Pope Invites New Look at Catholicism

AP ^ | 9/25/6 | BRIAN MURPHY

[SmithL]

Pope Benedict XVI's reference to dark aspects in Islam's history also has opened up another type of backlash for his church: fresh examinations of its past as conqueror, inquisitor and patron of missionaries whose zeal sometimes led to conflict with other faiths.

Stark comparisons between Islam and Western Christianity — and deeds done in their name — are again on the rise even as the pontiff urged Muslim envoys Monday to look ahead rather than back.

Many Islamic leaders, in turn, have appealed for the West not to judge their faith's nearly 1,400-year history solely by modern calls for "holy war" and the Muslim rage over Benedict's Sept. 12 speech, which included a reference to a Byzantine emperor who characterized some teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" such as spreading Islam "by the sword."

"There is this impression among Muslims that the pope was saying, `We are superior and we are without problems," said Ali El-Samman, president of the interfaith committee for Egypt's High Islamic Council. "The history books will tell you otherwise."

The Vatican in recent years has tried to clear away some historical baggage, including a 2001 apology by Pope John Paul II for the medieval Crusades, which are widely seen by Muslims and Orthodox Christians as Western invasions. During a visit the same year to Syria, John Paul also became the first pope to visit a mosque.

In a meeting Monday with Muslim diplomats from 21 nations and the Arab League, Benedict urged both Christians and Muslims to "guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence." He did not, however, offer a direct apology for his earlier remarks as demanded by some Muslim leaders and clerics.

Benedict's speech found a sympathetic ear among many in the West.

[AlbionGirl]

Very good post. Yours too, livius.

The problem is letting go of the sword. Christianity can do it because Christianity can evolve with culture...islam cannot.

That, I can agree with.

[Dark Skies]

I'll never forget the beheading of Nick (can't remember his last name).

Berg...Nick Berg.

Conscience lives in the "rhizome" (Jung's metaphor) and we must dig deep to find it. Finding one's conscience is achieved by digging deeply into one's heart...digging into the truth of one's self. And religion (a belief system) is at the heart of all peoples...and it lives in the rhizome.

But in the case of islam...religion of out of bounds when it comes to examination.

Christians thrive on it...we dig, find sin, confess it and find liberation and even transcendence. Islamics cannot dig because they have no mechanism for confession and repentance and forgiveness. Ergo, not digging, they cannot find the truth...and they have not seen their consciences.

They have not seen them but they(it) still exists...muslims can feel it, but they cannot see it.

It may be invisible but the islamics still hunger for it. Conscience must be assuaged if eternity can be faced with impunity.

The Pope knows this and is demonstrating it by his actions.

I am but a piker in these matters...but I know an expert when I see one.

[irishjuggler]

the medieval Crusades, which are widely seen by Muslims and Orthodox Christians as Western invasions.

Well, the Muslims might think that, but is that an accurate assessment of the Orthodox view? I know that there are some hard feelings among Orthodox over the occasional behavior of some Western Christians, but "invasion" hardly seems like the right word when the Crusaders were often there at the invitation of the Byzantine Emperor.

[Dark Skies]

The Pope is proposing a strategy which hinges on the burying of the sword. And it is more importantly hinged on raising the Cross.

The Cross is more than just salvation...it is a beacon for all those who never knew the Lord.

When the Cross and the Sword are set side by side...the sword with whither and the Cross will draw the hopeful to it.

The Lord is here now, IMO, showing us His power...and giving us the opportunity to show courage in His defense (or at least in defense of our own faith).

What a great time to be alive!

[Aquinasfan]

What the article neglects to mention is that Christians who kill and conquer do it in SPITE of their source text,

That's the most important point.

The second most important point ignored by the writer is that the Crusades originated as an effort to drive back the Mohammedans who had conquered Christian lands.

And thirdly, the excesses of religious zeal in the middle ages, such as those related to the various Inquisitions, are highly exaggerated.

[redgolum]

Quite right. The Crusades were not a colonizing movement. The majority of people on Crusade had two goals.

1. Liberate Jerusalem for Christianity.
2. Return home after that.

In fact, the recurring theme through the Crusading period was that an army would come, take or hold Jerusalem, then every one would pack up and go home. There was little effort to consolidate the holdings. True, there were some who went for gold and fame, or to start over, but for most it was a holy duty. And an unpleasant one at that.

The end came more because of this lack of consolidation than anything else.

[RobbyS]

The pope has said: no violence in the name of relgion. I am still waiting for Muslims to say. "Right on." All this crap is liberalism 101, knee jerk retorts to anything the pope says.

[AlbionGirl]

What you write is almost in direct opposition to what Paul Johnson writes, unless I'm misunderstanding you. He certainly isn't infallible, but it seems he doesn't agree with you, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to give him the nod here. I don't mean any disrespect by that, by any means though, so I hope you don't take offense. I can't actually do the research myself. I can't access the information sources he can, and my own experience with the Church is one that comports more easily with his explication of events than yours.

Again, I don't mean to imply that you are not smart or capable or anything of the kind.

[RobbyS]

The Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Irak, and Egypt was a colonizing movement. The Arabs came in and imposed their rule over a largely Christian population. They then forbade taxed them to death, and made free exercise of their faith impossible. Most of the vaunted achievements of the "Arab golden age" were actually those of the oppressed Christian Assyrian populations. As they converted to Islam, the glory faded.

[redgolum]

No offense taken :) This is something I am very interested in, and have been studying for quite a while. Actually, I love to talk history, and my dear bride is often the brunt of my meanding ramblings so it is good (for her at least) to have someone else to talk about it with.

Many historians, such as Sir Steven Runciman (Oxford professor who specializes in the period), point out rather clearly that the main part of the Crusader armies didn't stick around after the end of the war. Runciman wrote a great group of books on the Crusades (a bit dry for popular use, but very good), and presents why the colonization theory isn't quite accurate. Most people viewed the crusade as a holy duty. Many did it as a penitential rite, with the understanding that the likelihood of surviving was slim. Those who made it through often wanted to go home to their families and try to recover from the cost of the pilgrimage. A great many noble houses were wiped out from it.

That isn't to say that there was no real money grubbing guys out there. The story of the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem is filled with robber barons playing both sides, double crosses, deception, and looting of each other, ending in a last stand from a leper king with a jealous in law seeking to usurp him.

Now, Paul Johnson is probably just repeating what mid 20th century scholars, who have an agenda against Western culture, have said. That the Crusades were an outlet for the lesser sons of royalty and nobility. Now some of that happened, but for the most part it was the higher nobles and royals themselves who went on crusade, and left their brothers (and sometimes sisters) at home to manage the estates. Those who didn't have adults to turn the management of the lands over to, often put them (or mortgaged them) to the local bishops or monasteries. Which is partially how the Roman Catholic Church got so much land in Europe. Also, realize Paul Johnson is a self described liberal (in the British sense), and that can be seen in his books (I assume your are reading A History of Christianity correct?). He actually does a decent job of being objective, but you can pick up his world view.

More on Mr. Johnson here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(journalist)

Article about "Myths of the Crusades" (not sure who the group is, but I think we have FReepers from there.

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/western_civilization/madden_interview.htm

[redgolum]

In that respect, yes. The only real "colonies" set up by European powers were the various trading centers built by the Italian republics such as Genoa and Venice. They set up small centers, like the Genoaese quarter in Constantinople, for trade rights, and often warred with each other over them.

The Fourth Crusade ended so badly because the Dogde (sp?) of Venice wanted to put a pretender on the Byzantine throne that would grant him exclusive trade rights. So the who enterprise ended up sacking a Christian city (ask any Orthodox Christian about it sometime) and not attacking Jerusalem or Alexandria.

[ELS]

not sure who the group is

Tradition, Family, and Property
Who We Are

[onyx]

===== placemark ======

[AlbionGirl]

Thanks for the informative response. I will check Prof. Runciman out at the Library.

Sort of on the same subject, and relative to Pope Benedict's speech. I recently read the following (courtesy of American Spectator piece) regarding Manuel II Paleologus.

"He [Manuel II] was, foremost, the antepenultimate emperor of the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire. At the time of his reign (1391-1425) the Muslim Turks had their sights set on the empire's capital of Constantinople. In 1399, Manuel traveled to England, France, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and Aragon seeking assistance from the various monarchs and courts. His visit was a complete bust. The split between the Greek Orthodox and Roman churches proved too wide. Unless the Greeks agreed to join the Roman Church there would be no troops, no assistance, and the Greeks were not about to surrender their autonomy to Rome, not even to save the empire, their religion and their lives."

If this is true, how significant do you think it was in terms of any sort of realignment of powers, and how would you extrapolate to current events?

[Salvation]

BTTT! This looks great!

[redgolum]

Another great set of books are the books by Harold Lamb. "Iron Men and Saints" and "The Flame of Islam". Older books, but very readable. Not as deep, but they are more of a story than the minute details.

The final act of the Eastern Empire was one were the Emperor was trying to draw the Western powers to his aid, but retain his autonomy. His fear was that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church prelates would never reconcile, and at the time he was right. To many attempts at reconciliation had been tried and failed. Also, reconciliation would mean that the Byzantine empire would have to recognize the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire (basically the German and Spanish states), which for a number of political and theological reasons he couldn't.

That, coupled with the scandal of two Popes in the West, pretty much guaranteed that no help would come. Buy Paleologus's mission did have one great result. It opened the way for more exiles to flee to the West, which helped bring the Renaissance.

As to what it means for today, look to Russia and the new Russian Empire (for that is what it is). Russia was for centuries after the fall of Constantinople seen as the last bastion of the Eastern Church. The symbols (double headed eagle, St. Andrew's cross, etc) are all tied with the Eastern Empire. There was, and is, a big feeling that the West abandoned the East to her fate. Russia, and to some extant Greece, have long had the goal of retaking Constantinople and restoring the Hagia Sophia.

To counteract this, Britain and France in the past, and the US in the present, have allied themselves with what is now Turkey. So we have the specter of Christian states (Protestant England, Catholic France, and polyglot US) joining together with a muslim power against an Orthodox state (as Russia is once again trying to be). That is partially why, even after the Cold War, Russia views us as opponents.

[AlbionGirl]

Another great set of books are the books by Harold Lamb. "Iron Men and Saints" and "The Flame of Islam". Older books, but very readable. Not as deep, but they are more of a story than the minute details.

Thank you. I think I might give them first shot.

There was, and is, a big feeling that the West abandoned the East to her fate.

That is exactly the sad and sort of sickening feeling I got when I read the Spectator piece. How could we do it? It's like leaving your brother to an awful fate.

I have mostly Russian neighbors. I live in an area known as little Odessa. The gentleman that occupied the apartment below me, back in 2000 had been a prosecutor in Moscow. He was 75 at the time, so I'm not sure if he was a prosecutor under Stalin or not. But he had stacks of dossiers that he brought with him when the dissolution occurred. A very interesting man. I was sorry to see him move.

As I begin to read some of this stuff, I might ping you for opinion or helping me understand something. Is that ok?

[wea]

The new way to consider Catholicism is catholicfundamentalism.com Theory is that God can program in three dimensions. He MAKES particles, so could make all Creation in six days ten thousand years ago. WOW. Grandpa was right. Moderns wrong!

[RobbyS]

I'm talking about the Arabs. Damascus was not an Arab city, nor was Baghdad, Cairo was estabslished as an Arab camp to keep the troop from Alexandria. As they moved west/east , of course, they began to pick up locals as auxilaries. Everyone loves a winner!

[redgolum]

Feel free! Hopefully your library still has the Harold Lamb books. I picked mine up at a local used book store.