Apparently, Muslim anger over the Pope’s inflammatory remarks about Islam is boiling over with attacks on churches in Palestine and other acts of violence against Catholics. It all began with an address the Pope delivered at the German university where he once taught theology. His fellow clerics were touting the speech as the most important yet of his entire papacy. Little did they know that they may’ve been right–but for the wrong reasons. It may go down as the speech that will live in infamy. Here is how the NY Times characterizes what Benedict said:
…He began by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.
“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad 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 pope said.
He also briefly discussed the Islamic concept of jihad, which he defined as “holy war,” and said violence in the name of religion was contrary to God’s nature and to reason.
I find it amazing that westerners are shocked, I say shocked (to quote Claude Rains in Casablaca) at Muslim rage over this statement. And Benedict’s attempt to calm the waters today does nothing of the sort:
“I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address,” the pope told pilgrims at the summer papal palace of Castel Gandolfo, “which were considered offensive.’’
“These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought,” the pope, 79, said in Italian, according to the official English translation.
“The true meaning of my address,” he said, “in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.”
Who does he think he’s foolin’? He quotes sentiments from a medieval text which “do not in any way express” his thoughts?? Then why did he quote them at all? And he expects that after his gross insult that Muslims will somehow understand that his overall goal in the speech was “an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.” If I was a Muslim I’d sure like to give him some ‘frank dialogue’ and let him know how I felt about his calumny against Islam.
Now, I’d like to return to Benedict’s claim that “violence in the name of religion is contrary to God’s nature…” That’s very nice sentiment. Except he’s a goddamn hypocrite to blame Muslims alone for such violence. If you want to level that charge why don’t you start with your own religion first, which has a long history of using violence to advance its interests.
Those good ol’ Catholic boys, the Crusaders marched through Germany on their way to kill Muslims in the name of Christianity in the Holy Land. They tuned up for the battles by killing thousands of defenseless Jews in their path in towns like Mainz and Speyer. And if that’s not bad enough, merry Old King Ferdy & Queen Isabella really put the screws to those Jews who hadn’t already fled for their lives during the Spanish (Catholic) Inquisition. Jews who stayed behind & tried to pass for Catholic were rooted out mercilessly & torn limb from limb on the auto da fe. They were called Marranos or “pigs.” Or how ’bout Pius XII’s deafening silence while Jews were being slaughtered in their millions during the Holocaust? And the Church’s rat line, whereby Catholic monks provided a lifeline for scores of SS goons allowing them to escape Europe after the war by fleeing to Latin America.
I’m sorry but Il Pape’s the pot calling the kettle black on this one. I am simply astonished that Benedict and his handlers did not recognize the firestorm that such sentiment would cause in today’s world. And blaming Muslims for reacting violently to his remaks as many westerners are doing seems almost beside the point. Certainly, violence of any kind in religious debate is wrong. But it’s not like Muslims first directly attacked the Church or Benedict to cause his response. His remarks came out of the blue. That only reinforced the shock Muslims felt at hearing them. They were a lit match thrown into the smoldering pit which is unfortunately the current state of affairs among Christianity, Islam and Judaism. And to use SCOTUS terminology, they were the man who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That is a stupid man and Benedict was one stupid pope (I beg pardon from any Catholics reading this–but I can’t withhold my utter amazement at the dumbness of his remarks).
E.J. Dione has written a similarly argued but more temperate piece on the Pope’s speech.
Interesting, thanks
I remember reading, when Benedict was first appointed (?) Pope – how similar he was supposed to be to John Paul II. This speech really shows the contrast. John Paul, the former actor, was so cognizant of how he would be viewed all over the world, not just among Catholics. While I have a lot of issues with many (most?) of his conservative beliefs – I feel he was sincere in his desire to heal the rifts between Catholicism and other faiths (in particular, Judaism).
Benedict has a different agenda – particular a Euro-centric one – and seems to have blinders on in promoting that agenda. John Paul II would NEVER have planted his foot so deep in his mouth as did Benedict.
Whatever you might think of John Paul – he was clearly a first-rate leader and thinker. I think it’s become ever clearer – Benedict isn’t in the same league…
You both echoed my thoughts-and you wrote it so well. It is depressing to have such stupid people, and so many of them, in such high places.
I felt very conflicted about John Paul. On the one hand, his attempts to reach out to the world’s Jews by admitting the Church’s heinous offenses against Jews throughout history was revolutionary for the Church. But doctrinally, he was such a disaster. Aside fr. a few issues, I felt he was mostly an irrelevancy to the world outside of its Catholics.
wasn’t he a nazi as a kid?