The Pope's Speech of 9-12

[Pure]

The Pope's Lecture of 9-12

the section on Islam, according to the NY Times.

[start quote]
In all, the speech seemed to reflect the Vatican’s struggle over how to confront Islam and terrorism, as the 79-year-old pope pursues what is often considered a more provocative, hard-nosed and skeptical approach to Islam than his predecessor, John Paul II.
As such, it distilled many of Benedict’s longstanding concerns, about the crisis of faith among Christians and about Islam and its relationship to violence.

And he used language open to interpretations that could inflame Muslims, at a time of high tension among religions and three months before he makes a trip to Turkey.

He began his speech, which ran over half an hour, by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in a conversation with a “learned Persian” on Christianity and Islam — “and the truth of both.”

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the pope quoted the emperor, in a speech to 1,500 students and faculty.

He went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus “contrary to God’s nature.” [end quote]
-----

P: Can we conclude:

1) The Pope put his foot in it.
2) The Pope has some of the same 'problems' with Islam that many Christians do (esp. the evangelicals).

3) However, as regards the 'violence' and religion issue, the Pope--like all Xtians-- is somewhat in a 'people is glass houses' position.

[or all three?]

Here is the portion of the pope's lecture, in the official version: For a summary of the whole lecture in plain english, see following;


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...vi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

….even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.

It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God.
[...]
[concluding section]
In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.

Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
***
----
Pure's summary of the entire lecture, not just the pieces above.

1. The true Christian (Catholic) Doctrine is friendly to reason and rationality.

2. Violence is to be condemned; one example of its approval is, apparently, in some doctrines of Islam. Violence is contrary to reason, and thus out of accord with God's nature (love), and any (true) religion.

3. This disposition to authorize violence is an inherent problem in Islam (but not in true Catholic Xtianity, which honors the areas of friendly agreement with Greek philosophy) because of the utter transcendence of Allah (above all moral codes).

4. There are, however, the odd Catholic, Duns, and several Protestant and secular thinkers who go against this correct view of Reason and Religion, including Protestants who rest everthing solely on the literal words of the Bible, or who want to establish the teaching of the true and original Jesus and downgrade everything else.

5. Western Science has gone overboard with this rationality, to the point of excluding God. Quoting Socrates, he says this is blind or shortsighted (wrong).

6. He's trying, by condemning over- rationalized secularism (is there any other kind?), to show a possible common ground of Catholics with Islamic folks and others; 'we haven't forgotten faith.'

7. In the end, the best hope for the world is the rational and reasoning-respecting true (Catholic) Xtian faith*. In such respect for reason the Chursh is in agreement with the basic objectives of a university, and the two are welded together in devotion to rationality and rational inquiry. (Contrary to atheists who say 'Theology faculties talk about that which doesn't exist.')

*And, perhaps by implication, other faiths which can get themselves together and recognize the connection of God and Rationality, and enter under the umbrella of 'reason-affirming religions.'






--

 

[rgraham666]

What was it Jesus said? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I guess Benedict has decided he's without sin. Satan will be pleased.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The pope is some guy who has lived either in the Ivory Tower of a University, the Bishop's home in Munich or coistered away in the Vatican since 1951. This guy has no understanding of world events as they relate to the insanity going on in the Middle East. The Papacy ceased being a world power several hundred years ago. He needs to figure that out and be quiet.

The only thing the Pope has been successful at in my lifetime is an occasional call for World Peace. That didn't work either, but, at least, it didn't insult anyone.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, it really would have been nice if the radical Islamic right had shown the Pope up by demonstrating a little tolerance and restraint for a change and not gone on church-burning rampages and anti-west riots. But so far they kind of make him look like he knew what he was talking about.

Still, a bad, bad example on his part and he really should have known better. It's like a Muslim using some OT verse where God commands the Israelites to slay every man, woman, child, and beast in a non-Hebrew town as an example of modern Christian thinking.

 

[3113]

Vicious Circle

You actually should have made this a poll, Pure.

I think we can conclude that religions that believe and teach that their view of the universe is right and all others are wrong create a vicious circle when they interact with each other.

I know that's kind of a "duh" statement, but honestly. This is the Pope. He's in charge of a religion that believes it's right and others are wrong (i.e., those who don't believe don't go to heaven, right?). He can't really say to Islam, "Hey, you guys could be right! Maybe I'll give Allah a try!" He's gotta uphold his own side. And he's especially NOT going to give props to Islam when certain radical sects are treating Christians all badly--which some are.

So he's going to feel it incumbent on him, on his position as an important person, to tell those sects they'd better change their evil ways and see the light. That god doesn't like what they're doing. He knows this right? God speaks to him, right? THAT is his religion, there.

I mean, come on. What the fuck do you expect...from the POPE? He's not a secular humanist. He's not an elected offical who's going to be voted out in two years. He's the P-O-P-E. Of course he thinks Islam is being evil. And of course it'd be "different" if they were fighting for Christ. And it's a rare Pope able to see the hypocrisy in criticising another religion for fanaticism.

And what are the Islamics going to think of this? Well, they should say, "What the fuck do we care what you think, unbeliever?" but they tend to get mad about anything remotely disrespectful to them. Either that or they enjoy having a reason to throw yet another temper tantrum, be it cartoons or stupid Popes.

So, of course, something like this is going to have their heads spinning. So now they'll be mean to Christains in retaliation and that'll make Christians even more sure how right they are about how evil these people are, and so Christians will say worst things about Islamics and.....

Vicious circle

 

[Antfarmer77]

It's like a Muslim using some OT verse where God commands the Israelites to slay every man, woman, child, and beast in a non-Hebrew town as an example of modern Christian thinking.

God did that?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Issued today by the Holy See:

Given the reaction in Muslim quarters to certain passages of the Holy Father's address at the University of Regensburg, and the clarifications and explanations already presented through the Director of the Holy See Press Office, I would like to add the following:

- The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting" (no. 3).

- The Pope's option in favor of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 20 August 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslims "cannot be reduced to an optional extra," adding: "The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity".

- As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: " ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions".

- The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom".

- In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that, quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment, witness to the "Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men" may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify "to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate no. 3).​

 

[impressive]

And it's be a rare Pope able to see the hypocrisy in criticising another religion for fanaticism.

Indeed.

 

[3113]

- The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom".

Chicken! I knew he'd back down

If you're going to make these statements, you outta stand by them or not make them at all. Saying them, and then saying, "Didn't mean that, sorry, sorry--" Yeah, like that's gonna work when folk are buring down churches.

And I love the ending of this: "Hey, guys, don't be mad. We're on the same side! We both hate atheists, right? Why don't we put this to rest and go kick the butts of people who don't respect god at all, huh?"

 

[Lauren Hynde]

"Hey, guys, don't be mad. We're on the same side! We both hate atheists, right? Why don't we put this to rest and go kick the butts of people who don't respect god at all, huh?"

Ah, that's actually not at all what it is said in the text, but it's a great illustration of why the answer to Pure's question is A. No matter what he had said, it would always have been a foot in it. No matter what, someone somewhere will interpret it as an insult and there we go again.

 

[angela146]

What was it Jesus said? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I guess Benedict has decided he's without sin. Satan will be pleased.

The papacy has long believed that it (the office, not the man) is without sin and is therefore justified in throwing rocks.

 

[rgraham666]

God, in my opinion, doesn't give two shrill hoots in Niffleheim what you believe. She only cares about how you act.

 

[angela146]

In don't think this was a "mistake". He was reading from a prepared text that presumably had been vetted and translated into a dozen different languages.

His words were very carefully chosen and were probably intended as some kind of preliminary shot accross the bow for an upcoming negotiation.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Ah, that's actually not at all what it is said in the text, but it's a great illustration of why the answer to Pure's question is A. No matter what he had said, it would always have been a foot in it. No matter what, someone somewhere will interpret it as an insult and there we go again.

So we can't condemn violent Muslims because it will lead to more violent Muslims?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I agree with Rob about God and indifference to faith. They (the Gods) have bigger fish to fry.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

So we can't condemn violent Muslims because it will lead to more violent Muslims?

See? Did I say that? lol

 

[S-Des]

So we can't condemn violent Muslims because it will lead to more violent Muslims?

Exactly. Like 3113 said, every time anything happens that is even remotely considered an insult to Muslims from anyone, they riot and try to kill people. Even a cartoon that's months old and never prompted an outcry when it came out, from a country that's just slightly less harmless than your average grade school, causes riots all over the world.

Then again, when muslims slaughter thousands of men, women, and children in several different countries, we're not supposed to say anything or we're "attacking Islam". When terrorists blow up innocents (even other muslims who aren't radical enough for their liking), people refuse to condemn them. At some point everyone is going to have to come to the decision that these people are not going to go away and you can't make them happy (except by dying quietly).

BTW, I vote #1, the pope really stepped in it. If he wasn't willing to go toe to toe with them, he should have been more careful. If his intention was firing a shot across the bow, they must be smarter than me because I see no upside for him or the Catholic Church.

 

[Pure]

the official text

in full, for the key passage, is in the first posting, now.

found it!

upon perusing the dense, academic text... what he seems to be suggesting is that Islam, with its transcendent God may have more of a problem regarding (condemning) violence than does Catholic Christianity because of the latter's devotion to Reason (an inheritance from the Greeks).

 

[NoJo]

If you haven't learned how to play nice in the playground by the time you're 4 years old, then there's not much hope for you morally.

 

[3113]

Ah, that's actually not at all what it is said in the text, but it's a great illustration of why the answer to Pure's question is A. No matter what he had said, it would always have been a foot in it. No matter what, someone somewhere will interpret it as an insult and there we go again.

You're quite right. He can't say anything without putting his foot in his mouth. And yes, I know, what he really said was that secularists ought to be respectful of religion. I.e. what he was protesting was his own awareness that religions shouldn't be mocked or insulted.

But before you conclude that I, like the Islamics, just took his words as an insult, let's examine what he said:

"Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom"

Maybe you can explain: At what point is atheism NOT contempt for God? At what point is saying, "I don't believe in those sacred texts. I believe they're a bunch of myths written by men..." NOT "mockery" of the sacred? What, in short, CAN a secularist say about religion or his/her own beliefs without disrespecting someone who is religious?

We will grant, of course, that there are those who can say nasty things about another's religion just to be mean, but that applies across the board, doesn't it? Religious artists and commentators mock other people's religous beliefs as frequently and brutally as secularists, yet the Pope's message was for secularists alone and in particular.

Now, I'm not interpeting this as an "insult" of secularists. The Pope didn't say secularists were ugly and their mothers dress them funny. Rather, my interpetation is that the Pope, like so many other religious leaders, is worried that Western Secularism will cause more folk to question and defy the church.

His original warning was an attempt to put a stop to that, and to berate certain artists (I assume it was about art?) for being mean to religion.

His pointing to his warning to Western Secularists in this instance, however, was, IMHO, a two-fold arguement. On the one hand--and yes, primarily--it was supposed to show the Islamics that he does respect the sacred. But I think there as an added bonus in it. It was, on the other hand, a way of saying, "look over there! That's the real bad guy!" because it emphasizes what all religions believe, that Western Secularists mock the sacred--or want to mock it. It does not, however, target any person or organized group in particular who might refute that accusation. Hence, it is a nice straw man to draw off Islamic fire from Pope and Christians to shadowy Western Secularists.

If it works, which, alas for the Pope, it probably won't.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Maybe you can explain: At what point is atheism NOT contempt for God? At what point is saying, "I don't believe in those sacred texts. I believe they're a bunch of myths written by men..." NOT "mockery" of the sacred? What, in short, CAN a secularist say about religion or his/her own beliefs without disrespecting someone who is religious?

Do you think that a religious person, by believing in a higher power and the sacred, is in any way doing a mockery of atheism? That believing in any religious prescript is disrespecting a non-believer?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not saying that some Muslims aren't militant, but I know of a few who are not. They aren't thrilled with mockery of their faith, but they don't go out and raise Cain over it.

Lauren, what 3113 is trying to say is probably that the Secular Humanist world-view is generally deemed to be mocking of many believers in many organized religions by virtue of questioning "revealed" authority. At least that's been my own experience from my days as a fundamentalist, "born-again" Christian. Any use of intellectual reason is suspect and any doubts or attempts to explain the Bible scientifically is deemed Satanic. It's regarded as pride and rebellion against the "revelation" of God. Even the most sober criticism is considered a profane, "cynical" attack on the Word of God.

 

[S-Des]

Not saying that some Muslims aren't militant, but I know of a few who are not. They aren't thrilled with mockery of their faith, but they don't go out and raise Cain over it.

Lauren, what 3113 is trying to say is probably that the Secular Humanist world-view is generally deemed to be mocking of many believers in many organized religions by virtue of questioning "revealed" authority. At least that's been my own experience from my days as a fundamentalist, "born-again" Christian. Any use of intellectual reason is suspect and any doubts or attempts to explain the Bible scientifically is deemed Satanic. It's regarded as pride and rebellion against the "revelation" of God. Even the most sober criticism is considered a profane, "cynical" attack on the Word of God.

Maybe by people who are hardcore fundamentalists, but as someone who's been in Christian churches since I was a baby, I've never met a person who was offended by someone not believing. I've met people who believed that they "had the answer" and that it would be wrong not to tell you about it (often comparing it to witholding the cure to a disease), but never someone offended by someone believing something different.

I have seen a lot of non-believers (whatever they would classify themselves as) mocking religious people for being guillable or stupid (often right here on this board). There are always going to be jerks. Having a religious belief (or not having one) isn't going to change that. It just changes the philosophy you espouse. Whether you are kind and compassionate, or cold and demeaning....that's all about the person. They just use their beliefs (or other people's beliefs) to further their agenda.

 

[rgraham666]

Don't get me started on the problems attached to Reason.

Which come to think of it are the same ones that religion suffers from. The belief that it holds the whole Truth. And an unwillingness to listen to dissent.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Maybe by people who are hardcore fundamentalists, but as someone who's been in Christian churches since I was a baby, I've never met a person who was offended by someone not believing. I've met people who believed that they "had the answer" and that it would be wrong not to tell you about it (often comparing it to witholding the cure to a disease), but never someone offended by someone believing something different.

I have seen a lot of non-believers (whatever they would classify themselves as) mocking religious people for being guillable or stupid (often right here on this board). There are always going to be jerks. Having a religious belief (or not having one) isn't going to change that. It just changes the philosophy you espouse. Whether you are kind and compassionate, or cold and demeaning....that's all about the person. They just use their beliefs (or other people's beliefs) to further their agenda.

You clearly hung around different churches than I did, but I'm glad for you in that regard. My own experience was less positive. Not that they were jerks, per se (well, not MOST of them), but they had no sense of humor when it came to "higher criticism", "modernists", "liberalism", and satire. Bear in mind that my upbringing was in the religious right, so that may be the difference.

I'm just going on my own knowledge. And my parents would be what you call "hardcore fundamentalists", without question. They even thought Catholics were going to Hell.