Islam and Democracy, a Secret Meeting at Castelgandolfo

Chiesa ^ | January 23, 2006 | Sandro Magister

[NYer]

ROMA, January 23, 2006 – Joseph Ratzinger has written little on the topic of Islam over the years. But it is a topic very much on his mind, and all the more so since he became pope. Last September, in Castelgandolfo (see photo), Benedict XVI dedicated two days of study to Islam, behind closed doors, together with two experts in Islamic studies and a group of his former theology students.

The news of the meeting leaked out, but until last January 5 nothing was known about what was said there.

But on January 5, one of Ratzinger’s former students who participated in the meeting, American Jesuit Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, and founder of the publishing house Ignatius Press, gave an ample account of the meeting during one of the most popular radio talk shows in the United States: the Hugh Hewitt Show.

During the interview, Fr. Fessio also reported the thoughts expressed by the pope in the course of the discussion. In Fessio’s view, Benedict XVI holds that Islam and democracy cannot be reconciled.

But one of the other participants at the meeting, Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit and professor of Islamic studies at the Université Saint-Joseph in Beirut and at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, when consulted by www.chiesa, gave a different interpretation of the pope’s thought. In Fr. Samir’s view, Benedict XVI holds that it is very difficult, but not impossible, to reconcile Islam and democracy.

In his contribution to the discussion, the pope supposedly wanted to explain precisely the reasons for this difficulty.

* * *
The meeting held last September in Castelgandolfo was the last in a series of annual meetings with Ratzinger and his former students.

The first were held when Ratzinger was a theology professor in Ratisbonne. When he became archbishop of Munich, they asked him to continue, and he accepted. The same thing happened when he moved to Rome as the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The meetings lasted a weekend, and were usually held at a monastery. At the end of the meeting in 2004, the participants left with the topic for the following year already chosen: Islam, or more precisely the Islamic concept of God. The two experts who would introduce the discussion had also been selected: Fr. Samir Khalil Samir and another Jesuit scholar of Islamic studies, Christian Troll, from Germany.

In the spring of 2005 Ratzinger was elected pope and his former students thought the meetings would come to an end. But that didn’t happen. Benedict XVI told them that it was very important to him that they continue. And they do continue – the theme chosen for the meeting in 2006 is the relationship between Christianity and science.

* * *
Here are the central passages of the transcript of Fr. Joseph Fessio’s radio interview with Hugh Hewitt:


”And the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said...”

From: The Hugh Hewitt Show, January 5, 2006


JF: The main presentation by Father Troll was very interesting. He based it on a Pakistani Muslim scholar named Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years, and Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran, like cutting off your hand if you're a thief, or being able to have four wives, or whatever, and takes the principles behind those specific pieces of legislation for the 7th century of Arabia, and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

HH: Is he an optimist about that happening?

JF: He is, but interesting, you know, all the seminars I recall with Joseph Ratzinger, he'd always let the students speak. He'd wait until the end, and he would intervene. This is the first time I recall where he made an immediate statement. And I'm still struck by it, how powerful it was.

HH: And what did the pope say?

JF: Well, the thesis that was proposed by Father Troll was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. 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. I was... I mean, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that's why he's pope and I'm not, okay? That's one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning.

HH: And so, is it fair to describe him as a pessimist about the prospect of modernity truly engaging Islam in the way modernity has engaged Christianity?

JF: Well, the other way around.

HH: Yes. I meant that.

JF: Yeah, that Christianity can engage modernity just like it did... the Jews did to Egypt, or Christians did to Greece, because we can take what's good there, and we can elevate it through the revelation of Christ in the Bible. But Islam is stuck. It's stuck with a text that cannot be adapted, or even be interpreted properly.

HH: And so the pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Koran is?

JF: Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as it's understood by Muslims.

HH: And so, even the dialectic that was the Reformation is not possible within Islam?

JF: No. And then a second thing which he did not say, but which I would have said, I might have said at the time, is that... and this is from a Catholic point of view, there's no one to interpret the Koran officially. the Catholic Church has an official interpreter, which is the Holy Father with the bishops.

* * *
So, according to Fr. Fessio’s account, Benedict XVI sees Islam as incompatible with democracy.

But according to another participant at the same meeting, Jesuit scholar of Islamic studies Samir Khalil Samir, the pope is less pessimistic. According to this account, the pope sees a meeting between Islam and democracy as possible, but “on the condition of a radical reinterpretation of the Koran and of the very conception of divine revelation.”

On the second day of the discussions in Castelgandolfo, speaking as an expert, Fr. Samir developed precisely this aspect of the question.

This is not a merely theoretical dispute. Each of these interpretations has significant geopolitical repercussions. America’s overall strategy in Iraq and the greater Middle East is founded precisely upon the possibility of democracy’s birth and growth in those Muslim regions.

It also involves the future of Muslim immigrants in Europe. An Islam reconciled with democracy would allow their integration. An Islam incapable of distinguishing between God and Caesar would trap them in a state of “alienation.”

This is what Ratzinger wrote some years ago in one of his rare comments on Islam, in three pages of the book-length interview “The Salt of the Earth,” published in Germany in 1996 and in the United States the following year, by Ignatius Press, the publishing house of Fr. Joseph Fessio.

It is the passage reproduced below. It should be read with the awareness that almost ten years, dense with events and further reflections, have passed since then.


”Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end...”

by Joseph Ratzinger


I think that first we must recognize that Islam is not a uniform thing. In fact, there is no single authority for all Muslims, and for this reason dialogue with Islam is always dialogue with certain groups. No one can speak for Islam as a whole; it has, as it were, no commonly regarded orthodoxy. And, to prescind from the schism between Sunnis and Shiites, it also exists in many varieties. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which, again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice.

An important point, however, is [...] that the interplay of society, politics, and religion has a completely difference structure in Islam as a whole. Today's discussion in the West about the possibility of Islamic theological faculties, or about the idea of Islam as a legal entity, presupposes that all religions have basically the same structure, that they all fit into a democratic system with its regulations and the possibilities provided by these regulations. In itself, however, this necessarily contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and religious sphere which Christianity has had from the beginning. The Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Sharia shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such partial freedoms as our constitution gives, but it can't be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, it would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself.

Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything. There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society. One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society. When one represents the situation in those terms, as often happens today, Islam is defined according to the Christian model and is not seen as it really is in itself. In this sense, the question of dialogue with Islam is naturally much more complicated than, for example, an internal dialogue among Christians.

The consolidation of Islam worldwide is a multifaceted phenomenon. On the one hand, financial factors play a role here. The financial power that the Arab countries have attained and that allows them to build large Mosques everywhere, to guarantee a presence of Muslim cultural institutes and more things of that sort. But that is certainly only one factor. The other is an enhanced identity, a new self-consciousness.

In the cultural situation of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, until the 1960s, the superiority of the Christian countries was industrially, culturally, politically, and militarily so great that Islam was really forced into the second rank. Christianity – at any rate, civilizations with a Christian foundation – could present themselves as the victorious power in world history. But then the great moral crisis of the Western world, which appears to be the Christian world, broke out. In the face of the deep moral contradictions of the West and of its internal helplessness – which was suddenly opposed by a new economic power of the Arab countries – the Islamic soul reawakened. We are somebody too; we know who we are; our religion is holding its ground; you don't have one any longer.

This is actually the feeling today of the Muslim world: The Western countries are no longer capable of preaching a message of morality, but have only know-how to offer the world. The Christian religion has abdicated; it really no longer exists as a religion; the Christians no longer have a morality or a faith; all that's left are a few remains of some modern ideas of enlightenment; we have the religion that stands the test.

So the Muslims now have the consciousness that in reality Islam has remained in the end as the more vigorous religion and that they have something to say to the world, indeed, are the essential religious force of the future. Before, the shariah and all those things had already left the scene, in a sense; now there is a new pride. Thus a new zest, a new intensity about wanting to live Islam has awakened. This is its great power: We have a moral message that has existed without interruption since the prophets, and we will tell the world how to live it, whereas the Christians certainly can't. We must naturally come to terms with this inner power of Islam, which fascinates even academic circles.

__________


The book from which this selection was taken:

Joseph Ratzinger, “Salt of the Earth. The Church at the End of the Millennium,” an interview with Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997.

__________


The complete transcript of the radio interview with Fr. Joseph Fessio:

> The Hugh Hewitt Show, January 5, 2006

[NYer]

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

[NYer]

Ping!

[Carolina]

Bookmarking for later read. Thanks!

[Alex Murphy]

But on January 5, one of Ratzinger’s former students who participated in the meeting, American Jesuit Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, and founder of the publishing house Ignatius Press, gave an ample account of the meeting during one of the most popular radio talk shows in the United States: the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Ping for later reading. Thanks for the transcript of the interview! It will prove interesting to see how BXVI responds to Islam during his lifetime.

[muawiyah]

No doubt the Pope is aware of the work being done by German scholars who have in their possession the oldest known Korans.

Although only a small part of their findings have been released, it's pretty clear that they can demonstrate that the Koran has "other sources". That is the sort of thing that provides a route to reinterpret it, or simply abandon all or part of it as necessary.

[Aquinasfan]

During the interview, Fr. Fessio also reported the thoughts expressed by the pope in the course of the discussion. In Fessio’s view, Benedict XVI holds that Islam and democracy cannot be reconciled.

But one of the other participants at the meeting, Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit and professor of Islamic studies at the Université Saint-Joseph in Beirut and at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, when consulted by www.chiesa, gave a different interpretation of the pope’s thought. In Fr. Samir’s view, Benedict XVI holds that it is very difficult, but not impossible, to reconcile Islam and democracy.

If the imposition of democratic government upon Mohammedan societies is the only hope for reforming Mohammedanism, then it's an action that must be undertaken. The only other hope for reforming Mohammedanism is evangelization via the internet, but that's a much longer term solution.

[MillerCreek]

Thank you for this, and for the link to the full interview.

I have saved both to my documents files.

I revel in Pope Benedict XVI with each and every lesson he instructs. I feel so blessed that God has provided to us such a man of faith AND who has such a remarkably quick and refined intellect (and wit!). I find Pope Benedict so inspiring, just so much so.

[NYer]

I have saved both to my documents files.

Here's another article you may want to bookmark for future reference. Read it through very carefully; as a linguist, I can attest to the subtle differences that can be misunderstood, especially between dialects.

The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran

[NYer]

Although only a small part of their findings have been released, it's pretty clear that they can demonstrate that the Koran has "other sources".

Sorry I missed this post. See the link in #9.

[MillerCreek]

I've read that before, interesting enough! Thanks, though. Saving a copy for future reference, however.

[Ozone34]

This is fascinating. I wonder how this information squares with the work of Robert Eisenman ("James, the Brother of Jesus") who argues that Islam evolved from a very conservative and legalistic Jewish sect that scattered throughout the Middle East following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

With regard to the potential hazards to the life and limbs of "Christoph Luxenberg" by less than open-minded Muslims, I recall reading years ago that in Japan, any academic who attempts to question the purity of the Japanese race risks certain career destruction, despite significant linguistic evidence that the most early imperial rulers of Japan were probably Korean!

[redgolum]

Very interesting! Got a link? I would like to follow this.

[livius]

The Pope understands Islam very well. Islam is basically a syncretist cult that developed from the "visions" of a rather self-interested bandit who lived in a world dominated by three forces: a very mixed paganism, a doubtlessly confused Judaism of the Diaspora, and an Arab Christianity severely weakened by the Arian heresy, which was the early Christian version of Unitarianism.

He obviously picked up on the zeitgeist of his environment and had visions tailored to match. The fact that he enforced them with the wholly different contribution of ruthless banditry, tax collection and subjugation (taken from pagan and Roman cultures) was probably the thing that put him over the top in a world where the stabilizing secular influence - Rome - and the stabilizing religious influence - the Roman Catholic Church - had either collapsed or been severely weakened.

[muawiyah]

The Japanese get very upset about ANYTHING that brings the national myth into disrepute ~ that includes suggesting that Koreans ever came to Japan as anything but servants, or that 40% of their genetic background comes from the same folks as the Ainu.

They're still struggling with the idea that the ancient Jomon (same thing as the Ainu) really are ancestral, but the terracotta statues that look like many (40%) modern Japanese are difficult to refute.

The Japanese have a real need to believe they are a homogenous people.

[muawiyah]

BTW, Mohammad's existence outside of Arabian sources is not attested to.

Many believe him to be little more than a minor figure with some ideas about reforming pagan beliefs. Shortly after the Meccan Arab conquest of Damascus, a more elaborate story was developed ~ one worthy of a real prophet.

Recall, up until that point the folks at Mecca were pretty much smalltown farm boys. They'd had no idea what the rest of the world was in to.

Besides, it was the Dark Ages, times were tough, everybody had problems, and Islam, as portrayed by the Meccan crowd, looked to many to have some real promise in restructuring a fractured world.

[livius]

Basically, the power vacuum left by the collapse of Rome and the weakness of the Church was what really opened the door to Mohammed's fantasy. It provided a supra-national unity and power bloc in that area. Of course, the people who signed on didn't realize that Islam would crush their cultures dead within 150 years . This is exactly what it did - the "glories of Islam" are all the glories of the pre-Islamic cultures, which Islam took credit for and then snuffed out because it is an anti-intellectual, anti-artistic and all-encompassing system that allows no freedom in any area.

This is basically its function right now in the ME - it's making a lot of two-bit countries with an oil boom but no real economy feel very important. I think, however, that the fanatical nut in Iran is going to make some of these Islamic leaders have to decide which side their bread is buttered on. Islam is all very well and good if it's a rallying cry and the basis for a power bloc, but less enjoyable if it costs some sheik his yacht or his herd of paramours.

[Nihil Obstat]

...it's making a lot of two-bit countries with an oil boom but no real economy feel very important.

what happens when the oil runs out?

[livius]

That, supposedly, is one of the things stirring up Iran (which only has about 20 more years of oil).

However, I think that's attributing too much rationality to their local mahdi. He'd probably like to take over the rest of the countries around him when the oil runs out, but he's not too worried because by then he will have brought on Armageddon and he'll be enjoying those multiple virgins someplace or another.

[onedoug]

The Pope has a good heart, which is all one can say, on this, for the present.