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
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.