Why Benedict XVI did not want to fall silent or backpedal

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

[NYer]

The masterful lecture that the pope-theologian delivered at the University of Regensburg really did send shivers throughout the world. Because what Benedict XVI said there is just what happened afterward. The pope explained the distance that runs between the Christian God, who is love, immolated in Jesus on the cross, but also “Logos,” reason; and the God worshipped by Islam, so transcendent and sublime that he is not bound by anything, not even by that rational assertion according to which there must not be “any coercion in matters of faith.” The Qur’an says this in the second sura, to which the pope conscientiously made reference, but it then makes other and opposite statements. And the violent eruption in the Muslim world against the pope and Christians confirms that this other tendency has the upper hand, giving form and substance to the way in which myriads of the faithful of Allah view the world of the infidels. The other side of pope Joseph Ratzinger’s lecture in Regensburg is the blood poured out in Muslim Mogadishu by sister Leonella Sgorbati, a woman veiled and yet free, a martyr whose last words were addressed to her killers: “I forgive you.”

In reality, almost the entirety of Benedict XVI’s lecture in Regensburg was addressed to the Christian world, to the West and to Europe, which in his view are so sure of their naked reason – too sure – that they have lost the “fear of God.” But here as well the pope’s words found their confirmation in the facts. Hand in hand with the swell of verbal and physical violence on the part of Muslims, on the other side, in theory his own side, the pope was the target of incessant volleys of friendly fire. Just as the sagacious companions of Job attributed the blame for his misfortunes to him, so also Benedict XVI was surrounded by a veritable whirlwind of advice and rebuke of the same sort.

It was the same way in the Vatican. Benedict XVI had the good fortune of installing a new secretary of state and a new foreign minister, both of them firmly in his trust, on the very day that the Muslim attack against him began, on Friday, September 15, right after he came back from his trip to Bavaria. But the grumbling of the curia members hostile toward him did not calm down at all – on the contrary. He got away with the appointment of the new foreign minister, archbishop Dominique Mamberti, from Corsica, who has worked as a nuncio in Sudan, Somalia, and Eritrea, and before that in Algeria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and thus has direct familiarity with the Arab and Muslim world, and is skilled in the art of diplomacy. But as for the nomination of cardinal Tarcisio Bertone as the new secretary of state – for this, no, they did not forgive him. The fact that Bertone is not a career diplomat, but a man of doctrine and a pastor of souls, is now being held even more against the pope as proof of his ineptitude on the world political scene. In Bavaria, with the assignment changes not yet having taken place, Benedict XVI was accompanied by the outgoing secretary of state, cardinal Angelo Sodano, who has spent his entire life in diplomacy. But the pope was careful to avoid having cardinal Sodano read in advance the lecture he was preparing to deliver in Regensburg. Whole sections of the text would have been censored, if its supreme criterion had been the Realpolitik upon which the Vatican diplomacy of Sodano and his colleagues is nourished.

For Benedict XVI, too, realism in relations between the Church and states is a value. It was so with the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century: with German Nazism as with Soviet Communism. 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.” Has pope Ratzinger not respected this? Then this is the comeuppance he deserves from “offended” Islam: threats, demonstrations, burning in effigy, governments demanding retractions, the recall of ambassadors, churches burned, a religious sister killed. The pope is seen as bearing his part of the blame in all this. On the other hand, it’s “post mortem” beatification for his predecessor John Paul II, who prayed humbly in Assisi together Muslim mullahs, and when visiting the Umayyad mosque in Damascus listened in silence to the invectives his hosts hurled against the perfidious Jews. No fatwa was issued for the demolition of the Vatican walls, or for the slitting of Karol Wojtyla’s throat. It was a mere coincidence that Ali Agca, who shot him, was a Muslim – the assassination had been planned in Christian territory...

Benedict XVI does not deny the proper value of political realism. The secretariat of state has mobilized its network of nunciatures to provide for governments the complete text of the lecture in Regensburg, the official note of explanation released on September 16 by cardinal Bertone, and the explanations presented by the pope in person at the Angelus on Sunday the 17th. By the end of September, the ambassadors to Muslim-majority countries will be called to the Vatican for another effort to defuse the tensions. And later on, the pontifical council for culture, headed by cardinal Paul Poupard, will prepare a meeting with Muslim religious representatives.

But realism isn’t everything for Benedict XVI. The dialogue with Islam that he wants to create is not made of fearful silences and ceremonial embraces. It is not made of mortifications which, in the Muslim camp, are interpreted as acts of submission. The citation he made in Regensburg, from the “Dialogues with a Mohammedan” written at the end of the fourteenth century by the Christian participant in the dialogue, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos, was deliberate choice. A war was on. Constantinople was under siege, and in a half century, in 1453, it would fall under the dominion of the Ottoman Empire. But the learned Christian emperor brought his Persian counterpart to the terrain of truth, reason, law, and violence, to what marks the real difference between the Christian faith and Islam, to the key questions upon which war or peace between the two civilizations depends.

Pope Ratzinger sees modern times, too, as being fraught with war, and with holy war. But he asks Islam to place a limit of its own on “jihad.” He proposes to the Muslims that they separate violence from faith, as prescribed by the Qur’an itself, and that they again connect faith with reason, because “acting against reason is in contradiction with the nature of God.”

In Regensburg, the pope exalted the greatness of the Greek philosophy of Aristotle and Plato. He demonstrated that this is an integral part of biblical and Christian faith in the God who is “Logos.” And he also did this deliberately. 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.

At the Angelus on Sunday, September 17, which was broadcast live even by the Arab television network Al-Jazeera, Benedict XVI expressed his “regret” at how his lecture had been misunderstood. He said that he did not agree with the passage he cited from Manuel II Paleologos, according to whom in the “new things” brought by Mohammed “you will find only evil and inhuman things, like the order to spread the faith by means of the sword.” But he did not apologize at all; he didn’t retract a single line. The lecture in Regensburg was not an academic exercise for him. He did not put aside his papal vestments there in order to speak only the sophisticated language of the theologian, to an audience made up only of specialists. The pope and the theologian in him are all of a piece, and for everyone. 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.

Benedict XVI is hopeful. He would not have been so daring if he did not believe in the real possibility that an interpretation of the Qur’an that marries faith with reason and freedom can be reopened within Islamic thought. 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. And the pope is too much alone in a wayward Europe that really does resemble somewhat the Eurabia described by Oriana Fallaci, a “Christian atheist” whom he has read, met with, and admired. And then there is the violence that hangs over Christians in Islamic countries, and also outside of them – when, to silence the pope, members of his flock are killed, and all the better if they are innocent, like a religious sister, a woman.

[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-)