Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 6:11am

PopeWatch: Regensburg

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300-199x300

 

 

At his blog Chiesa Sandro Magister cites a comment of the Pope Emeritus on the Regensburg Address, now a decade in the past:

 

 

One last observation concerning the address on Islam by Benedict XVI in Regensburg, an address that effectively cannot be imagined as coming from the mouth of Pope Bergoglio.

Asked if he had struck by accident upon that citation of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos which, extrapolated from the address, unleashed the violent reactions of many Muslims, Ratzinger responds:

“I had read this dialogue of Palaiologos because I was interested in the dialogue between Christianity and Islam. So it was not an accident. It was truly a matter of a dialogue. The emperor at that time was already a vassal of the Muslims, and yet he had the freedom to say things one could no longer say today. So I simply found it interesting to bring the discussion to bear upon this conversation of five hundred years ago.”

Well said: “The freedom to say things one could no longer say today.”

Go here to read the rest.  Here is the portion of the Pope’s address which set the Islamic world in an uproar:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – 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.”[3] 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 λόγω) 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…”.[4]

Go here to read the rest.  The Pope did not set out to critique Islam and his quotation was a springboard for a discussion on reason.  This escaped critics, including then Cardinal Bergoglio , in a statement that should always be cherished by critics of Pope Francis, “Pope Benedict’s statement[s] don’t reflect my own opinions…. These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years.”

Four days after the address the Vatican responded with a statement by the Vatican Secretary of State that reeked of the cowardice and appeasement that has been the policy of the Church towards Islam since World War II:

Given the reaction in Muslim quarters to certain passages of the Holy Father’s address at the University of Regensburg, and the clarifications and explanations already presented through the Director of the Holy See Press Office, I would like to add the following:

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, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting” (no. 3).

The Pope’s option in favor of interreligious and intercultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 20 August 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslims “cannot be reduced to an optional extra,” adding: “The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity.”

As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake _ in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text _ certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: ” … demonstrations 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.

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. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against “the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom.”

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, witness to the “Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men” may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify “to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom” (Nostra Aetate no. 3).

When future historians ponder the pusillanimity of Western leaders of our time towards Islam, a careful study of the Regensburg debacle will prove fruitful.

 

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Father of Seven
Father of Seven
Wednesday, September 21, AD 2016 5:02am

Lenin’s line comes to mind, “Useful idiots!”

Pinky
Pinky
Wednesday, September 21, AD 2016 9:21am

Andrew Klavan has called Pope Benedict the last great man of Europe. I know what he means, although I hope he’s wrong.

There is a difference between dialogue and two people talking. If you want to see the latter, just watch a video of college students confronting a professor over perceived political slights. Dialogue implies a purpose, which likewise implies reason. Dialogue can also include error: it usually takes a while for both sides to understand the other’s position. So, I guess the question is, was Benedict wrong? If so, how? If not, why should we erase his statement? It seems like a reasonable theme of inquiry for a real dialogue about Islam and Christianity.

Penguin Fan
Penguin Fan
Wednesday, September 21, AD 2016 1:24pm

The next great man of Europe will be Polish President Duda.
No homosexual marriage, no legal abortion and no Muslim immigration in Poland….and he is a practicing Catholic. Off to a good start, I say.

William P. Walsh
William P. Walsh
Wednesday, September 21, AD 2016 5:00pm

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Guy McClung
Admin
Thursday, September 22, AD 2016 6:11am

A Texan translation of “pusillanimity of Western leaders”: Western pissant leaders.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top