A profound spiritual conversion is needed as the foundation for any effective structural change,” it said. “Sexual abuse and the abuse of power and authority continue to cry out for justice, healing and reconciliation.” The same issues will be in focus again when the synod reconvenes in October 2024.

A Himalayan Declaration

Sri Lanka has its problems, a continuation of the economic crisis that began last year, and unprecedented in its own historical parallels. Yet it is fortunate enough to be where it is unlike many of the other world’s troubled spots. And all of a sudden the country received a shot in the arm, so to speak, aimed at addressing its most chronic problem involving the political relationship among its communities. The shot came literally entitled as the Himalayan Declaration, and it became public after it was formally presented by its authors to President Wickremesinghe. More presentations to other notables are reported to be in the offing. But what difference the declaration is going to make is too early to tell.

The grand sounding name Himalayan Declaration is apparently derived from the small town of Nagarkot in Nepal, where the signatories to the declaration gathered and reached their six-point agreement as the basis for yet another initiative to resolve Sri Lanka’s national question. After the experiences of Thimphu, Oslo, and numerous other gatherings and consultations in many parts of the world including many cities in India, one can only wish heavenly blessings for the latest initiative coming down from the Himalayas to finally succeed. Most of us can only wish and watch, but the success of the initiative will ultimately depend on who among Sri Lanka’s current political actors will take over the initiative and cross the finish line.

The signatories to the new initiative portray an interesting coalescence comprising all Buddhist Priests from among the Sinhalese, and all Tamil expatriates living in western countries seemingly acting on behalf of the Tamils.

One would think the involvement of the Buddhist Priests, all of whom appear to be at the higher echelons of the Sangha hierarchy is intended to maximize the declaration’s purchase among the Sinhalese. Conversely, if their presence in the declaration can dampen the usual rabble rousing against such initiatives, that in itself would be a significant contribution.

The expatriate Tamil signatories to the declaration and others who worked on it are not household political names in Sri Lanka or among the Sri Lankan diasporas. But they have been in the business of ethnic politics for all their adult lives, and their intervention at this stage deserves due commendation. Unlike the interlopers who used to pop up during the Rajapaksa and Sirisena years, the present group is obviously not looking for handouts from the government. But that is not going to save them from brickbats that will be flung at them from their far flung compatriots, which seem to have already started.

There is never going to be unanimity among the Tamils on any proposal(s) for reconciliation. That is not in their collective DNA. But if there is substantial support among the Sinhalese for a significant initiative that is also championed by the government in power, then the collective Tamil response will be equally positive. Otherwise, even if the Tamils are unanimous in their support for an initiative it will not go anywhere without sufficient purchase among the Sinhalese. One shortcoming of the initiative is the absence of Muslim and Indian Tamil participants and signatories. Obviously, it could not have been an intended omission, but in ethnic relationships inadvertent omissions can be as damaging as deliberate ones.