Twenty-five years have passed since September 11, 2001, the tragic attack on the Twin Towers in New York, which in some ways redefined our perception of the international landscape. Redefined, because the attack on the heart of the United States didn’t come out of nowhere. Islamist terrorism was increasingly present, having become incredibly tangible with the attacks on the US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 1998, and was becoming part of the international landscape.
Yet September 11th sounded like a wake -up call, an abrupt and absurd awakening for a West that had abandoned the idea that religions could have a real impact on society. It was a West that had stopped considering its soul, only to find it wounded, attacked, and put at risk.
After September 11th, came the attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. And then, after that, the Arab Spring, the rise of the so-called Islamic State, and in between, wars of reaction and preventive wars.
But what was the Holy See’s diplomatic line? And how can this diplomatic line make sense today?
The Holy See’s diplomatic response to September 11
The US Ambassador to the Holy See, Jim Nicholson, had not yet presented his credentials when the September 11 attacks occurred. John Paul II was immediately struck. As early as 5:30 PM, he sent a telegram to then-US President George W. Bush, unusually quickly for the Holy See.
September 11th was a Tuesday. After constantly updating himself on developments in the United States, on September 12th, John Paul II, at his usual general audience, asked for no applause and began: “I cannot begin this audience without expressing my profound sorrow at the terrorist attacks which yesterday brought death and destruction to America, causing thousands of victims and injuring countless people.”
The Pope called September 11th “a dark day in the history of humanity and a terrible affront to human dignity” and wondered “how is it possible to commit acts of such savage cruelty.” But, he concluded, “faith comes to our aid at these times when words seem to fail. Christ’s word is the only one that can give a response to the questions which trouble our spirit. Even if the forces of darkness appear to prevail, those who believe in God know that evil and death do not have the final say. Christian hope is based on this truth; at this time our prayerful trust draws strength from it..”
On September 13, John Paul II received Ambassador Jim Nicholson to present his letters of credence. At the time, the Pope also gave a speech when he met with resident ambassadors (with Pope Francis, the Pope has only one private meeting), and John Paul II appealed to the “deepest” values of his national heritage to address future challenges. These values, according to the Polish Pope, were “solidarity and cooperation among peoples; respect for human rights; and justice, which is the indispensable condition for authentic freedom and lasting peace.”
In a booklet he later wrote for 30 Days magazine, Ambassador Nicholson recounted that John Paul II had also hinted that the United States would be obligated to take steps to protect itself and asked only that President Bush adhere to the strong sense of justice for which our country has become so respected.
Nicholson then recalled that “on the basis of the papal recognition that the September 11 attacks warranted a response, the Holy See’s Secretary for Relations with States, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, publicly supported American efforts to ferret out the perpetrators.”
Quoting Tauran’s words in an interview with the Catholic news agency Zenit on October 15, 2001, Nicholson added that “everyone recognizes that the United States government, like any other government, has the right to self-defense.”
The issue of self-defense and the clash of civilizations
The Holy See, therefore, immediately recognized the right to self-defense. But then the Pope’s appeals became increasingly pressing. The Holy See rejected the theory of a clash of civilizations.
The Holy See’s reaction can be divided into three types.
The first is a conceptual reaction, expressed in the Message for the World Day of Peace in 2002, entitled “No peace, without justice. No justice, without forgiveness.” The message carries significant diplomatic weight: it is sent to all the world’s chancelleries, and is delivered by the Pope to all heads of state who visit him during the year.
In his message, John Paul II wrote: “ There exists therefore a right to defend oneself against terrorism, a right which, as always, must be exercised with respect for moral and legal limits in the choice of ends and means. The guilty must be correctly identified, since criminal culpability is always personal and cannot be extended to the nation, ethnic group or religion to which the terrorists may belong. International cooperation in the fight against terrorist activities must also include a courageous and resolute political, diplomatic and economic commitment to relieving situations of oppression and marginalization which facilitate the designs of terrorists”.
The second is a diplomatic response: the Holy See recognizes the right to self-defense, but asks that violence not be propagated. This diplomatic response is outlined in John Paul II’s address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See on January 10, 2002.
The Polish Pope said: “The legitimate fight against terrorism, of which the abhorrent attacks of last 11 September are the most appalling expression, has once again let the sound of arms be heard. Barbarous aggression and killings raise not only the question of legitimate defence but also issues such as the most effective means of eradicating terrorism, the search for the factors underlying such acts, and the measures to be taken to bring about a process of “healing” in order to overcome fear and to avoid evil being added to evil, violence to violence”
The third is the religious response, because it was precisely in reaction to the attacks that John Paul II wanted religions to gather in Assisi to pray again for peace, as had already happened. This encounter took place on January 24, 2002.
With the prayer meeting in Assisi, John Paul II went n to refuse that religion was the casus belli .
Always speaking to the body diplomat on January 10, 2002, John Paul II emphasized that
“ We also need to heed the question which comes to us from the depths of this abyss: that of the place and the use made of religion in the lives of people and societies. Here I wish to say once again, before the whole international community, that killing in the name of God is an act of blasphemy and a perversion of religion.”
And, in his message for the 2002 World Day of Peace, John Paul II wrote: “It is a profanation of religion to declare oneself a terrorist in the name of God, to do violence to others in his name. Terrorist violence is a contradiction of faith in God, the Creator of man, who cares for man and loves him.”
The impact that September 11th had on the diplomatic developments of the Holy See
The debate that followed September 11th still has repercussions today. Benedict XVI revisited the theme of the crisis in the West in his famous, deeply misunderstood Regensburg Lecture, which sparked much debate but also gave rise to the letter “A Common Word Between Us and You,” leading to fruitful Muslim-Christian dialogue.
Faced with ISIS invasions, Tauran, who had since become a cardinal and president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, sent two notes in 2014 and 2015 urging his partners in interreligious dialogue to take a stand and clearly condemn the attacks.
The first note, dated 12 August 2014, underlined: “This Pontifical Council, together with all those engaged in interreligious dialogue, followers of all religions, and all men and women of good will, can only unambiguously denounce and condemn these practices which bring shame on humanity: the massacre of people on the sole basis of their religious affiliation; the despicable practice of beheading, crucifying and hanging bodies in public places; the choice imposed on Christians and Yezidis between conversion to Islam, payment of a tax (jizya) or forced exile; the forced expulsion of tens of thousands of people, including children, elderly, pregnant women and the sick; the abduction of girls and women belonging to the Yezidi and Christian communities as spoils of war (sabaya); the imposition of the barbaric practice of infibulation; the destruction of places of worship and Christian and Muslim burial places; the forced occupation or desecration of churches and monasteries; the removal of crucifixes and other Christian religious symbols as well as those of other religious communities; the destruction of a priceless Christian religious and cultural heritage; indiscriminate violence aimed at terrorizing people to force them to surrender or flee”.
The note added: “No cause, and certainly no religion, can justify such barbarity. This constitutes an extremely serious offense to humanity and to God who is the Creator, as Pope Francis has often reminded us”.
The second note, dated April 22, 2015, raised the big question: “Is there still space to dialogue with the Muslims?” The answer is: yes, more than ever. First of all, because the vast majority of Muslims do not themselves recognize the barbarism in progress. The note also underlined that “ to kill, invoking a religion, is not only offending God, but it is also a defeat of humanity.”
Pope Francis has repeatedly denounced the desecration of God’s name, and this condemnation is also reflected in what is perhaps the greatest diplomatic initiative of his pontificate, the “Document for Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” signed in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on February 4, 2019, together with the Grand Imam of Al Azhar.
The question of just war and legitimate defense is part of the Holy See’s current debate at all levels. Pope Francis, in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti, denies the possibility of a just war in the face of new methods of warfare, while Leo XIV has called for a review of the characteristics of a just war. Indeed, the debate has been alive since the time of John XXIII, who, in the encyclical Pacem in Terris, objected that, faced with new means of mass destruction, such as nuclear power, it would be difficult to speak of a proportionate response and therefore of a just war, when the price could be the very destruction of humanity.
Twenty-five years later, the debate that developed after 9/11 is still alive and well. The issues have not changed. September 11th changed the global landscape, brought the issue of religion back to the center of diplomatic discourse, created new conflicts, exacerbated old ones, and also outlined new possibilities for peace.
Today, twenty-five years after the attack on America, we face further attacks, other very similar situations, and even the possibility of new preventive wars. The Holy See’s position is strengthened by the consistency it has maintained over these twenty-five years. But will this consistency be enough to reach the entire world?