The New York Times editorial board is now presuming to preach political correctness to the Pope. Apparantly Gail Collins is shocked that the head of the Catholic Church thinks that Mohammed brought nothing new but “things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
Never mind that the Pope wasn’t precisely endorsing that view, the issue is whether the pope has the right to say what he believes or whether he should tailor his message to avoid offending people.
Whenever a Pope weighs in on doctrinal matters he is going to offend people, including a healthy portion of Catholics. It’s best not to take him seriously unless your faith tells you that you must.
Should the Pope go around quoting 14th-Century Byzantine Emperors that said Mohammed only brought evil into the world? Definitely not. What good can come from it? On the other hand, the New York Times would be wiser to let the Pope spout off however he wants, without correction from Gail Collins. He made his bed, let him lie in it.
The Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, told Vatican Radio: “It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject, still less to offend the sensibilities of the Muslim faithful.”
Too late, Mr. Lombardi. Muslims are not having it.
In Turkey, however, where the Pope is due to visit in November, the deputy leader of the ruling party said Benedict had “a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the middle ages”. Salih Kapusuz added: “He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.”
Ouch. That must doubly hard to take considering that Pope Benedict XVI was a Nazi Youth. Can’t hold that against him though. He was a youth. Now he is all grown up.
…Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based analyst of Islamic militancy, warned that the comments were “more dangerous than the cartoons because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world. The cartoons just came from an artist.”
Why is anyone surprised? Did they think electing a conservative Pope would lead to liberal speeches? He was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. You know what that means? It means he was a modern-day Tomás de Torquemada. He didn’t burn people at the stake, he banished Liberation Theologians. If you see someone on Fox News railing against Muslims, you can be pretty sure they have the same political views as Pope Benedict XVI.
Should he apologize? It’s up to him. If he feels that way about Islam, he should just go ahead and say how he feels. The problem is isn’t that the Pope said it. The problem is that the Pope believes it. And when Gail Collins gets the gall to ask for the Pope’s resignation, give me a call.
Religion and politics don’t mix well. Our founding fathers had that kind of figured out. Unfortunately, religious leaders (just like politicians) crave attention and money, so they are prone to saying idiotic things. What’s a few more “riled up Muslims”, when you’re getting headlines about your speech?
I prefer for the Pope to be honest and sincere. If he is honestly and sincerely substantively indistinguishable from Fred Barnes? So be it. That’s his problem.
This is a silly and immature posting, BooMan. It is a kneejerk posting filled with all kinds of assumptions that are not based on fact.
There is no indication in your posting that you actually have read the text of the Pope’s September 12th speech at Regensburg, a theological school. It’s at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848884/ . Have you read it?
It’s a hard slog from a sophisticated theologian and philosopher. The theme is the relationship of faith and reason. A central thesis is that the Christian church has traditionally believed that there is a unity of faith and reason. His remarks are mainly addressed at a European audience. The speech is not about Muslims at all. The supposedly offending comments is just one example given early in the talk, which illustrates the Muslim position that faith and reason are not unified, because God is so transcendent that He cannot be bound in any way by human thoughts. It is not disrespectful of Muslims at all.
You call him a Nazi and heap all kinds of kneejerk scorn on him, and you don’t know a rat’s ass’s worth about what you’re talking about. This crappy and disgraceful post should be removed. What a bigot!
Let’s see…I didn’t call him a nazi but said his hitler youth training could not be held against him. I also didn’t condemn his faith, but his politics. If I’m a bigot, I’m a bigot against one man, or one political outlook.
I understand his speech was about the relationship between faith and reason, and that his argument was against compulsion in religion. He was nice enough to acknowledge that Mohammed has preached against compulsion in religion before he totally dismissed that teaching as due to Mohammed’s early powerlessness.
He can say what he wants. That’s my point. And we can disagree or not pay attention. Correcting the Pope on matters of political correctness is about as pointless as correcting Bill O’Reilly.
Booman,
“Der Panzerpapst’s” recent statement at Regensburg does not seem as “unaware” or “accidental” as some might want to think.
I refuse to accept that Bennie the Pope did not know about this situation brewing in Germany.
I absolutely refuse to accept that Bennie the Pope did not know about this development which dates from the time when he was just Cardinal Ratzo, and which was further amplified in this story which dates from exactly 2 years ago this coming Tuesday.
Bennie the Pope is not that dumb. He knows.
So, I find the talk that the Pope was just foolishly talking through his hat at Regensburg when in that urban university center even the rumblings of the NDP are known, to be flatly wrong. Yes, even in the Upper Palatinate of Bavaria the xenophobia and nativism of the neo-nazis is being felt. Bennie played right into their hands, and I contend he did so wittingly.
What to do? I think you have it right; let him blare away.
But, let’s not be deluded into thinking he’s doing so from old age. Bennie the Pope knows about the growing anti Muslim feelings in Germany, especially as it pertains to Muslim Kosovar Albanians, and Bosnians who have sought asylum from war, atrocity and madness. So, Bennie the Pope’s ill advised outburst, timed so close to the German state elections, is a bit “malodorous” as I see it.
I hate to sound like Johnny Chait, but I told you so!
Look at the German State elections and see who gained.
Oh good grief. You’re another one who spouts off without actually reading the Pope’s statement. That is insufferably dishonest. You might as well be a Republican.
From the London Times, UK
Apparently …’this Pope has a history’ (of)
“Serious errors of both fact and judgment
Unaware? Gee, who else does that remind you of?
And why the hell can’t a religious figure be called on what he says? By that logic, neither can any of the winguts who carry on! What is wrong w/questioning them? Nothing! (I am currently a non-practicing Catholic, out of sheer disgust w/the leadership and opinions that are so contradictory.)
It’s interesting that they’d have a comment from Hans Kung, given what Cardinal Ratzinger put Kung through over his various theological positions 20 years ago. Kung came within a gnat’s ass of being excommunicated like Matthew Fox.
It’s also interesting that Kung was so charitable in his comment, given that history.
Now that I did not know, but it illustrates the hypocrisy and increases my disgust.
And, off-topic, but, funny thing is that in this area, quite a few friends of mine are conservative Christians (read: not wingnuts, sane republicans/really good people). And they are being also disgusted by everything today. (Both Parties.)
Another thing:
you and the Pope have something in common.
You totally dismiss the rage Muslims are feeling about what the Pope said by asserting it was “not disrespectful of Muslims at all”. Many of them certainly feel disrespected. Why is that? Why do you give their feelings no currency?
As for the Pope, his central argument is that far from there being some kind of alienation between reason and Christianity, the hellenic influences of Christianity are so central that the religion is itself a synthesis of religion and reason never before or since rivaled. If so, why the need to give the speech in the first place?
Both of you are trying to skate over a controversy by defining it away.
The Pope’s speech is not without merit. His analysis of Hellenic influences is actually rather interesting in spots. Of course, throughout the entire speech he never actually manages to make any coherent argument for exactly how theology fits into the paradigm of a modern university. He makes a number of points, but they lead to no conclusion.
His only mention of Islam is to dismiss the call for no complusion, and to stress the differences between believers and infidels. He then asserts that Islam is inherently unreasonable by virtue of the transcendence of their God and their lack of Hellenic influence.
Quite aside from the dubiousness of this relgious point, there is the historical record.
And this.
You (BooMan) and everybody else here may probably not see this, because I’m slow to reply. I’m slow to reply because I was so angry that I was afraid to return to this site, at least for participation, for several days after this posting.
Although this may not seem to make sense, this situation reminds me of an old family story. My greatgrandfather was a prominent judge in West Virginia in the late 1800s. One day he was returning home by carriage in the early evening and heard a local drunkard beating his wife in a shack on the outskirts of town. He stopped and charged in to help–and of course the whole family turned on him.
I feel that way about this pope, who is such a smaller man than the last pope, who was one of the all-time great religious leaders. Of course you’re right here in most of what you say. Thank you for reading the speech. From my own experience of doing that three times, I know it was somewhat painful.
I agree that this pope should have made a MUCH more prostrate and sincere apology. I should have added that to my original post, which I made at lightning speed and then retreated in angst. It should not kill him to cite the Gospel messages about loving one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, etc. His non-apology apology was crap. I’m ashamed.
You say: “You totally dismiss the rage Muslims are feeling about what the Pope said by asserting it was “not disrespectful of Muslims at all”. Many of them certainly feel disrespected. Why is that? Why do you give their feelings no currency?” Let me just say that I acknowledge this point.
I really don’t think the pope’s speech was disrespectful of Muslims. But I also agree with you, as I’ve been speaking repeatedly with my wife and others–and as I should have included in my post–that this does not diminish the importance of the Muslim objections. I have many Muslim clients. I love Muslims, I really do. I think MOST of the ones I’ve had the privilege to meet have a kind of beautiful, sincere piety that is a genuine inspiration to me. Some of them have become good friends. I really do not “totally dismiss” their feelings at all! I just didn’t express all I have to say in that one short post.
At the same time, I think some Muslims and others went off half-cocked into homicidal rages (and sanctimonious Internet posts) on the basis of heated third-hand stories without actually knowing what the pope actually said. And I don’t have much respect for that.
[Gosh. Maybe BooMan himself will eventually read this. Probably nobody else. But worth saying, for the sake of truth.]
I was hoping that before I died, popes and ayatollahs and rabbis would be obsolete and irrelevant. The foolishness of youth, I guess.
Uh oh the zealots are fighting again. Everybody run for cover. Crusades, car bombs and thousand year old grudges on and on forever and ever. Amen.
I don’t think quoting some old book requires an apology. As Boo said, let the Pope say what he wants like anybody else. I’m really hating this culture of apology and offendedness that’s taken over America. If the NYT wants to discuss Vatican statements, it would do better to deal with the ideas, not the offended groups — ideas like the claim that Europe is defined by its “Christian culture”. Now that’s worth debating, but would no doubt offend.
As far as I’m concerned, “The world listens carefully to the words of any pope [TV preacher/ayatollah/Rabbi]” is the core of a large problem. I hope we get over it soon.
if I were the pope I would apologize. I would apologize for perpetuating misunderstandings about Islam that can and will be used by people that want to ramp of a clash of civilizations (on both sides).
But that is his decision to make. It was his sloppy scholarship and his insensitivity that led to the problem.
And I find it stupid to expect much more from this particular man. His record is as a defender of traditional orthodoy in religion. As such, we should expect him to make offensive remarks pretty much every time he opens his mouth. Usually those remarks will be offensive to liberal Catholics, but they certainly won’t be the only people getting offended.
For example:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” -Joseph Ratzinger
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this view of homosexuality is essentially the Vatican position, not something made up by this pope. Not that I’m defending him. I guess I’ll just never understand why anybody cares what these people have to say unless it makes self-evident sense, which it almost never does. It has no more significance than AT&T explaining why they’re so superior to Comcast, and vice versa, an the motivation is pretty much the same.
As far as so-called scholarship based on “theology”, I always find myself remembering that old ad: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
You’re missing the point. This pope was in charge of developing the Vatican’s position on homosexuality.
link.
The two things cannot be separated.
“I come not to bring peace, but a sword”
Christianity spread through forced conversions on pain of death by many horrific means. If I remember my Gregory of Tours correctly, there were a couple of bishops bloody to the elbows from those who died rather than kiss the cross (an ugly symbol itself of death and torture). In Russia, the glorious Teutonic knights made the sign of the cross over babies before throwing them on the fire. In Scandinavia, various Olafs conquered and converted (I appreciate the wily Icelanders negotiating a 3-year conversion rather than letting Olaf’s men swarm over their farmsteads). The Christian crusader’s long route to Jerusalem was filled with bodies, including the rape and sack of Contantinople.
“The People of the Book”, Jew, Christian, and Muslim, have all violently taken territory and slaughtered those of other faiths.
There will be no peace on this planet until religion and government are completely and absolutely severed.
Meanwhile, for any of them to proclaim that their religion is peaceful and good, and the other guys are violent and evil, is a lie. They are all warmongers. They have all killed in the name of their version of the Book.
Carolly
PS: a false apology for sake of politics is a lie, too.
This all seems to be important enough that simply letting the Pope spout off might not be a good enough response.
First, the response of the radical Muslim world reinforces the negative image they have in the West. “Islam is a religion of peace, and if you don’t agree with that, we’ll kill you.”
Second, if the Muslim world in general is going to go overboard in response to a speech like this (or the whole cartoon thing), that overboard response has a real effect on Americans. The calls from moderate Muslims to not over-react have not been very prominent, while church bombings and threats have escalated.