Why Benedict XVI did not want to fall silent or backpedal

Chiesa.com ^ | September 22, 2006 | Sandro Magister

[NYer]

The controversial silences of Pius XII with Nazism, and later, with Communism, of John XXIII, of Vatican Council II, and of the Ostpolitik of Paul VI, had compelling reasons, and in the first place the defense of the victims of those systems themselves. But now, it is being demanded of Benedict XVI that he maintain a similar silence in regard to the new adversary of Islam: it is a silence that is often given the name of “dialogue.”

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[bennyjakobowski]

I believe Bendict knew that the visions of his predecessor kissing the koran were still dancing in the heads of the faithful.

[CheyennePress]

Thanks for posting. I'll come back to this one.

[Suzy Quzy]

sadly, I agree......still dancing in MY head.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Muslims, by their actions, have illustrated what the Pope observed.

[Gritty]

[Msgt USMC]

"I believe Bendict knew that the visions of his predecessor kissing the koran were still dancing in the heads of the faithful".



If I'd been there, I'd have used the Koran on the other end.

[richardtavor]

When are people going to realize that the god of Islam is not the same as the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob? The Pope should tell them to go to hell...where they belong.

[livius]

LOL!

[murphE]

The Pope should tell them to go to hell...where they belong.

That wouldn't be very Catholic. The Pope should tell them: "The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel."

[livius]

Actually, I think this is one of the things that is going to make it difficult for Pope Benedict.

JPII seems to have had an entirely different view of the situation and the fact that the Muslims are out there waving his picture (and in particular that awful picture) indicates this. Although it's hard to say - today I read something from one of the former pope's advisors on Islam, who apparently routinely wrote or rewrote JPII's statements so that they would not contain anything possibly "offensive" or even substantive. So who knows what JPII really thought?

But in any case, some of the rather vague statements in Vatican II documents, coupled with some really misleading statements in various catechisms plus some very puzzling actions by JPII, are going to make it a thornier question. I think this is one of the reasons BXVI is reaching back into older Church documents and teachings. For one thing, he knows the exist, and I am not at all sure many modern theologians do (since they believe the Church began in 1965). But another is that they were not tainted by PC and are unambiguous.

[stm]

"But the voices in the Muslim world that are accepting his offer of dialogue are too weak and too few, and almost not to be found"

Not really true, they are actually in the majority. But most are afraid of speaking out for fear of winding up like Nick Berg. Muslim extremism is all about power and intimidation. It has nothing to do with Islam, it is all about mind and physical control. These people use Islam as a means to an end to carry out their insane, murderous agendas.

In this country, all we see in the news (regardless of the source) are the extremists. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We don't see day to day life for average people. In my experience after two tours over there, most of the people I met in Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar were no different than any of us here in the US; they're just trying to get by day to day and provide for their families. On our way to work, we worry about being late or getting a ticket. They worry about getting shot or blown up. The majority of the American public has no idea whatsoever what life is really like over there, we only know what we see and read. You have to experience it to really know.

[khnyny]

bump.

[ELS]

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, who has grasped the essence of this pontificate better than other Church leaders have done, said on Monday, September 18 to the directive body of the Italian bishops that “the fundamental coordinates” of the message Benedict XVI is proposing to the Church and the world are found in these three texts: the encyclical “Deus Caritas Est”; the address to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005, on the interpretation of Vatican Council II; and, last but not least, the “splendid” lecture in Regensburg.

Italian Prelates Speak Up for Pope

ROME, SEPT. 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- In the wake of controversy over Benedict XVI's mention of Islam in a university lecture, Italy's bishops expressed support for the Pope and deplored the campaign of criticisms against him.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the vicar of Rome, voiced that support Monday during the opening session of the Permanent Council of the Italian bishops' conference.

The cardinal vicar warmly greeted the Holy Father, recalling that on his recent apostolic visit to Bavaria the German Pope witnessed "with extraordinary depth of reflection and with persuasive gentleness, faith in that God in whom man, his reason and freedom find their higher and authentic fulfillment."

Cardinal Ruini, president of the bishops' conference, continued: "In the splendid lesson at the University of Regensburg not only was he able to propose but to argue the truth, validity and timeliness of Christianity across a great theological fresco, at once historical and philosophical, capable of having the essential nexus emerge between human reason and faith in God who is 'Logos,' showing that this nexus is not confined to the past but opens great perspectives today to our desire to know and live a full and free life."

Distress

The cardinal underlined that this lesson, together with the encyclical "Deus Caritas Est" and Benedict XVI's address to the Roman Curia last Dec. 22, offer "the essential coordinates of the Pope's message which must be meditated and assimilated in depth, now in the context of the national ecclesial congress that awaits us in Verona."

In regard to intolerant reactions to Benedict XVI's address in Regensburg, Cardinal Ruini said that there was "surprise and distress" that "some affirmations made in it were mistaken to the point of being interpreted as an offense against the Islamic religion and of leading to intimidating acts and indescribable threats -- perhaps even to providing the pretext for the abominable killing of Sister Leonella Sgobarti in Mogadishu."

The Pope, in fact, was proposing the fostering of "a true dialogue of cultures and religions, a dialogue of which we are in such urgent need," as stated in the papal address itself, and as the Vatican secretary of state specified in a statement last Saturday.

"Insofar as the Italian bishops are concerned," Cardinal Ruini, 75, said, "we express to the Pope our total closeness and solidarity and intensify our prayer for him, for the Church, for our religious liberty, for dialogue and friendship among religions and peoples."

He added: "We deplore instead those interpretations, which are not lacking also in our country, which attribute to the Holy Father responsibilities which he absolutely does not have or errors he has not committed and which tend to attack his person and his ministry."

[Mrs. Don-o]

NYer, thank you so much for posting this.

This caught my eye:

"When Paleologos held his dialogue with his Persian counterpart, Islamic culture had just emerged from its happiest period, when Greek philosophy had been grafted onto the trunk of Qur’anic faith. In asking Islam today to rekindle the light of Aristotelian reason, Benedict XVI is not asking for the impossible. Islam has had its Averroes, the great Arab commentator on Aristotle who was treasured by such a giant of Catholic theology as was Thomas Aquinas.

"A return, today, to the synthesis between faith and reason is the only way for Islamic interpretation of the Qur’an to free itself from its fundamentalist paralysis and from obsession with “jihad.” And it is the only ground for authentic dialogue between the Muslim world and the Christianity of the West."

I'm beginning to see it. The "ground for authentic dialogue" would be, of course, the One True God (as you say, richardtavor, "the G_d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.") The True God is also called, in Christian Scriptures, written in the Greek language, "the Logos"-- the Word, which is to say, the Supreme Being and font of reason, Who cannot contradict Himself, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

So the one possible bridge, if there is one at all, would be God as Logos -- in the words of the greatest of Jewish prophets, Isaiah: "Come now, and let us reason together," says the LORD."

So, is there a bridge? We'll soon see, won't we?

What a time to be living in. The Church, so long derided as an institution based on "blind faith," emerges as the voice for reason--- even, "faith in reason," fully implied by "faith in the Logos," the One.

(Come to think of it, it's parallel to the way Catholicism, upholder of virginity, turns out to be the worldwide defender of natural sex.) (I love it.)

[GladesGuru]

"I believe Bendict knew that the visions of his predecessor kissing the koran were still dancing in the heads of the faithful."


How about "I believe Bendict knew that the visions of his predecessor kissing the koran were still raising the blood pressure of the faithful."

Or "I believe Bendict knew that the visions of his predecessor kissing the koran were still clamping the jaws of the faithful."

[Aquinasfan]

What a time to be living in.

Something big is going down, that's for sure. Great post, BTW 8-)

[Revolting cat!]

"Papa's got a brand new bag!"

[Aquinasfan]

The Pope should tell them: "The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel."

We need to start at a lower level (the validity of reason itself!) and work our way up 8-)