On Sunday Pope Benedict said:
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect [SOURCE].
I’ve highlighted a few phrases from this because of their significance for recent discussions taking place here on the blog.
The first one ("I am deeply sorry for the reactions") does not carry the meaning that what the pope said in his University of Regensburg speech was wrong. This is what one would expect. The pope does not believe that what he said was wrong–and it wasn’t. He therefore focuses his expression of sorrow on the real problem–the reactions that were touched off in the wake of the speech.
This statement is open to several constructions, one of which is the kind of terse feauxpology that we often encounter in our own lives (i.e., the one with the meaning "I’m sorry you flew off the handle, but I don’t think I did anything wrong at all; the fault is thus really all yours"). I don’t think that’s what the pope’s doing here; I think it’s more subtle than that, but the English translation I have access to uses a phrasing that is open to that interpretation. I don’t want to press the English phrasing, though, because expressions of regret are extraordinarily difficult to precisely port from one language to another without some loss or addition of meaning and force. So I’ll have to wait until I find out more about this aspect of the original language text.
The second highlighted statement ("which do not in any way express my own thoughts") rules out an interpretation that seems to be common in the combox from Friday–the idea that in presenting the words of Manuel II Paleologous the pope was endorsing them and speaking them in a kind of macho swordthrust of unpleasant truth for Islam.
While Benedict XVI is quite capable of speaking unpleasant truths, the idea that he was endorsing as his own the un-nuanced remark by Manuel II was–for anyone who is familiar with the details of the pope’s thought–clearly false. The second highlighted statement confirms this. B16 was not endorsing the ideas of Manuel II.
The third highlighted statement ("the true meaning of my words") indicates that the pope perceives the problem as one of incomprehension. It is not that he spoke the unplesant truth about Islam and Muslims got offended. It is that Muslims failed to grasp–for whatever reason, including the way that his words were reported to them through their own hate-inciting, government-controlled press–"the true meaning of [his] words."
This too distances one from the macho swordthrust of truth to Islam interpretation.
Finally, the fourth highlighted phrase ("in its totality") also points us away from that interpretation. The pope here indicates that the point of the speech was to issue "an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect." That is inconsistent with the macho swordthrust interpretation, and the fact that the pope says the speech was an invitation to a dialogue "with great mutual respect" in its totality means–if we are to take the pope at his word–that he wasn’t even trying to get in a little swordthrust on the side.
The pope thus tells us that he was trying to summon people to a profoundly mutually respectful dialogue but that the true meaning of his words was misunderstood and he does not endorse as his own the sentiments of Manuel II and that he is deeply sorry for the reactions that this passage in his speech led to.
The pope also alludes to the statement by the new Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, which he says explains the "true meaning" of what he said. It is thus worthwhile to look at that statement.
In the statement Cardinal Bertone explains concerning the opinion of Manuel II that "the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he
mean, to make that opinion his own in any way." So yet another piece of evidence against the macho swordthrust interpretation.
He further says that "The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: ‘The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God.’"
He quotes the popes own words to a Muslim audience that "We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity."
And on behalf of the pope he conveys the following:
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address
could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and
should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his
intentions. . . .In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes
they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that,
quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment. . . .
From the original speech itself and from the way the Vatican has handled this matter, it is clear that the present situation was unexpected and that the Holy Father did not foresee this reaction to his speech. If he did then he would not be expressing regret that passages in the speech could sound offensive. Instead, he would be saying, "Y’all are just proving my point, folks! You have a violent, barbaric religion that is hate-filled, and you only prove that by the violent histrionics that you go through when someone points this out."
A lot of people might wish that the Holy Father had said this in his response, but he did not, and those who know the thought of the Holy Father on these matters are aware that he never would.
Indeed, as a man of his generation the Holy Father has an enormous concern for the promotion and preservation of peace and the avoidance of violence. It was one of the reasons that he chose the name "Benedict," in part after Benedict XV, a man of peace at a time of great conflict. He wishes his own reign to be in the service of promoting peace, and in particular he has a great concern to de-couple religion and violence.
Thus, in his message for the recent Assissi anniversary–which Cardinal Bertone quotes in the official statement linked above, Benedict himself said the following:
[D]emonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. … In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions.
This mode of language is not easy to completely understand, given the obvious commands to kill that are found in various religious texts, including the Qur’an and the Old Testament, but it is clear that–however the pope might address that issue–he certainly wishes to see religion and violence de-coupled in the minds of everyone so that religion no longer serves as a pretext for violence.
It is thus completely alien to the thought of the Holy Father–and anyone who knows his thought well knows this–to say things like "Islam is irredeemably violent and cannot be changed. It is intrinsically violent and, as long as it exists, it will always be."
Indeed, we had a demonstration of this just last year after the Schulerkreis when statements were made that the pope had privately said just this kind of thing. This was not only strongly denied, but what the pope did say was elaborated to explain that he felt Islam faces a more difficult time than some religions in overcoming its violent past but that this was still possible.
What we are witnessing here, therefore, is Pope Benedict’s NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.
He sees himself as a man of peace (which he is) who wishes to play a role in promoting peace in the world and overcoming the tendency to use religion as a pretext for violence.
That his own words–however true in their original context and understanding–could become the pretext for violence, with churches being attacked and people being killed, can only be a source of intense anguish for the Holy Father.
He certainly would be willing to be martyred himself–but to be the accidental cause of martyrdom for others would for him be an unimaginable horror. The fact that some of the churches that have been attacked haven’t even been Catholic ones–thus having his words serve as the pretext for violence against Christians who aren’t even Catholic–adds insult to injury.
And I can only begin to imagine the pain he feels at the assassination of Sr. Leonella Sgorbati (left), the nun in Somalia who was likely killed as retribution for what the pope said.
Statements like "We will blow up all of Gaza’s churches" or threats to "kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed" are certainly intensely painful for the Holy Father and it is unimaginable for those who know his thought to suggest that he intended to bring about this situation.
He is strong and resolute in his defense of the truth and willing to say unpleasant things when needed, but to deliberately provoke this situation is simply not Benedict’s way of doing things. His way is the one described above, of promoting a dialogue that seeks to de-couple religion and violence.
This is an intense time of suffering for him and for all those Christians who are at risk of Muslim violence.
Let us therefore unite ourselves with the Holy Father in prayer for peace.
I hesitate to write this but …
sigh
If you’re right on this, Mr. Akin, and I’m definitely not saying that you are wrong ….
Well, I just don’t understand how the Pope could FAIL to see that the militants would interpret his words as they did.
I mean, the world witnessed, only a few months ago, the uproar over the Danish cartoons. We know that militant Mohammedans plotted to assisinate Pope John Paul II. People have been beheaded, blown up, burned to death in tires, tortured, and forced to “convert.” We have, in fact, had problems with the philosophies behind Mohammedanism for almost a millenium-and-a-half.
Pope Benedict XVI has a sharp, subtle, well-trained, and experienced mind. He lived through WWII and saw what destruction militantly inhuman mankind at the influence of this type of mentality can do. He stood with his predecessor in giving the gates of Hell the cold stare of truth. In short, he is no stranger to any of this.
Yet, and please forgive and correct me if I am wrong, you seem to be saying that he didn’t foresee this.
And I simply am at a loss to discover how he could not have foreseen.
So, what am I missing? I seriously want to know.
sigh…
How does this not amount to the pope refusing to identify Islam as a religion of violence?
Good points you make, Jimmy. This Holy Father understands all of the implications and even though many would like to see him take a harder stand, he has the big picture that those folks do not seem to understand.
I keep thinking of Benedict’s papal coat of arms, which has among its symbols, a picture of a Moor (Muslim).
I can’t shake the feeling about seeing some big stride with Muslim relations in this pontificate — whether forward towards possible conversion of those people (I know, I know, it is a big dream and a huger miracle, but Our God is a God of Miracles) — or a stride backwards, as in the form of some catastrophic clash. My prayer is for that forward miraculous stride.
Benedict should make a very special response to the Islamic world. He should walk out to a podium in front of reporters with a slim binder under his arm. Open his binder, set it on the podium and and say:
“Quod erat demonstrandum.” (Q.E.D.).
He should then calmly close his binder, tuck it under his arm, and walk off.
These crazy people have proven the point of his lecture. You cannot have religious dialogue without reason.
“[D]emonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. … In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions.”
How can the pope say something as absurd as this? As Mr. Akin note, there are religions that command violence. And is he saying that all the supposedly “great” religions believe in God? And what is this “religion as such”? I’ve never seen it. Is it some abstract religion that all religions partake in?
Pope Blessed Urban II, pray for us!
can’t we all unite in prayer for the defeat islam?
sorry, bad editing– i tried to say the defeat of radical islam
Looking on Google news one can see the headlines and articles from newspapaers from around the world in relation to this story.
For example
Pope apology fails to stem Muslim anger
Telegraph.co.uk
World Press: Islam Peaceful, Pope Deserves Reactions
Zaman Online, Turkey
Militants vow war, Vatican tries to calm Pope row
Boston Globe, United States
Muslim countries ask UN Human Rights Council to address Pope’s …
International Herald Tribune, France
Pope protests ‘show violence’ in Islam
Advertiser Adelaide, Australia
Qaeda-led group vows “jihad” over Pope’s speech
Reuters
My own view is that the Pope knew that there would be this kind of reaction. It was not a gaffe, scholarly ignorance of how the media works, or some sign of how mired in the middle ages he or our church is. He knew what he was doing the question is why? I see it as a chess game and he just stopped playing with the pawns and has set up something bigger.
JPII had to deal with Communism and I think BXVI has to deal with radical Islam. Maybe the Pope wants to get people thinking, get people to decide which side they are on as he moves down the path of his pontificate. I for one will pray for him and will follow him.
I wonder how, if Pope B16 ever chose to make a statement about radical Islam, he could EVER do so without inciting this sort or response…it is as if the bully is standing before the toughest kid in the neighborhood and taunting the tough kid and the entire neighborhood…is it our position that the tough neighborhood kid should not only not act against the bully, but he should also lose his voice to standup for the neighborhood as well? If the neighborhood protector is silent then the bully has free reign!
John
I think that the people who are violently reacting to the Pope’s remarks and the media who report it as “slamming Islam” or “insulting Muslims” know EXACTLY what the Holy Father was saying. It is simply more convenient for them to treat it as offensive so they can react in the way they choose.
The only thing that radical Islam wants is death. Period. The death of the West; the death of Christianity; and, most especially, the death of America. Anything they can do to aid in the pursuit of those ends will be done.
I still have yet to hear any MAJOR Muslim leaders condemning the violence and riotous nature of many of the adherents to their religion. I know that if a group of “radical Catholics” started firebombing abortion clinics or mosques, the Pope would be condemning the action immediately and completely.
Golly, the outcry from the vast, moderate Muslim majority is almost deafening, ain’t it?
It does my heart good to see the radical Islamic fringe shouted down by their peace loving co-religionists.
Okay, sarcasm over.
One lasting result of this whole episode will be that many non-Muslims (like me) will care even less about what irritates Muslims.
What are they protesting THIS month? Who cares?
Anyone know how to say “GET OVER IT” in Arabic?
“I think that the people who are violently reacting to the Pope’s remarks and the media who report it as “slamming Islam” or “insulting Muslims” know EXACTLY what the Holy Father was saying. It is simply more convenient for them to treat it as offensive so they can react in the way they choose.”
Exactly, precisely correct. They diligently keep their antennas out looking for even the feeblest excuse to feel insulted. I don’t care anymore whether they feel insulted or not. Feh.
Apparently the quote that the Pope used, comes from something called “Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian”.
Does anyone know if the dialogues are on-line? I’d be interested in knowing what the Persian said to Paleologus.
“And I simply am at a loss to discover how he could not have foreseen.”
JV, the Holy Father is an academic by training not a diplomat. Anyone who has spent time in higher education should realize how insolated the “ivory tower” can be. As Woody Allen said, intellectuals prove that you can be totally brillaint and still have no idea what is going on around you.
The Holy Father is now receiving “on the job” training as a world leader and he must now realize that even an obscure lecture to the faculty of sciences where he was formally vice president is now subject to strict and global scrutiny. Until he absorbs this lesson he ought to listen more closely to his diplomatic corp and allow them to vet his speeches, academic or otherwise.
I think we can put to rest the notion this was not a faux-pas; the Holy Father has now as much as said it was not his intention to suggest that Mohammed introduced nothing new except violence and intolerance.
Mark,
The Holy Father stating he found it unfortunate that things have spun out of control after making his comments does not admit faux pas…to the contrary…the Holy Father clarifies, not retracts his comments. The above commenters are exactly correct…given the state of affairs today, sects of radical Isalm are just LOOKING for an opportunity to slam the Pope, Catholicism, the Church, the U.S…..you name the western entity, and some whack radical muslim will whip up a torrent of misguided angst toward it…It is precisely as I stated in my earlier bully example (although exponentially simplified)…the bully is running around the neighborhood, looking for a fight, and the picked-on neighborhood kids (us) are looking back and forth at each other, asking ourselves what should we do…the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit and knows what he’s doing…If he’s going to engage the Bully in dialogue, then he’d better not go into it with his hat in his hand and his eyes akwardly averted to the ground…he represents the Church afterall…his comments called them as he saw them…he was right in what he said…he was right to say what he said when he said it…and the venue for his comments was appropriate and calculated…May God bless our Pope and continue to guide his brave decisions…
John
“the Holy Father clarifies, not retracts his comments”
Wipe the foam off your mouth John. The Holy Father said:
“These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.”
Jimmy points out how the phrase “I am deeply sorry for the reactions…” sounds, at first glance, like a classic non-apology that we Americans have learned to detest, and how it might merely be an awkward translation from the original.
Another phrase the Pope uses which I dearly hope is likewise an awkward translation is when he says “I hope that this serves to appease hearts…”
Appease? Oh, no!
John,
I wonder how, if Pope B16 ever chose to make a statement about radical Islam, he could EVER do so without inciting this sort or response
Amen. I agree with Jimmy that B16 is horrified that innocent people have apparently been killed in the (over)reaction to his remarks, but innocent people are killed by radical Islam every day. He knows that. He knows that he can’t step into the minefield without stepping on some mines, and he would surely wish a thousand times over that the mines would hit him rather than one of his sheep, but he also knows that stepping into the minefield is something that has to be done. He will grieve for them, but he won’t let that paralyze him.
Mark,
I think we can put to rest the notion this was not a faux-pas
Sorry, I don’t think you’ve made the case for a faux-pas. No, he was certainly not saying what many here have been hoping and claiming he was. But I still believe that he likely knew he was saying something controversial, he likely knew there would be a reaction, and he likely knew that the reaction would provide him an opportunity to clarify — a “teaching moment.”
He is not a diplomat, he is a teacher. And many of the best teachers use controversial statements and nuance to clarify their teachings.
Did B16 know that people would be killed in the aftermath? No, of course not. Would he have changed his method if he had? I frankly don’t know. Yes, if he felt the deaths could be avoided, but that is not an altogether clear proposition. As John has pointed out, any teaching on this point would incite a reaction from radical Islam. Was this particular teaching method any better or any worse than another? Again, I don’t know.
B16 knows that radical Islam has to be confronted. He obviously wants a genuine dialoguge and not a war of words (or any other kind of war). But he wants most of all to teach that God is Love, and not some cause to violence. And if teaching that causes violence, I believe that he is ready to suffer the consequences.
It is time for the Crusades again
I think the response by radical Islam and the subsequent non-acceptance of the Pope’s apology shows that radical Islam (mainstream Islam?) is hell-bent on violence, reason be damned. What was this violence and uproar supposed to prove again? Oh yeah, that Islam is a religion of peace and not of violence. Perhaps it could be. Perhaps in some places it is. Perhaps the media just focus on the small minority of troublemakers. But my fear is that it is indeed far more mainstream than we care to admit, and we are running out of carpet to sweep it under.
“But I still believe that he likely knew he was saying something controversial, he likely knew there would be a reaction, and he likely knew that the reaction would provide him an opportunity to clarify — a “teaching moment.”
Brother, with all due respect, I see it as a bit of a stretch to suggest the Holy Father foresaw all of this and believed he could make a “firestorm” work to his advantage. That would be quite reckless and contrary to his genuinely placid nature. I think we have to take him at his word that he REGRETS the reaction.
However, you do have company. Christopher Orlet has asserted the same in the American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10368):
“The Pope and his crack team of theologians and scholars must have known that the quotation would raise the ire of Muslims and perhaps spark riots similar to the Danish Khartoon massacre. The Pope must have known that he’d be moved to the top of every jihadist hit list. Some of Benedict’s defenders, like German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, suggest he was hoping to start a dialogue based on reason, an attribute that, the Pope acknowledges, is in short supply in Islamic countries. I sincerely hope the Vatican knew better than that. Trying to have a dialogue with Muslims — particularly over an issue of doctrine like jihad — is like trying to dialogue with a dog once he sees a cat. For many Muslims, their idea of dialog is, “Apologize, you infidel swine-eater! The Koran is right, you are wrong. Period.”
I’ve only glanced at the talk he gave.
It would seem that he said “I was reading this book where the emperor said (insert statement), now this got me thinking about the topic of my address in a slightly different way than before and I’d like to explore this with you today”.
Jimmy,
The Pope is an intellect and does nothing without deep thought. You can avoid the reality of this situation, or you can accept that God chose the Pope to be Pope for a reason. Jesus knew full well that His Apostles lives would find a brutal end, yet Jesus still gave them the Great Commision, which ended in brutal death for nearly all of them. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is to speak the truth despite the fact that the truth might be painful for many people to hear and despite the fact it might place him in harms way. Many Catholics, cradle and converts, do not seem to have a clear grasp on the place the Pope holds in Jesus’ Kingdom. Being the Vicar of Christ is NOT the same as being President of the Church. The Pope holds a unique charism that Christ reserves only for His Vicar.
I personally have no doubt that the Pope spoke the exact words he wanted to speak and that he most definitely knew it would create a firestorm. The world needs to hear the truth and this Pope has literally placed his own life on the line to help begin the process of evangelizing the modern world. People of all faiths need to hear the message that God does not want us to use violence in His name to gain any end.
I join you in prayers for our Holy Father, yet I also pray you will rethink your fairly harsh words about his actions.
Mark,
I see it as a bit of a stretch to suggest the Holy Father foresaw all of this…
I didn’t mean that he foresaw all of this. I thought I said that he did not know anyone would be killed.
…and believed he could make a “firestorm” work to his advantage. That would be quite reckless and contrary to his genuinely placid nature. I think we have to take him at his word that he REGRETS the reaction.
Obviously he regrets the REACTION. That is far different (at least potentially, given translation issues Jimmy has highlighted) than regretting the statement.
But I would take serious issue with the article you sight when it suggests that dialogue with Islam is impossible. B16 knows that it is essential, even when he appears to the rest of the world to be tilting at windmills.
Regarding Sr. Leonella who was assassinated, from other blogs I have read it sounds like she already had a bodyguard.
The problem with radicals who go around killing those who do not share their beliefs, is that it’s hard to figure out if the violence done was to make a specific point, or if it was just business as usual. Of course, they may claim after the fact that it was because of what the Pope said, but there’s no way to know.
Disarming a minefield is a dangerous job. Thank God the Pope has the courage to give it a try.
[D]emonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time.
Jeb, I think he just means that religion per se is not the mother of violence. Cultural limitations (ie, the vileness of the leaders and general lack of education of followers) contribute a lot towards violence in the name of religion.
Mark,
You quoted:
“These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.”
With the foam freshly wiped from my mouth, I’ll ask then what do you think the Pope’s purpose was then in using the specific example of Islam, its Prophet having nothing good to bring to the table, and Islam forcing observance of its absurd practice under the blade (sword)? Read the speech and you see at the end of the speech B16 called on Christians and Muslims to engage in a new dialogue…taken as a whole (as the Paleologos dialogue was…honest and open), B16’s speech, I think was not meant to incite violence, but WAS intended to establish a dialogue, with Christian foundational arguments (violence in the name of God is bad) clearly stated at the get-go. Faux Pas suggests B16 stated something that was socially unacceptable or stumbling…the only French verbiage that comes close to Faux Pas in this example, would have occurred if our Pontiff had approached Islam bowing to the bully, and asking for Mohammed’s full dispensation…then you would have the makings of a Faux Pax…Your Lord and mine had his act together when his conclave picked B16, and again…we should be thanking God for him, not armchair-quarterbacking his exponentially more difficult job!!
Peace,
John
“We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya,” said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq’s branch of al Qaeda, according to the Reuters news agency.
“We shall break the cross and spill the wine. … God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. … God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen,” said the statement.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html?section=cnn_latest
The Catechism speaks of a religious impulse in man and in the absence of direct Divine Revelation this impulse can move people to render proper (if imperfect) worship to God. St. Paul says as much.
I would say that TRUE religion does not foster violence. But the religious impulse is easily perverted.
Human sacrifice and ritual (human) bloodletting were cornerstones of The Mayan religion.
Perhaps this is B16’s way of trying to lead Muslims along the path toward repudiating violence as perverted religiosity.
“what do you think the Pope’s purpose was then in using the specific example of Islam, its Prophet having nothing good to bring to the table”
John, I cannot think of a single good reason to account for why the Holy Father would include the quote from the Emperor in his speech (which, he said “do not in any way express my personal thought”). He might as well have used the quote which some have attributed to St. Francis: “Muhammed … that wicked slave of the devil” (I’d like to see a reference for this one).
The simple explanation (in the spirit of William of Ockham) is that he used the quote because the Emperor said it, and the Holy Father was not media-savy enough to temper or omit the remark (and his staff are incompetent at vetting a document for incendiary materials).
By the way, I see the Holy Father has taken a kneecap shot from the Chief Rabbi of Israel. When are other prominent Christian leaders going to stand up on his behalf? On the same count, German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives a double thumbs-up for being the only world leader of note to defend the pontiff.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050820_meeting-muslims_en.html
Pope Benedict meets Muslims.
Jimmy,
All your posts about chapel veils and esoteric passages from the Scriptures don’t mean anything unless Christians can stand up and proclaim the truth of their God and the ways by which the Christian God differs from that posited by Muslims (and Duns Scotus and the Protestant dehellenizers). Apologetics is not about Canon Law or nitpicking regulations. Go back to the second and third centuries and read true apologetical literature. The Apologists, along with Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, et al., were doing the same thing Benedict XVI was doing in Regensburg. No more, no less. If you cannot support the Pope in this instance, then you have a big problem with Christian tradition and theology in general.
Interesting information in Jerusalem Post about current transition at the Vatican Secretary of State which may account for why this speech was not properly vetted:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1157913654774&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“The Holy See’s Secretariat of State is the proverbial final editor” of papal speeches. In recent days it was apparently not as highly efficient as usual because of an imminent change of guard. On September 15, the former secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, was officially replaced by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, whose first important job was to issue an apology in the pope’s name the day before the pope himself did.
The position of foreign minister has been vacant for some time and the newly named Secretary of Relations between States (his technical title) Archbishop Dominique Mamberti is still winding up his term as papal nuncio in Sudan.
The former president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, has been sent as papal nuncio to Egypt, the council itself dissolved as an independent entity and incorporated into a transformed Council for Culture renamed Council for Dialogue between Religions and Cultures under the presidency of Cardinal Paul Poupard.
Even the leadership of the Holy See’s Press Room has changed hands from Dr. Joacquin Navarro-Valls (an exponent of Opus Dei) to Jesuit priest Federico Lombardi. Most important, the new line of Benedict XVI’s papacy has not yet fully emerged.”
Janice,
You said the following, apparently directed to Jimmy: If you cannot support the Pope in this instance, then you have a big problem with Christian tradition and theology in general.
Are you suggesting that Jimmy is not supporting the Pope in this instance? If that is what you are suggesting, I’d like to see your case.
Brother,
Janice may not respond, so I will.
Jimmy is supporting the Pope, sort of. Jimmy has essentially blasted the Pope by stating that he made a gaffe, as if the Pope does not know what he does or says. IMO, this demonstrates that many Catholics, cradle and converts, simply look at the Pope as being a President of the Church, and not as the actual Vicar of Christ.
Mark, your comments that Pope Benedict XVI has been in an ivory tower, “now receiving ‘on the job training,'” and not media savvy simply show how little you know and how willing you are to flaunt your lack of knowledge.
Did you read the rest of the paragraph, much less the entirely of the pope’s comments on Faith and Reason? Did you read “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.” And “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.”
What part of violence has no place in faith do you not understand?
What part of violence has no place in faith do you not understand?
Unless you are defending the Faith from violence against it.
Brother Cadfael,
In addition to what Tom Johnson said, Jimmy Akin is presenting the case for appeasement, in my opinion. Catholics are not allowed to present their case and their truth claims as they wish, but must defer to Muslim “sensitivities.” Meanwhile, Muslims can refer to others as “infidels,” etc., kill them, butcher people, all in the name of God.
Pope Benedict is a very smart man. Moreover, in the WESTERN TRADITION of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and value for the development of this tradition, even the Pope has the right to call it as he sees it, without being blackmailed into hedging his bets.
Jimmy Akin’s reference to Benedict’s use of the particular vignette as a blunder (which is supported by the usual suspects) seem to me to be no more than a case of whistling past the graveyard, in this case of Western Civilization, because no one has the guts to speak the truth. Well, hats off and kudos to Pope Benedict who said that ISLAM HAS A PROBLEM WITH ITS USE OF VIOLENCE IN THE NAME OF GOD, which is written into its very scriptures (which he also did not kiss, as John Paul unfortunately did). Pope Benedict is the man of the hour because he spoke forthrightly about an issue that has needed airing for some time. Too bad, even some Catholics can’t stand with him.
Jimmy’s statement that the Pope made a gaffe does not undermine the notion that our pontiff is the Vicar of Christ. Theology 101: the Pope is infallible regarding definitive statements of faith and morals. The question of whether B16 has used the most politic historical example while discussing the relationship of faith and reason does not fall under that heading.
The Pope himself essentially admitted to a gaffe by apologizing for people being offended.
Otherwise, to say the Pope knew exactly what he was saying, would mean that he knew he would infuriate the radical Moslems and knew he would get nuns killed, priests kidnapped, and churches burned. He didn’t, of course.
The Pope is not like some character out of “Dune” who can predict the exact effect of every word he says upon every individual who will ever exist in the future. To say he has made a gaffe merely shows that he is, indeed, the Vicar of Christ and not Christ Himself.
Mary Kay,
My points were:
1) The Holy Father did not need to include the incendiary quote in his text in order to advance his argument; therefore it was a gaffe.
2) The Holy Father is a theologian by training and experience and therefore not highly media-savy or attuned to the demands of the world stage (in my own defense, let me point out that although I do enjoy flauting my ignorance, other more accomplised commentator’s, John Allen to name one, have made the same point, so I am at least accidentally correct even if I am thickheaded).
3) The Holy Father was ill-served by his staff, the Secretary of State, or whomever was supposed to vet this speech.
Now please enlighten me: you rebutted with “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”. How does that apply to my points? Seems a bit of a “non sequitor” if you catch my drift.
The Holy Father appears to do everything deliberately, after a great amount of reading, thought and prayer. He is very familiar with the true nature of Islam and the power of the media. He knows exactly what he’s doing. We just haven’t figured it all out yet. Let’s see what unfolds.
John W.,
I have not said, not has anyone else, that the Pope made an infallible statement during his lecture. I do understand the charism that the Pope has been given.
However, when speaking on faith and morals the Pope does have a trustworthy voice and speaking against violence in the name of God falls under both faith and morals. Our Pope is an intellect and he personally chose that quote for a reason. I personally think that the Pope knew it would create a heated discussion, yet I doubt highly that he ever thought it would lead to Churches being burned or a nun being murdered and I am quite certain the Pope is heart-sick about those events. Yet, as I stated before, Jesus knew that He and His Apostles (and many ohters) would face cruel deaths for the sake of speaking the truth. Our Pope was acting as the Vicar of Christ by speaking the truth. To say that the Pope gave so little thought to his words that it is equal to a gaffe is simply a perversion of what it means to be the Vicar of Christ.
Mark,
or…
#4). The Pope knew exactly what he was saying and was trying to force a conversation that applies to both faith and morals. He did not make a gaffe, he knew what he was doing–though as many people have said I seriously doubt he thought it would lead to the violence it has. Yet, even that violence has a message in it.
Janice,
So, do you believe the Pope when he says that the statement he quoted does not reflect his opinion?
Everyone here is being misled by a translation defect in the Pope’s speech. As has been pointed out on other websites, the Pope did not say he was sorry in the original text. Check out the Rorate Caeli blog for more info.
Tom,
Jimmy has essentially blasted the Pope by stating that he made a gaffe…
Jimmy has not “blasted” the Pope.
Janice,
Jimmy Akin is presenting the case for appeasement
Jimmy is not making a case for appeasement. To clarify, would you equate “dialogue” with “appeasement”?
John W,
The Pope himself essentially admitted to a gaffe by apologizing for people being offended.
I don’t see any admission to a gaffe in his apology.
Brother,
Jimmy worked hard to construct his reasons why the Pope made a gaffe, he has every right to his opinion, yet in the end Jimmy stood by his view that the Pope made a gaffe, and that is a blast to the Pope imo. Jimmy has no way of knowing why the Pope included that quote; therefore, Jimmy’s guess is as good as ours, yet Jimmy is the one saying the Pope gaffed. Personally, I believe that if the Pope truly mispoke as JA states, then the Pope would tell the truth and retract the quote. The fact that the Pope has not retracted the quote proves (imo) that the Pope did not gaffe, and in fact used that quote with a purpose in mind.
I do find it illuminating that many people here are defending an Apologetics icon (Jimmy Akins) far more then they are defending the Vicar of Christ, that is quite telling imo.
Tom,
So, do you believe the Pope when he says that the statement he quoted does not reflect his opinion?
Tom,
I think I have made it clear that I don’t believe the Holy Father made a gaffe. Where I disagree with you is simply your assessment that any and every suggestion he has done so constitutes a “blast.”
Tim J.,
Yes, I trust the Pope and do not believe he lies. If he says the quote does not reflect his opinion, then I trust that is completely true. I do think the Pope was using the quote to get a point across during his lecture, and I also think the message was more intended for Catholics across the world.
Brother,
I never said everything he says is a blast against the Pope, nor do I think so. I do think sayin the Pope gaffed us a blast or insult to the Holy Father.
The text the Pope quoted stated that Islam had offered nothing other than…
This is most likely the part of the quote that the Pope was saying he might not have agreed with. Perhaps, like JPII, he feels Islam has made some contributions over time, etc. There’s all sorts of reasonable room in this statement for the Pope to arrive at different conclusions than Paleologos. Yet B16 also included the text regarding the forced conversion of folks under the Muslim blade. This piece, I’m sure, the Pope agrees with completely. So we still haven’t answered the question why the Pope included the piece about forced conversion, etc. It would seem that this piece was used so the Pope could delve into the God without violence or war issue…a reasonable segway. This is why I think this piece was included in the speech.
The Pope was also making his remarks to an academic, largely Catholic audience, yet included overatures that clearly would make news in the Muslim world. He was speaking the truth about the importance of dialogue with Muslims, yet being clear that a Muslim version of “Allah or Death” would not ever be satisfactory. You enter into a dialogue with clear expectations, or you enter into a dialogue with the adverse party dictating their expectations to you. B16 really impresses me with the saavy nature of his diplomatic skills, and the press release by the Pope’s new man, preceding the Pope’s comments, showed a similar worldliness. I think some folks here are just conflict avoiders, and would ALWAYS be more comfortable sitting on that hillside listening to Christ deliver the Beatitudes, than going along with Christ and upsetting the tables of the money changers, with the prospect of dearly paying for it later.
2000 years later, B16, like Christ, gets to fulfill both roles…the Gentle shepard, and stalwart shepard defending his flock aginst the wolves…again an exponentially more difficult job than we encounter…Pray for B16…
John
Mark, you said:
Now please enlighten me: you rebutted with “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”. How does that apply to my points? Seems a bit of a “non sequitor”
Thank you for proving my point. What seems to you a “non-sequitor” is the next two sentences following what you call the “incendiary quote.”
It is the SAME person who says what you call the “incendiary quote,” the very next sentence he goes on “in detail to explain” that spreading the faith with violence is without reason,” immediately followed by the sentence that you call the non-sequitor.
All I did was quote from the same paragraph, which the media “forgot” to include and which you obviously didn’t read.
What it has to do with your point is that you, to put it more bluntly than tact calls for, you shot off your mouth without even reading what Pope Benedict said and then you had the temerity to think that you knew better than he did.
Tom,
I never said everything he says is a blast against the Pope, nor do I think so.
You missed my point. Let me try to clarify for you: “Where I disagree with you is simply your assessment that any and every suggestion he [B16] has done so [gaffed] constitutes a “blast.”
In other words, it is possible to point out where B16 may have gaffed — i.e., not used the best method of delivery or the best timing to deliver a truthful message — without “blasting” him.
In even simpler terms, “gaffe suggestion” does not equal “blast.”
Our Pope is an intellect and he personally chose that quote for a reason. I personally think that the Pope knew it would create a heated discussion, yet I doubt highly that he ever thought it would lead to Churches being burned or a nun being murdered and I am quite certain the Pope is heart-sick about those events.
Most any intelligent, reasonable, savvy person could have easily foreseen a serious potential for violence following the Pope’s remark. I hardly find the reaction to be a surprise at all. The Pope may “regret” the reaction, whatever that means, but it would seem he’d have to be lacking in one or more the traits I outlined for him not to have reasonably expected what happened, violence and all.
Brother,
Thank you for clarifying, though I had already properly understood your point.
My counter is this: To say something the Pope says is a gaffe, is the same as sayng it was either a blatant mistake or a serious social blunder and I argue it was neither. I also argue that unless we know prescisely why our Holy Father made the quote, to accuse him of committing a gaffe or error is an attack or blast against him…again imo.
The Pope is a Holy man. If he had truly made a blunder, error or serious social error, then he would have retracted the statement in the spirit of calming the situation so that no-one else would be hurt. However, while he has said the quote does not reflect his opinion, he has not retracted the quote, which tells us he intended on sending some sort of messagesing that specific quote.
The Pope was elected by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit. I think we owe the Pope complete trust that he will be honest whenever he has made an error. Personally, I remain of the feeling that saying the Poped “gaffed” is an insult or a blast to our Holy Father because I think he knows exactly what he is doing and his spiritual awareness is many levels beyond ours at this point. Yet, the true meaning of being “The Vicar of Christ” has been lost in modern times, especially in an era of many Protestant to Catholic conversions.
Tim,
But is there a true religion other than Christianity? Man has a religious sense, but since he is a fallen creature, there is nothing inherently good about it.
I’m still interested in knowing what “religion” Benedict is talking about. If we take the various religions of the world and subtract their “cultural limitations,” what do we get? Masonry? Deism?
Marika,
I think the Pope knew there would be a backlash against his use of that quote. I do not think he could forsee that nun would be murdered.
Mary Kay,
The Holy Father himself says the Emperor’s statement, “(does) not in any way express my personal thought”. Therefore, his subsequent discourse does not depend upon the quote.
One can make the point that “spreading faith by violence is contrary to reason” and even “Islam has often utilized violent means to spread the faith” without saying “Mohammed introduced nothing new except violence and intolerance.”
So because the discussion about faith and reason FOLLOWS the quote does not mean the discussion DEPENDS UPON IT.
YOu can say that I am shooting my mouth off, or I have not read what the Holy Father said (this is incorrect) or that I believe I know better than he did. Well, I knew the second I read the quote that it had the potential for trouble and the events have bourne this out. Does that mean everyone who takes the position that the Holy Father made an unnecessary gaffe is a blow-hard; including JA?
By the way, Mary Ann, you should consider omitting the gratuitious jabs from your discourse, they’re contrary to your “non-violent” position.
Mark,
The problem I have with your position is that you do indeed set yourself up as a higher authority then the Pope. You may not see that, yet that is what you and JA and others are doing imo. The Pope has been called by God to direct the Lord’s Church on earth, we do not have that call and we have not been given the power and authority to do so–the Pope has been given that power and authority. When the Pope speaks about faith and morals, he is speaking for Christ–that is what being the Vicar Chist is all about, the Pope is “in place of Christ” on earth. Does this mean every word he says infallible, no of course not. Yet, it does mean that we must give our Pope every benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing and that God is directing him to where he should be and what he should do and say.
If Jesus spoke that quote, would you call it a gaffe? If not, then why do you bash Jesus’s chosen Vicar?
I think the Pope knew there would be a backlash against his use of that quote. I do not think he could forsee that nun would be murdered.
Like I said, an intelligent, reasonable, savvy person could have easily foreseen a serious potential for violence following the Pope’s remark. And, in light of what has happened in the past, that clearly doesn’t rule out a serious potential for killings.
Marika,
The Pope is intelligent, reasonable, etc…yet that does not mean “knew” a nun would murdered.
Very few in the media– or in the churches and mosques– seem to be able to understand the lecture itself.
Mark Shea has called attention to an atheist’s essay that clearly and effectively gives a breakdown of the lecture.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709
The writer has his own political agenda, however he is spot on in his understanding of the Pope’s lecture.
I highly recommend the explanatory essay.
Pass it on to anyone who might be interested.
No one could have known a nun would be murdered as a result of this, but he might have foreseen that there was a danger of such violent attacks being made.
Tom,
No one said he “knew” as a fact that a nun or any specific person would be murdered. If you throw a bomb into a crowd, you don’t know for a fact that anyone will be killed. Does that make it ok? The Pope threw a bomb.
Jeb –
As C.S. Lewis said – “If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through.”
So, there is truth to some degree in many non-Christian religions… the problem is that none of them are TRUE ENOUGH.
I don’t buy the Calvinist idea of total depravity, so I don’t agree that there can be nothing inherently good about man’s religious impulse. If this impulse comes from God, or is a response to the absence of God still felt from the Fall, then it can be inherently good, serving to nudge man toward the worship of God.
Can it be salvific? That’s another question.
I don’t want to get too far off-topic, here, so I will sum up by saying that I don’t believe that B16 is proposing the existence of any kind of “basic” or “stripped down” generic religion, as you seem to want explained.
I think he is talking about what Paul said… that we can know from nature and reason something of God’s character, and that mankind seems to have an impulse to want to know God.
The fact that people can be divided into “religious” and “irreligious” categories does not mean that all the religious folk are part of some giant, amorphous Religion.
Tim,
I never said that all non-Christian religions are completely wrong. Why did you get the idea I believed that?
My point is that both JP II and now Benedict like to talk about how good “religion” is and I think it’s only fair to ask just what they mean.
“My point is that both JP II and now Benedict like to talk about how good “religion” is and I think it’s only fair to ask just what they mean.”
Well, Jeb, on the face of it, I would say that they mean that even some flawed religion is better than NO religion…. that the impulse to acknowledge God is good in itself, even if it can be grossly warped, thanks to original sin.
“I never said that all non-Christian religions are completely wrong. Why did you get the idea I believed that?”
I didn’t. I was trying to address your question about whether there might be a “true” religion other than Christianity. The answer isn’t that simple, though. A “no” answer would seem to condemn as false every aspect of any non-Christian faith, whereas a “yes” answer would seem to put non-Christian religions on a par with Christianity.
You should edit the wiki page about this issue…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy
Marika,
Stop with the drama, please!!!…the Pope threw a bridge not a bomb, and offered the bridge provided the Muslims didn’t kill anyone crossing it…and true to form the Muslims intent on spreading the notion of Islamic caliphate across the globe used the Pope’s peace offering as an excuse to kill. Remember who’s doing the killing here…if we want to blame the Pope for killing with his words, then we might as well blame Christ for killing with the religion he founded…and who wants to argue that Jesus didn’t know that many would be killed in his name! B16 speaks for Christ on all matters Holy on this earth, and knew what he was doing whether some here want to second guess or not.
Peace,
John
Mark, reading up from the bottom of the thread, you couldn’t even get my name right, so I’m not going to waste my time reading your response.
When you make the effort to get my name right, I’ll consider your response.
Marika,
The Pope did not throw a bomb, he made an intellectual and spiritual challenge.
Stop with the drama, please!!!
I sincerely regret that “bomb” could cause you distress, but may divine guidance help you to understand the correct meaning of my words so that you may surmount your uneasiness. The true meaning of my words is always sincere.
if we want to blame the Pope for killing with his words, then we might as well blame Christ for killing with the religion he founded
Your interpretation does not in any way express my personal thought.
Tim,
I don’t know what Benedict means. But there is no doubt what he belives about abortion, birth control and the death penalty. So why can’t he clarify his views on non-Christian religions?
Marika,
You said:
“No one said he “knew” as a fact that a nun or any specific person would be murdered. If you throw a bomb into a crowd, you don’t know for a fact that anyone will be killed. Does that make it ok? The Pope threw a bomb.”
If your above statement does not reflect your personal thought that the Pope lobbed incendiary verbiage at the Muslims, which like a bomb, would not necessarily, yet likely would cause death or killing, then what did you mean? You certainly seemed to link the murder that occurred after the Pope’s words, with his words [his bomb] themselves.
Bombs to me are generally distressing, and having served in the gulf during the first gulf war, I have some memories of how terrible and devastating bombs can be – – although perhaps not to the extent you have that type of experience.
Your use of the term “bomb,” however, is to me simply unnecesary dramatic characterization of a fine man’s stand against the neighborhood bully, and therefore no more distressing than the rest of your slants against our Pontiff. Like I’ve said in earlier posts, this Pontiff might have grown up with JPII, but he’s not faced with the same post WWII-Cold War challenges Carol Wojtyla faced…he has his own new, perhaps much, much more dangerous challenges to face…Islam is not going away, and I fear major global war with Muslim v. Christian/Jewish/Hindu countries is looming on the not too distant horizon…B16 can really use our prayers and the prayers of all the Saints to help him through his pontificate, including yours and mine.
John
You certainly seemed to link the murder that occurred after the Pope’s words, with his words [his bomb] themselves.
I’ve never claimed the killing of a nun was caused by the Pope or his words, nor do I even know as fact if the killing was directly or indirectly linked to the Pope’s words. Some, like Jimmy, have speculated that she “was likely killed as retribution for what the pope said.” I can see how such a conclusion might be reached.
Bombs to me are generally distressing
And to those who were outraged or alarmed, his words were distressing, enough so that the Pope had to express his deep sorrow for the reactions. Hence, B16 admits himself that his words were perceived as a bomb.
Your use of the term “bomb,” however, is to me simply unnecesary dramatic characterization of a fine man’s stand against the neighborhood bully, and therefore no more distressing than the rest of your slants against our Pontiff.
My use of the term “bomb” is no more unnecessary than B16’s use of a Byzantine quote. In each case, the words were chosen to make a point, even if you or others may be distressed by them. That you perceive it as a slant against the Pontiff is no different than Muslims perceiving the quote as a slant against their prophet.
Like I said, may divine guidance help you to understand the correct meaning of my words so that you may surmount your uneasiness. The true meaning of my words is always sincere.
Marika,
B16 admits himself that his words were perceived as a bomb
How do you “admit” what someone else perceives?
That you perceive it as a slant against the Pontiff is no different than Muslims perceiving the quote as a slant against their prophet.
Oh, now I get it. All perceived “slants” are equal. Persuasive.
How do you “admit” what someone else perceives?
By admitting, as B16 did, that the passages were “considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.”
Oh, now I get it. All perceived “slants” are equal. Persuasive.
Who said anything about “all” or “equal”? Those are your words. I was speaking how both John and some Muslims have expressed an experience of distress by their perceptions of words, and in that, in their mutual experience of distress by perception, they are no different.
Marika,
You cannot say the Pope did not need to use that quote, because you are not the Pope and you do not know what he intended. Too many people are trying to apologize for the Pope, when he is perfectly capable of expressing his regrets any way he deems correct and the Pope did NOT retract that quote, which tells us he likely included the quote for a very specific reason.
You cannot say the Pope did not need to use that quote
I didn’t say any such thing. What I said was that my use of the term “bomb” is no more unnecessary than B16’s use of a Byzantine quote. It’s a comparison for purposes of illustration, not a declaration that any words whether of myself or B16 were unnecessary.
the Pope did NOT retract that quote
As neither do I retract the word “bomb”.
Like I said, may divine guidance help you to understand the correct meaning of my words so that you may surmount your uneasiness. The true meaning of my words is always sincere.
Marika, May Divine guidance help you to express yourself more clearly to help others understand what you mean.
For some, though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah. He who has ears, let him hear.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist thinks that the Pope is fantastic….I have heard all the nonsense about Islam being a “peaceful religion” that I can stomach.
The very fact that Muslims are acting as they are proves to me, that the mask of “peacefulness” is just that: a mask. The way Muslims are behaving just proves that Benedict 16 is a very smart man with the ability to see behind said mask.
It is very sad that so much violence is going on; however, I would like to point out that, to the best of my recollection, there were no inflammatory speeches (so-called) in the days leading up to 9/11/01.
Viollence is, tragically, an integral part of the teachings of Muhammad. Hence, the stories on the evening news….
God bless.
+J.M.J+
Holy Leonella Sgorbati the Martyr, pray for the safety of the Vicar of Christ.
In Jesu et Maria,
Marika,
Please understand that none of us have a clue as to why the Pope included that quote, yet since he has not retracted the quote it is reasonable (though not required) to assume that he intended on using the quote as he did to serve whatever purposes he deemed fit. Therefore, no amount of guessing will allow us to know the Pope’s, we must trust that the Vicar of Christ is being lead by the Holy Spirit.
The way I see it, even if he wanted to, there is nothing for him to retract. He quoted a historical text. They were not his words….he cannot really retract them.
I suppose he could say, “I’m sorry that I used that quote in my lecture”, but that is not what the Moslems want…they want him to say “What I said was wrong…” He can’t do that, becasue if you read his whole lecture and put that quote into proper context…what he said was right.
Please understand that none of us have a clue as to why the Pope included that quote
Please, his own words are clues.
Therefore, no amount of guessing will allow us to know the Pope’s, we must trust that the Vicar of Christ is being lead by the Holy Spirit.
Outside of faith, you can’t know anything for absolute certain. So are you going to stop guessing about all things in life? You made quite an exercise in guessing my intentions. Did you have fun? I hope so.
Jeb, I think he is saying that if it is a true religion. He knows full well that culture grows from the cultus.He then seems to be referring to what might be a Catholic belief, that there are “anonymous Christians” in other religions. Kind of a C. S. Lewisy kind of thing, like in _The Last Battle_.
Tim, sounds like a plan.
But you said it right the first time.
Mark, so what -has- Mohammedanism produced, that is good, besides hate and violence?
Janice, what is wrong with dehellenizing? What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Are you saying that syncretism is -good-? (leaving aside the question of whether it is a present reality)
John, are you wishing that protestants would not join the Catholic Church? I must be misunderstanding something.
Jeb, I think that he is trying honey rather than vinegar, with regards to drawing people in other religions to Christ. I strongly suspect that is the intent. Now, whether the strategy is wise or not, is another question.
Marika,
Clever girl…had us going there for a few rounds…clever…nice touch with the divine guidance bit…just enough coherence in your comments to keep the fish studying your lure…Sabah Khal-kir…
Puzzled…not sure what you mean about the protestant thing…there are about four or five of us Johns though…perhaps you’re responding to another John…what comment are you referring to…for the record, this John thinks it’s a marvelous idea that protestants would join the Catholic church!
Peace,
John
just enough coherence in your comments to keep the fish studying your lure
Don’t tell me you’ve been listening to Satan again.
Not another gnostic…
Puzzled,
Read the Gospel of John, read the First Epistle of John, read the Epistle to the Hebrews. All of these are examples of Greek thought and Biblical belief. These are the Scriptures. It is embedded into our very understanding of God, i.e., rational thought, using reason, giving an account for the faith that is in your (1 Pet. 3.15b).
Marika,
I trust Jesus and His Vicar. Do you?
It is that simple, we either have trust because of our faith in Jesus, or we do not.
I trust that the Pope knows exactly what he is doing, and that he would admit any errors he makes regarding such important issues. He has NOT admitted any errors, he has apologized for the pain his words have caused.
The Holy Father is forcing a dialogue which may be impossible due to the very nature of true Islam. A gaffe? A brilliant way to reform or defeat it. Of course the trip to Turkey is still on.
“Not another gnostic…”
Let the jello-wrestling begin!
Marika, I trust Jesus and His Vicar. Do you?
I love Jesus and the Pope, and you too. You are all dear to me.
He has NOT admitted any errors
You mean, he has not admitted TO any errors in his supposed apology. Hence, not everyone sees his speech as an apology.
he has apologized for the pain his words have caused.
No, he said he’s sorry for the reactions to his words. He didn’t actually say or admit his words caused pain.
Marika,
Great, you trust Jesus and His Vicar as I do. That is good to know.
Marika,
“Don’t tell me you’ve been listening to Satan again.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself, everyone’s entitled to an off day every now and then. And I wasn’t really “listening” to you anyway.
Here’s to you actually making SOME sense…
John
“I’m still interested in knowing what “religion” Benedict is talking about. – Jeb”
I would guess Judaism and Christianity. But he can’t say it out explicitly — the Muslims will demand his death again.
Has anyone else thought that maybe God put those words there? I’m a convert so maybe I don’t understand everything Catholic, but maybe the Pope said what he said cause God told him to. Now if that were true he couldn’t exactly retract it could he? What about all the cartoons and crap that goes against Christian and Catholic doctrine this for instance…
http://www.afa.net/Petitions/Issuedetail.asp?id=215
Yet we manage to not blow up parts of Hollywood.
To me the quote was reasonable and made a great point. Christ guides the Pope, and painful as it may be, this is what he was meant to say. IT was apparently God’s will for the young Nun to be martyred, sad but all things are in his will, she should be in heaven now, Sr Leonella, pray for us!
My opinion is this, if Islam is suc a peace loving religion full of peace lovers that don’t reflect the notions of these “few” Muslims who want to “kill us all” where are they? Yes there are many of them, but who is the true reflection of Islam? The ones who squall the loudest? Right now it’s these folks who are basicly being the spoiled brats of theology.
Many of the Saints and Popes have said that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. So why are we (Catholics) acting like the poor muslims are being misrepresented. It seems silly to me that we should have to cow-tow to these kind of religous temper tantrum. Publicly he had to make some sembelance of apology, but here, amoung Catholics, should we expect that?
Islam has been at war since it was invented (yes invented as it is not true worship of God imo) why do we keep saying it’s peaceful and all that? Look at history, it speaks for itself. Maybe moderate Muslims would like it to be different, but really how can we say “Muslims aren’t violent”… It’s like saying Natzis aren’t anti-semetic, some Natzis(German soldiers) were forced into service and didn’t want to fight… even our own Pope for example, but he certainly isn’t anti-semetic. To say that because some natzis were forced to serve and weren’t anti-semetic doesn’t mean that Natizis aren’t anti-semetic. To me this is the same thing. It’s unfortunate that the moderates asscoiciate with the extremists but they are all together in their religion, and the moderates just don’t speak very loudly against all of this, which leads me to feel that many of them aren’t as “moderate” as they would like to be seen by the world. Let the extremists do our dirty work while we sit back and quietly say “Oh this isn’t Islam…”
I’m sorry to rant, just that any other group and this would have never been an issue, and it seems like people are critisizing the Pope because these people (extremists) are crazy wackos.
If Pope Benedict XVI would eventually be called St.Benedict XVI(which I pray for, now matter what Pope it is, so long as he is the Pope) , I would love to see the faces of all the people that critizied him for this perfect quotation of a perfectly capacitated individual of the imperfect nature of the religion of “peace”…And I hope they aren’t in Hell when that happens(i am not suggesting that if you disagree you are going to hell, just like the Pope did not say that was of his personal opinion)
………….
And I totally agree Islam is the relgion of peace.
The peace of man, but not the Peace of God.
His Peace is not the peace of man.
Some Day,
And I totally agree Islam is the relgion of peace.
The peace of man, but not the Peace of God.
Not sure I’ve got a clear picture of either kind of peace emanating from Islam…
Sure. The peace of man.
Sin sin sin. Who is going to stop me? It isn’t against the law. And even Allah said iz ok.
Islam does not mean “peace”, although it comes from the same root word as peace. Islam means “submission”.
“Submit to God and be at peace with Him.” (Job 22:21)
It was apparently God’s will for the young Nun to be martyred, sad but all things are in his will…
God does not will anything evil. He may permit evil out of respect for the free will which he gave man, but he does not will evil to happen.
That may seem like hair splitting, but it is important in this context. The Moslems believe God (or Allah, as they call Him) can, indeed, will evil and that He is not bound by any rules whatsoever. We Christians believe that God is all good and can do anything not contrary to his own nature. Thus, we human are free to chose salvation or damnation. We don’t have to blame God for our choices by saying something like “It is written…”
To clarify, I never meant to indicate that God ever wills and evil act, but if he is all knowing then he knew this nun would be martyred before he ever started creation. My point was that things happen, even suffering for a reason that is good, but we don’t always understand how. An example, is this, when I was 21 I got pregnant out of wedlock. I kept my baby and married his Father, and we are still married. Now we are Catholic and on the road to holiness I hope. My point is that God can take our sin of adultery and turn it into a beautiful and fruitful marriage that would have never lasted had we not had our wonderful 13 year old son.
In the devine plan we don’t / can’t really comprehend the final outcome, which is why we should be careful in not fully supporting the Pope.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Pray for us.
Sep. 20 (CWNews.com) – At his weekly public audience on September 20, Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) said that his controversial address to the University of Regensburg was intended as a “call for a dialogue of the Christian faith with the modern world, and for a dialogue between all cultures and religions.”
At his Angelus audience on Sunday, September 17, the Pope had said that he was dismayed by the angry reactions to his speech, and sorry that his remarks had offended Muslims. During his Wednesday audience he did not apologize for the speech, but argued that the negative response was based on a misinterpretation.
Many knowledges I have found here I would come back http://male-exam.xhostar.com
Lovely, I must say, there is not so much themes, which deserve a comment. This one is realy needful http://straponcrush.ifrance.com/