Did Benedict XVI bury the lead?

GetReligion.org ^ | September 14, 2006 | tmatt

[oyez]

After bowing to the god of inferiority and self-loathing for so long its so easy for them to get offended.

[annalex]

Three pertinent quotes:

The Catechism on Islam (look primarily at 841, but a larger context is necessary):

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."³²⁵

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,³²⁶ "the first to hear the Word of God."³²⁷ The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",³²⁸ "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."³²⁹

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."³³⁰

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .³³¹

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."³³²

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.³³³

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.³³⁴

(Source)

Father Fessio reporting on his private conversation with the Holy Father about Islam:

[...] if [Islam] radically reinterprets the Koran [...] it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.

The interviewer then asked Fessio, "And so the pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Koran is?" Fessio replied, "Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as it's understood by Muslims."

(Source)

Father Fessio dotting the i's:

The most important clarification is that the Holy Father did not say, nor did I, that "Islam is incapable of reform" ... I made a serious error in precision when I said that the Koran "cannot be adapted or applied" and that there is "no possibility of adapting or interpreting it". This is certainly not what the Holy Father said. Of course the Koran can be and has been interpreted and applied ... The presentation and the discussion were in German, and the Holy Father was not speaking from a prepared text. My German is passable, but not entirely reliable. My later remarks in a live radio interview were extemporaneous. I think that I paraphrased the Holy Father with general accuracy, but my mentioning what he said at all was an indiscretion, and my impromptu paraphrase in another language should not be used for a careful exegesis of the mind of the Holy Father.

I would like to set the record straight and avoid unnecessary embarrassment to the Holy Father. The truth is always crucial, but especially so here where the stakes are so high. I am disconsolate that I have obscured the truth by my ambiguous remarks.

(Source)

As Spengler remarks in the same article regarding Fr. Fessio's backpedaling, "Of course Father Fessio paraphrased the pope correctly. The overwhelming majority of Muslim theologians agree with the pope that Koranic revelation is fundamentally different from Christian or Jewish revelation, such that Islam cannot be reformed in the same way that Christianity or Judaism can be reformed. "

Let us not neglect to note the moore's head on Pope Benedict's coat of arms:

[karnage]

I'm one of the ignoramuses you have educated. Thanks!

[siunevada]

Good post.

The overwhelming majority of Muslim theologians agree with the pope that Koranic revelation is fundamentally different from Christian or Jewish revelation, such that Islam cannot be reformed

I don't know why we won't take them at their word. They seem quite straightforward on this point.

Secular relativism and 'nuance' seem to cause politicians to imagine that absolutes do not exist. And the search for non-existent 'moderates' continues.

[Petrosius]

Here is the important quote:

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church.

[annalex]

Also, the next chapter explains that there is no salvation outside the Church, properly understood.

CCC 841 often is quoted out of context to imply that Catholics are indifferentist. This is why I have the larger context.

[annalex]

"Lead," in journalism, means the lead story. "LEDE," means the introduction to a story which encapsulates the news.

It appears that "lead" (say "led") refers to the metal used in pre-computer typesetting, and "lede" refers to the leading phrase or paragraph. Because people in newspaper business need to think of both, the perfectly legitimate use of "lead" (say "leed") to signify the latter was deprecated in favor of "lede". The expression is indeed "bury the lede".

"Lead" in the sense of "forward" is a Protestant invention, wholly inappropriate in an article on Catohlic affairs! The spelling was "lede" prior to approximately AD 1500.

(Source)

[Dajjal]

I have three problems with Pope Benedict's statement about jihad last Tuesday.

1) The pope's words are not criticizing jihad specifically, but are a blanket pacifistic statement opposing all use of force. "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul." This applies as much to Bush and Blair and Olmert as it does to Bin Laden.

2) The pope's defining jihad as "spreading the faith through violence" indicates that he seems to think that their goal in the current jihad is forcible conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. I would disagree strongly. Their goal in the current jihad is the death of every infidel.

3) The Vatican spokesmen Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ was very quick to reassure Muslim leaders that the Pope meant no offense by his statement, even emphasizing that the key words were not his own, but those of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus. Actually, I think Fr. Lombardi is correct -- which is why I class this as a problem.

It seems to me that in his statement last Tuesday, Pope Benedict was being consistent with his opposition to the War in Iraq and Israel's battle with Hizb'ullah. On July 16th Pope Benedict said, "But neither terrorist acts nor retaliation, above all when there are tragic consequences for the civilian population, can be justified, going down such roads -- bitter experience has shown -- does not bring positive results." Likewise, on July 30th he said, "These facts demonstrate clearly that you cannot re-establish justice, create a new order and build authentic peace when you resort to instruments of violence."

Pope Benedict has previously criticized Bush and Blair and Olmert for fighting the War on Terror. Last Tuesday he merely critized the jihadis as well.

See my longer post on another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700508/posts?page=5#5

[bornacatholic]

are different than those of the late Pope John Paul II, who infuriated many conservative Catholics when he kissed a Koran, an act normally reserved for the Gospels.

Balderdash. He also kissed innumerable runways and individuals. Whe he kised the Koran he was doing so acknowledging gratitude for the gift

[khnyny]

Thanks for the info.

[khnyny]

[Let's face it: Popes are not sound-bite-friendly speakers.]

I guess it's too much for the author to read and actually comprehend the whole speech at Regensburg. As Chris Matthews would say: "it's too complicated", lol.

[khnyny]

If more people actually read the Catechism, it's brilliant. Great post.

[annalex]

1). The reason Jihad is wrong is that it uses force aggressively. This is why it is correct to condemn all aggressive use of force. The pope, however, never condemned "all use of force". If, hypothetically, he had done so, he would have erred against the Catholic dogma which approved of defensive use of force, and indeed, as you know, fought the Crusades under that doctrine.

The condemnation of aggressive use of force would apply to Bush, Blair or Olmert inasmuch as they, in the mind of the Church, use force aggressively. You are free to disagree with the Church's judgement, for example, as regards the recent invasion in Lebanon, but even so there is nothing wrong with the pope reiterating the Catholic teaching on just war, of which the Holy Father's statement is a part.

2) To say "their goal in the current jihad is the death of every infidel" is to say "their goal in the current jihad is forcible conversion of non-Muslims to Islam". That is because the only way to achieve the former goal is to convert a part of the present day infidels and kill the rest.

3) The Holy Father surely did not want to offend every modern Muslim gratuitously and wisely chose to quote someone who bore the brunt of the Muslim aggression in 14 century, and undeniable historical fact. His words both condemned Islam at its foundation and avoided unfairly accusing the Muslims of peaceful disposition.

[spatso]

Thanks, read the full text of the lecture. Going to print it and read it again. Never have been able to fully master reading from a screen. Need to be able to put pencil marks on the paper to absorb. First impression, appears the entire Islamic reaction may be way overstated given the context of Benedict's comments. Thanks again.

[Bigg Red]

I did not know that word. Thanks for the info.

[Bigg Red]

Whe he kised the Koran he was doing so acknowledging gratitude for the gift

&&
Still, he should not have done so, IMO.

[spatso]

"This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That 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."

This is Benedict's' comment as it appears immediately before the supposedly controversial comments on Islam. Clearly, he is speaking as a scholar, not as a shepherd or the leader of a faith community more than 1 billion strong. Perhaps, as Cardinal Ratzinger he could have offered the same lecture and nobody would have noticed. I was sure I was going to read the text and find that everyone was overreacting. Now I am inclined to think he said what was appropriate, perhaps he was the wrong person to say it.

[narses]

+

If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!

[ELS]

To "bury the LEDE" means to fail to tell the important news first.

The blog's author is asking the wrong question, then (Did Benedict XVI bury the lead?). Benedict XVI could not have buried the lede given that he didn't write the NYT article.

[annalex]

I think, what happened is that there was no "lede". The Holy Father did a lengthy talk and the remark was in the middle of it. It was not intended as a battlecry it is now perceived to be.

Which is perhaps regrettable (see Dajjal's post 33), but this is how it is.