Tweet
MISUNDERSTANDING ISLAM II: IN DEFENSE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
Written by Gregory Borse
ChronWatch, CA
Dec 3 2006
Pope Benedict XVI has just returned from an historic visit to Turkey
and some find his trip remarkable more for what it was not rather
than for what it was: namely, a Christian challenge to Islam.
One example of criticism of the Pope's visit is from the opinion
section of ABC News International. (I employ it here not because it
is exemplary, but because I think it typical).
In an article entitled "Pope's Silence on Armenian Genocide Shameful",
Attorney Mark Geragos takes the Pontiff to task for his failure to
call attention to the many shortcomings of the Turkish government,
especially in regards to its refusal to admit to the Turkish sponsored
genocide of Armenians in 1915. Mr. Geragos, who is of Armenian descent,
is to be sympathized with-he is a board-member of the "All-Armenian
Fund," an organization dedicated to raising money in support of
substantial infrastructure improvement in Armenia.
Still, his article is perhaps representative of a type-open
criticism of a Christian leader in a post 9/11 world is less risky
than open criticism of Muslim sponsored terrorism, whether emanating
(historically) from Turkey or (presently) from Iran, Syria, or anywhere
else . . . just ask Salman Rushdie, or the family members of murdered
film maker Theo Van Gogh, or the cartoonists who offended Islam in
the Netherlands, or, for that matter, Pope Benedict himself, whose
remarks at Regensburg University in Germany last September caused such
controversy in the Muslim world and led to the murder of a Catholic
nun in Africa, prompting the would-be assassin of his predecessor,
John Paul the Great, to write a letter warning the present Pontiff
not to travel to Turkey . . .
Mr. Geragos' opening salvo is to criticize Pope Benedict's "ill
advised" remarks about the "legacy of Mohammed," in his speech
made at the University of Regensburg. Then, Benedict quoted what
Christopher Orlet called "the antepenultimate emperor of the
Byzantine Empire," the now little known Manuel II Paleologus (go
here: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10 368). At
the time, Paleologus was traveling 14th century Europe trying to
convince the Western and Eastern Christian Empires to set aside
their differences long enough to repel the Muslim threat against
Constantinople. Paleologus failed, Constantinople fell, and, as
Orlet writes, the "Roman-Byzantine Empire. . . disappear[ed] from
the earth forever."
The comments made by Benedict about Islam and jihad that so offended
Muslims-and apparently Geragos-were widely quoted: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only
evil and inhuman . . ."
But here is the context for the above from Benedict's actual speech:
"In the seventh conversation
(διά&# 955;εξις - controversy)
edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of
the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads:
'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to some of the experts,
this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed
was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor
also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book'
and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling
brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central
question about the relationship between religion and violence in
general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'. . . The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on
to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through
violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not
pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν
&#95 5;όγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born
of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs
the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence
and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a
strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening
a person with death...'" (emphasis added).
(Go here for a translation of the Pope's entire speech:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.ph tml?sid=94748)
First, it must be understood that the Pope's remarks are directed not
at Muslims specifically, but at members of the scientific community at
Regensburg University and his topic is not jihad or even violence in
the spreading of any religious faith, but the notion of the splitting
off of reason from faith (and the reverse) in our understanding not
only of religion or science, but of civilization, politics, society,
culture, and human nature. Benedict recognizes that Peleologus faced
a similar dilemma as we face today: he too lived in a world in which
two essential qualities of the human soul were increasingly at odds
with each other-reason and faith. That Benedict made his remarks to the
scientific community of a German University is telling, as it implies
that Europe's current problems are rooted in the deep antagonism
that secular-humanist reason has especially toward the specifically
Christian faith upon which European civilization was built. But an
important and related corollary for the post 9/11 Western world is
the deeply antagonistic attitude that a radical interpretation of
Islamic faith has of reason of any kind. And Benedict seems not to
have chosen his words by accident.
In a world in which people who have abandoned faith in favor of reason
are pitted against people who have abandoned reason in favor of faith,
disaster lurks.
Hence, to call Benedict's comments "ill-advised" is simply to
betray a deep ignorance. Benedict's remarks are the antithesis of
ill-advised-they are quite carefully considered, crafted, precise,
and deliberate-nuanced even. They imply that Europe today faces a
double enemy-one within and one without. And Europe's denial of the
enemy within (the insistence upon a false dichotomy between reason
and faith) is precisely the weakness that invites the enemy without
(which operates according to a false dichotomy that pits faith against
reason). In this sense, Benedict is a kind of Winston Churchill on
the eve of World War II-warning Europe that it is on the verge of a
disaster, not only because it cannot and will not recognize the enemy
that openly defies it at every turn, but also because it refuses to
assess appropriately those weaknesses of its own character that may
well prove to be suicidal.
To be fair, Geragos' real concern, something he credits "more
discerning" members of the European Union for being able to recognize,
is "Turkey's ongoing legacy of intolerance and oppression." Such
a statement, however, in an article that uses the War in Iraq as a
framing device to imply that any success by that measure is actually
failure, is rather astonishing. Turkey, among Muslim nations,
is a model of moderation-from a Western, and especially American,
point of view. And yet, if Geragos is to be believed (and I have
no reason to doubt any facts Geragos offers about life in Turkey
for its non-Muslim minorities), Turkey ought not to be admitted to
the European Union until it "adopt[s] something other than medieval
standards of justice." Geragos' clear implication is that the Pope,
as a leader of the Christian world, has missed a real opportunity
to instruct the Muslims in Turkey regarding lessons important to
their civilization and, perhaps more significantly, about joining
ours. This assumes, of course, that the European civilizational model
is superior to Turkey's and that they ought to want to join Europe,
rather than desire to make the EU like them . .
.a stance that is, Mr. Geragos might be interested to know,
antithetical to the prevailing liberal view (according to which all
cultures are equally valid, including Turkey's--even when it sponsors
Armenian genocide).
But did Benedict actually miss the opportunity presented to him by
his being received in Turkey?
Perhaps a look at some of Benedict's own words would be
enlightening. Here is part of what he said to the President of the
Religious Affairs Directorate in Turkey:
"For more than forty years, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council
has inspired and guided the approach taken by the Holy See and by local
Churches throughout the world to relations with the followers of other
religions. Following the Biblical tradition, the Council teaches that
the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny:
God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Christians
and Muslims belong to the family of those who believe in the one
God and who, according to their respective traditions, trace their
ancestry to Abraham (cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate 1,
3). This human and spiritual unity in our origins and our destiny
impels us to seek a common path as we play our part in the quest for
fundamental values so characteristic of the people of our time. As men
and women of religion, we are challenged by the widespread longing
for justice, development, solidarity, freedom, security, peace,
defense of life, protection of the environment and of the resources
of the earth. This is because we too, while respecting the legitimate
autonomy of temporal affairs, have a specific contribution to offer
in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions.
Above all, we can offer a credible response to the question which
emerges clearly from today's society, even if it is often brushed
aside, the question about the meaning and purpose of life, for
each individual and for humanity as a whole. We are called to work
together, so as to help society to open itself to the transcendent,
giving Almighty God his rightful place. The best way forward is
via authentic dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on
truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better,
respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common. This
will lead to an authentic respect for the responsible choices that
each person makes, especially those pertaining to fundamental values
and to personal religious convictions" (emphasis added).
These words are significant given that they were delivered to an
almost entirely Muslim audience. For, they deny some fundamental
Muslim realities. First and foremost, they seek to lay as common
ground between Christians and Muslims that we share a belief in "one
God." But, the Muslim faith denies the Holy Trinity-and, more to the
point, counts Christians as infidels precisely for their expressed
belief in "one God in Three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
According to Islam, this makes Christians idolators and pagans. But is
this a mistake on Benedict's part? Perhaps it is an indication that one
of the world's leading Christian theologians is not very well versed
in the Islamic faith. It would be naïve to believe that to be the
case. Pope Benedict is quite well aware of the differences between
Christianity's understanding of God and Islam's. His deliberately
quoting that bit about the 14th century Paleologus' dialogue with a
"learned Persian" proves it. And yet, in a pilgrimage to Turkey-on
a trip that he was warned not to take in a letter from the would-be
assassin of his predecessor, John Paul the Great-a land rich in
Christian history (Benedict said Mass in Ephesus, honored by both
Muslims and Christians as the home if not the final resting place
of the Virgin Mother), he makes these remarks. They are not a
mistake. They are a challenge.
Then Cardinal Ratzinger chose his name, upon his election as
Pontiff, deliberately-pointing to two other Benedicts, especially,
as foundations for his present pontificate. He explained his choice
of name this way:
"Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak
of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict
XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through
turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the
service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally,
I recall Saint Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life
evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all
to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life:
May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions"
(go here for quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_benedict_XVI).
So, his name evokes two dedicated to Europe-one in "turbulent times
of war" and the other the "co-patron" of Europe, "whose life evokes
the Christian roots of Europe." Significantly, St. Benedict, founder
of the Benedictine Order and of Western Monasticism, is the principal
model in Europe for Christian life as a balance between prayer and
work-in other words, between our concerns for our relations with the
divine and for our relations with our fellow man. The implication is
clear-we must care for both if we are to be whole-as individuals and
as culture-bearers.
It is those Christian roots that are, at present, under attack-not
only in Europe, but in the West. And this Pope has assumed his role
as a Christian leader in a time that requires someone able to see the
forest, as it were, despite the trees. In an age that plays witness
to the ramifications of the war between reason and faith, Benedict
has stepped forth to speak directly to the consequences of such an
artificial-and potentially fatal-bifurcation of the very nature of
man. He makes such comments in the breach. He does so, now, directly
(as at Regensburg) and indirectly, as in Turkey.
And, for such a one, there will be nothing but persecution-from those
within the Europe whose very nature he wishes to preserve and from
those without, members of the Islamic faith, to whom he offers the
olive branch of peace, and an invitation to a coexistence in the
mutual recognition of not merely a common humanity, but a common
humanity rooted in the Divine.
Perhaps the fact that his gestures are being rejected by both parties
is a sign that he is right.
Related: "Misunderstanding Islam" by Gregory Borse
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDis play.asp?aid=23917&catcode=13
--Boundary_(ID_ Z550TtsHZXwhw82+MOK+OQ)--
Written by Gregory Borse
ChronWatch, CA
Dec 3 2006
Pope Benedict XVI has just returned from an historic visit to Turkey
and some find his trip remarkable more for what it was not rather
than for what it was: namely, a Christian challenge to Islam.
One example of criticism of the Pope's visit is from the opinion
section of ABC News International. (I employ it here not because it
is exemplary, but because I think it typical).
In an article entitled "Pope's Silence on Armenian Genocide Shameful",
Attorney Mark Geragos takes the Pontiff to task for his failure to
call attention to the many shortcomings of the Turkish government,
especially in regards to its refusal to admit to the Turkish sponsored
genocide of Armenians in 1915. Mr. Geragos, who is of Armenian descent,
is to be sympathized with-he is a board-member of the "All-Armenian
Fund," an organization dedicated to raising money in support of
substantial infrastructure improvement in Armenia.
Still, his article is perhaps representative of a type-open
criticism of a Christian leader in a post 9/11 world is less risky
than open criticism of Muslim sponsored terrorism, whether emanating
(historically) from Turkey or (presently) from Iran, Syria, or anywhere
else . . . just ask Salman Rushdie, or the family members of murdered
film maker Theo Van Gogh, or the cartoonists who offended Islam in
the Netherlands, or, for that matter, Pope Benedict himself, whose
remarks at Regensburg University in Germany last September caused such
controversy in the Muslim world and led to the murder of a Catholic
nun in Africa, prompting the would-be assassin of his predecessor,
John Paul the Great, to write a letter warning the present Pontiff
not to travel to Turkey . . .
Mr. Geragos' opening salvo is to criticize Pope Benedict's "ill
advised" remarks about the "legacy of Mohammed," in his speech
made at the University of Regensburg. Then, Benedict quoted what
Christopher Orlet called "the antepenultimate emperor of the
Byzantine Empire," the now little known Manuel II Paleologus (go
here: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10 368). At
the time, Paleologus was traveling 14th century Europe trying to
convince the Western and Eastern Christian Empires to set aside
their differences long enough to repel the Muslim threat against
Constantinople. Paleologus failed, Constantinople fell, and, as
Orlet writes, the "Roman-Byzantine Empire. . . disappear[ed] from
the earth forever."
The comments made by Benedict about Islam and jihad that so offended
Muslims-and apparently Geragos-were widely quoted: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only
evil and inhuman . . ."
But here is the context for the above from Benedict's actual speech:
"In the seventh conversation
(διά&# 955;εξις - controversy)
edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of
the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads:
'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to some of the experts,
this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed
was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor
also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book'
and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling
brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central
question about the relationship between religion and violence in
general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'. . . The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on
to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through
violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not
pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν
&#95 5;όγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born
of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs
the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence
and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a
strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening
a person with death...'" (emphasis added).
(Go here for a translation of the Pope's entire speech:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.ph tml?sid=94748)
First, it must be understood that the Pope's remarks are directed not
at Muslims specifically, but at members of the scientific community at
Regensburg University and his topic is not jihad or even violence in
the spreading of any religious faith, but the notion of the splitting
off of reason from faith (and the reverse) in our understanding not
only of religion or science, but of civilization, politics, society,
culture, and human nature. Benedict recognizes that Peleologus faced
a similar dilemma as we face today: he too lived in a world in which
two essential qualities of the human soul were increasingly at odds
with each other-reason and faith. That Benedict made his remarks to the
scientific community of a German University is telling, as it implies
that Europe's current problems are rooted in the deep antagonism
that secular-humanist reason has especially toward the specifically
Christian faith upon which European civilization was built. But an
important and related corollary for the post 9/11 Western world is
the deeply antagonistic attitude that a radical interpretation of
Islamic faith has of reason of any kind. And Benedict seems not to
have chosen his words by accident.
In a world in which people who have abandoned faith in favor of reason
are pitted against people who have abandoned reason in favor of faith,
disaster lurks.
Hence, to call Benedict's comments "ill-advised" is simply to
betray a deep ignorance. Benedict's remarks are the antithesis of
ill-advised-they are quite carefully considered, crafted, precise,
and deliberate-nuanced even. They imply that Europe today faces a
double enemy-one within and one without. And Europe's denial of the
enemy within (the insistence upon a false dichotomy between reason
and faith) is precisely the weakness that invites the enemy without
(which operates according to a false dichotomy that pits faith against
reason). In this sense, Benedict is a kind of Winston Churchill on
the eve of World War II-warning Europe that it is on the verge of a
disaster, not only because it cannot and will not recognize the enemy
that openly defies it at every turn, but also because it refuses to
assess appropriately those weaknesses of its own character that may
well prove to be suicidal.
To be fair, Geragos' real concern, something he credits "more
discerning" members of the European Union for being able to recognize,
is "Turkey's ongoing legacy of intolerance and oppression." Such
a statement, however, in an article that uses the War in Iraq as a
framing device to imply that any success by that measure is actually
failure, is rather astonishing. Turkey, among Muslim nations,
is a model of moderation-from a Western, and especially American,
point of view. And yet, if Geragos is to be believed (and I have
no reason to doubt any facts Geragos offers about life in Turkey
for its non-Muslim minorities), Turkey ought not to be admitted to
the European Union until it "adopt[s] something other than medieval
standards of justice." Geragos' clear implication is that the Pope,
as a leader of the Christian world, has missed a real opportunity
to instruct the Muslims in Turkey regarding lessons important to
their civilization and, perhaps more significantly, about joining
ours. This assumes, of course, that the European civilizational model
is superior to Turkey's and that they ought to want to join Europe,
rather than desire to make the EU like them . .
.a stance that is, Mr. Geragos might be interested to know,
antithetical to the prevailing liberal view (according to which all
cultures are equally valid, including Turkey's--even when it sponsors
Armenian genocide).
But did Benedict actually miss the opportunity presented to him by
his being received in Turkey?
Perhaps a look at some of Benedict's own words would be
enlightening. Here is part of what he said to the President of the
Religious Affairs Directorate in Turkey:
"For more than forty years, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council
has inspired and guided the approach taken by the Holy See and by local
Churches throughout the world to relations with the followers of other
religions. Following the Biblical tradition, the Council teaches that
the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny:
God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Christians
and Muslims belong to the family of those who believe in the one
God and who, according to their respective traditions, trace their
ancestry to Abraham (cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate 1,
3). This human and spiritual unity in our origins and our destiny
impels us to seek a common path as we play our part in the quest for
fundamental values so characteristic of the people of our time. As men
and women of religion, we are challenged by the widespread longing
for justice, development, solidarity, freedom, security, peace,
defense of life, protection of the environment and of the resources
of the earth. This is because we too, while respecting the legitimate
autonomy of temporal affairs, have a specific contribution to offer
in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions.
Above all, we can offer a credible response to the question which
emerges clearly from today's society, even if it is often brushed
aside, the question about the meaning and purpose of life, for
each individual and for humanity as a whole. We are called to work
together, so as to help society to open itself to the transcendent,
giving Almighty God his rightful place. The best way forward is
via authentic dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on
truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better,
respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common. This
will lead to an authentic respect for the responsible choices that
each person makes, especially those pertaining to fundamental values
and to personal religious convictions" (emphasis added).
These words are significant given that they were delivered to an
almost entirely Muslim audience. For, they deny some fundamental
Muslim realities. First and foremost, they seek to lay as common
ground between Christians and Muslims that we share a belief in "one
God." But, the Muslim faith denies the Holy Trinity-and, more to the
point, counts Christians as infidels precisely for their expressed
belief in "one God in Three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
According to Islam, this makes Christians idolators and pagans. But is
this a mistake on Benedict's part? Perhaps it is an indication that one
of the world's leading Christian theologians is not very well versed
in the Islamic faith. It would be naïve to believe that to be the
case. Pope Benedict is quite well aware of the differences between
Christianity's understanding of God and Islam's. His deliberately
quoting that bit about the 14th century Paleologus' dialogue with a
"learned Persian" proves it. And yet, in a pilgrimage to Turkey-on
a trip that he was warned not to take in a letter from the would-be
assassin of his predecessor, John Paul the Great-a land rich in
Christian history (Benedict said Mass in Ephesus, honored by both
Muslims and Christians as the home if not the final resting place
of the Virgin Mother), he makes these remarks. They are not a
mistake. They are a challenge.
Then Cardinal Ratzinger chose his name, upon his election as
Pontiff, deliberately-pointing to two other Benedicts, especially,
as foundations for his present pontificate. He explained his choice
of name this way:
"Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak
of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict
XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through
turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the
service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally,
I recall Saint Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life
evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all
to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life:
May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions"
(go here for quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_benedict_XVI).
So, his name evokes two dedicated to Europe-one in "turbulent times
of war" and the other the "co-patron" of Europe, "whose life evokes
the Christian roots of Europe." Significantly, St. Benedict, founder
of the Benedictine Order and of Western Monasticism, is the principal
model in Europe for Christian life as a balance between prayer and
work-in other words, between our concerns for our relations with the
divine and for our relations with our fellow man. The implication is
clear-we must care for both if we are to be whole-as individuals and
as culture-bearers.
It is those Christian roots that are, at present, under attack-not
only in Europe, but in the West. And this Pope has assumed his role
as a Christian leader in a time that requires someone able to see the
forest, as it were, despite the trees. In an age that plays witness
to the ramifications of the war between reason and faith, Benedict
has stepped forth to speak directly to the consequences of such an
artificial-and potentially fatal-bifurcation of the very nature of
man. He makes such comments in the breach. He does so, now, directly
(as at Regensburg) and indirectly, as in Turkey.
And, for such a one, there will be nothing but persecution-from those
within the Europe whose very nature he wishes to preserve and from
those without, members of the Islamic faith, to whom he offers the
olive branch of peace, and an invitation to a coexistence in the
mutual recognition of not merely a common humanity, but a common
humanity rooted in the Divine.
Perhaps the fact that his gestures are being rejected by both parties
is a sign that he is right.
Related: "Misunderstanding Islam" by Gregory Borse
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDis play.asp?aid=23917&catcode=13
--Boundary_(ID_ Z550TtsHZXwhw82+MOK+OQ)--