Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Dialogue With That!

CWNews reports on more carefully articulated remarks by certain Muslim leaders, aimed at Pope Benedict XVI:

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Islamic Guardian Council that supervises the country's government, said that the Pope's speech was "an act of madness." The Pontiff, he said, was following "the same path" as the Danish newspaper publishers who printed cartoons mocking Mohammed. "These moves aimed at confronting Islam and the revolution are all doomed to defeat," he said.

Well, now that that is clarified, let's talk. Or not.

Meanwhile, John F. Cullinan has written a helpful piece over at NRO about how the Holy Father challenged Muslim leaders he met with at the Vatican recently:

The upshot is that purely theological dialogue between Christians and Muslims is pointless, if not counterproductive. Whatever its other attributes, the most fundamental elements of all orthodox Christian thought are Trinitarian and Christocentric; and these are precisely the same elements that orthodox Muslims necessarily find blasphemous on the one hand and idolatrous on the other. What’s more, sharia jurisprudence plays roughly the same role in Islam as systematic theology in Christianity. That’s why purely theological dialogue inevitably mixes apples and oranges. But basic disagreement over the nature of God in no way precludes discussing how best to coexist peacefully in a pluralistic world. That’s the meaning of Benedict’s September 25 exhortation in favor of “sincere and respectful dialogue, based on ever more authentic reciprocal knowledge which, with joy, recognizes the religious values we have in common and, with loyalty, respects the differences.” In other words, it’s possible to share — and discuss — certain religious values without sharing religious truths.

Similarly, fruitful dialogue does not consist in futilely seeking to assign relative responsibility for religious conflicts lasting more than a millennium. These historical issues — all too easily reduced to whataboutery or the politics of the last atrocity — have rightly been relegated to a joint Vatican/al Azhar commission. What really matters, as Benedict put it in another address he quotes, is the “imperative to engage in authentic and sincere dialogue, built on respect for the dignity of every human person, created, as we Christians firmly believe, in the image and likeness of God.” Do Muslims believe in the equal, indivisible, and inviolable dignity of every person, or are some (namely Muslim males) more equal than others?

Good questions. Let's hope and pray that moderate, reasonable, and truth-loving Muslims will respond with courage and conviction.

A "history" lesson from the L.A. Times/AP

A "news" piece titled "Pope Invites New Look at Catholicism," written by Brian Murphy, makes a number of interesting statements about Church history and relations between Catholicism and Islam. Here's a little pop quiz based on Murphy's article:

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

Is that "impression" true? Does the fact that the Pope focused the vast majority of his lecture on Christianity and secularism mean anything? Would you like to see a list of the "history books" referred to by El-Samman?

2. The Vatican in recent years has tried to clear away some historical baggage, including a 2001 apology by Pope John Paul II for the medieval Crusades, which are widely seen by Muslims and Orthodox Christians as Western invasions. 

Can you find a statement by John Paul II apologizing for the Crusades? If not, why not? Is an "invasion" still considered an invasion if the Crusades began in 1095 when Pope Urban II responded to pleas for help from the Byzantine emperor, who was being attacked by Muslims?

3. But a professor of Islamic law at Qatar University, Muhammad Ayash al-Kubaisi, proposed another route: A debate with the pope on the history their faiths. His offer, posted last week on the Web site of the Al-Jazeera television network, contends Christians should study their own turbulent past.

Who would win the debate if it took place? Why? Also, is it possible to exist for 2,000 years and not have a "turbulent past"? Is it possible to exist for forty years and not have a "turbulent past"? Finally, does Islam appear to have a "turbulent past"? Present? Future?

4. Crusaders in 1099 captured Jerusalem and began wholesale attacks on its population, including Muslims and Jews, historians say. At the same time in other parts of the Muslim world, a golden age of science, medicine and learning was under way with its intellectual hub in Baghdad.

Do these mysterious "historians" note why the Crusaders were so interested in winning back a city and land that had once been largely Christian? What happened to Islam's "golden age"?

5. Religious scholars have noted that Ottoman policy did not demand conversion to Islam across its realm, which covered much of the Balkans at its peak. But some places, notably Albania and Bosnia, welcomed the faith. In Orthodox Christian Greece, an old saying is still widely used: Better the turban than the papal tiara.

And in some places it is said that it is better to say, "Better the turban than the papal tiara," than have your head cut off. Oops, that wasn't a question. Should it have been?

6. Then the infamous tribunals during the Spanish Inquisition persecuted and executed thousands of Christians for perceived heresies and conspiracies -- including scientist-astronomer Galileo Galilei. He was "rehabilitated" by the Vatican during John Paul's papacy and the late pontiff wrote that "the Inquisition represents almost the symbol ... of scandal"

Was Galileo "persecuted"? Executed? If John Paul II's remark, quoted here, is supposedly an admission of bad things done, why does this 2004 AP story use the same quote as evidence that John Paul II wasn't willing to admit that the Inquisition was as bad as it is often portrayed?

7. In recent decades, Islamic groups and others have increasingly targeted Christian missionaries for allegations of forced conversions and as symbols of Western interference.

Have you ever heard of anyone being forced to convert to Islam? Have you heard any recent stories of Christian missionaries holding guns to the heads of captives and demanding that they convert?

8. But at a religious workshop of Muslims and Christians earlier this year, the Rev. Hans Ucko, a representative from the nearly 350-member World Council of Churches, said no real understanding is possible until the faiths look beyond their own texts.  "The Quran, Bible and other sacred books should come with a warning label," he said. "It should say, `These books may contain passages that can be interpreted for violence and intolerance.'"

Does anyone other than the MSM pay attention to the World Council of Churches? Have you ever actually read a document produced by the WCC? If so, do you think it should have come with a warning label that states, "This document may contain passages that can be interpreted as silly and politically correct"? Do you think that all sixteen people who read the document should sue the WCC for wasting their time?

You have concluded today's pop quiz. Since it was based on a news report from the MSM, there are no true or false answers to the questions in the quiz. What is most important is your opinion, especially if it is uninformed by logic, evidence, facts, and decent scholarship. Remember, we care how you feel. Thank you.

Today, Mozart. Tomorrow, Dante?

Roger Kimball comments in the WSJ about the decision to halt Hans Neuenfels's production of Mozart's 1781 opera "Idomeneo" because of concern that it might offend some Muslims. Apparently, according to reports, Neuenfels "introduced a scene to his production that depicts the decapitated heads of the Prophet Mohammed, Jesus Christ, the Buddha and Greek god Poseidon" — a scene not found in the original opera. Kimball writes:

Mr. Neuenfels's version is Modern German--i.e., gratuitously offensive. It is more Neuenfels than Mozart. Instead of appearing as the harbinger of peace, Idomeneo ends the opera parading the severed heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and the Prophet Muhammad. How do you spell "anachronistic balderdash"?

There are plenty of good reasons to refrain from gratuitously insulting other people's religions. For one thing, it is bad manners. One should respect what is respectable in the habits, mores and beliefs of other people.

But this does not mean that we should allow ourselves to be blackmailed by militant fanatics who shelter under the authority of religion and employ the freedoms of Western democracy to attack and undermine those very freedoms. ...

Today it was Mozart. Tomorrow perhaps it will be Shakespeare. Or Dante, who after all has a pretty hot place reserved for Muhammad in "The Divine Comedy." It is not--not yet--too late to put a stop to our habit of appeasing a murderous fanaticism that demands privileges and indulgences it refuses to grant to others. ...

Where will it end? I suppose that depends on how much we really care about the liberty and freedom we champion with words. Freedom, as some wit observed, is not free. Will we have the gumption to pay the cost? The jury is still out on that question. I hope and pray that the answer will be yes. "There is," G.K. Chesterton noted nearly 100 years ago, "a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped."

Of course, if this really were about "offending" people, you would think there would be reference to potentially offending Christians, Buddhists, and lovers of Greek mythology. Obviously that isn't the concern. Hmmmm...I wonder what is?

The Crusades 101 | Jimmy Akin

The Crusades 101 | Jimmy Akin | IgnatiusInsight.com              

As conventionally reckoned, the Crusades were a set of eight expeditions to the East that occurred in just under a two-century period, from 1095 to 1270. The term crusade has since expanded to be applied to a wide variety of wars--especially ones involving religion--and even to things that are not wars at all (e.g., Billy Graham's evangelistic events). Here we will focus on the eight traditional Crusades.

Historical Background

Understanding the Crusades requires an appreciation of the events that led to them. Since the legalization of Christianity in the early 300s, European Christians had been conducting pilgrimages to Palestine in order to visit the holy sites associated with the life of our Lord. These pilgrimages were major exercises of piety, for in that age travel to the Holy Land was difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Some pilgrimages took years to complete.

Continue reading...

The (False) Tale of Two Popes, continued

A few days ago I noted that many folks, including some Muslims and not a few journalists, were pitting Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI against each other, as though the former was "Pope Nice" and the latter was "Pope Nasty." I included a quote, taken from John Paul's 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, which was critical of the Muslim understanding of God and the Koran. In his most recent column, John L. Allen, Jr., recalls that JP2's book, when published, caused a furor similar to that surrounding B16's Regensburg lecture:

Speaking on background, one senior Vatican official compared the present flap to a controversy that arose in 1994, when Pope John Paul II’s book Crossing the Threshold of Hope provoked outrage across Asia for his comments that Buddhism has a “negative soteriology” and is an “atheistic system.”

In response, Buddhists demanded that the pope’s scheduled January 1995 trip to Sri Lanka, a predominantly Buddhist nation, be canceled; churches and Buddhist temples in Sri Lanka were attacked in a cycle of tit-for-tat violence; and terrorist threats circulated against the pope himself. When John Paul arrived, a planned interfaith meeting featured only the pope and a handful of Hindus, as all the Buddhist representatives staged a boycott.

Like Benedict, John Paul resisted calls to apologize for his comments, offering only regret for the reaction, and expressing his “esteem” and “highest regard” for Buddhism. In the end, the trip came and went, and the crisis died down. 

Allen also reports that some Muslim leaders are continuing to use the "if the Pope doesn't use Muslim speechwriters, things might get ugly" line of rhetoric, thereby showing that tolerance is hereby defined as a matter of "doing as we say, or we'll hurt you":

At the Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, widely considered the Vatican of the Islamic world, massive protests after last Friday’s prayer service included chants of “Down with the pope, down with the Vatican,” and “Where are you, Muslims? The pope is waging a new crusade against Islam.”

“Enough is enough,” said Sheikh Salah al-Din Nassar, the imam of the Al-Azhar mosque. “The pope talks about tolerance. Does insulting Islam and its prophet reflect any religious tolerance?”

Reaction was especially pointed in Turkey, where Benedict is scheduled to visit at the end of November, in part to meet the patriarch of Constantinople. It would also be his first visit to a majority Islamic state.

“It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades,” said Salih Kapusuz, a top deputy in the governing Islamic party in Turkey, predicting that Benedict would go down in history with leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini. Sensitivities in Turkey were particularly raw in light of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s opposition to Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

Considering that the Crusades were, in fact, acts of self-defense against centuries of aggressive and violent Muslim military action, I suppose there is a sense in which the word "crusade" does apply, if properly understood as a defense of the Cross (Latin: crux, cruc-). Of course, no Christian leader, especially the Holy Father, thinks that using the word is wise; the more important point is how that word evokes so many negative emotions — partially because the historical record has been skewed and misrepresented; partially because many in the West think that self-defense (both physical and rhetorical) is either beneath them or an act of Western imperialism.

And so the attacks continue and increase. As do the assertions that Benedict is somehow to blame for the acts of murder and violence of Islamist thugs. Allen reports: "Catholic writer John Cornwell, author of Hitler’s Pope, said the effect of Benedict’s remarks has been 'to alienate rather than forge connections with Islam,' and suggested he was guilty of 'a startling lapse in historical accuracy.'" Some may think that such a remark, coming from a man who has never found a pope he didn't like to attack, is ironic. I say it is perverse. But entirely logical, in its own pathetic way, at a time when some "Cattholics" would rather bash the Pope with any and every stick than look into the eyes of the real enemy.

The Bible and the Qur'an by Fr. Jacques Jomier, O.P.

The Bible and the Qur'an by Fr. Jacques Jomier, O.P.

What do Christians need to know about the Qur'an? Fr. Jacques Jomier, O.P., has written a scholarly yet readable work that details the profound differences between Christian scripture and the Islamic sacred texts, differences that are too often glossed over by the mainstream media. Topics addressed include: Islamic teaching on Jesus and Mary; the universal mission of the Muslim; Jews, Christians and Islamic law. This book is a necessity for those who wish to understand the highly charged religious elements of the current conflict in the Middle East.

“Jomier carefully presents what the Qur’an teaches about the Hebrew and Christian bible. He contrasts the essential Muslim teachings with the Jewish and Christian understandings of themselves. Jomier is both sympathetic and critical. This is an excellent text in which to understand just what Islam means when it talks of Jewish or Christian sources in the light of its own traditions.” —  James Schall, S.J., Georgetown University
___________________

I reviewed Jomier's book for National Catholic Register back in 2003:

Since 9/11 there has been an understandable increase in the number of books about Islam, its history, and its present state. Although Islam and Christianity are the two largest religions in the world, and their relationship is now nearly 1400 years old, the number of popular titles comparing the two is quite small. Although written over forty years ago, the reprinted The Bible and the Qur’an fills in some of the gap, providing both an overview of the Qur’an and a helpful comparison with the Bible.

Father Jacques Jomier, a Dominican priest who lived for many years in Cairo, approaches the topic from a wealth of personal and scholarly experience. He writes with a commendable objectivity, even sympathy, about the Qur’an, never losing sight of the serious differences between the sacred books of Christianity and Islam. Each chapter is succinct; the book does not attempt a detailed analysis of the Qur’an, but provides the big picture, notes the important issues, and highlights the key texts.

The opening chapters focus on the genesis of the Qur’an and the stages of development the book went through. Shorter than the New Testament, the Qur’an was written in Arabic in the early 600s and was composed in about twenty years. One significant chapter focuses on the "universal mission" of Muhammad, as recorded in the Qur’an. Muhammad, according to the Islamic faith, was the last of the prophets, sent to mankind on a mission that will last until the end of the world. According to Islam there have been several different legislations of the one true religion, as Jomier explains: "Muslim tradition also regards Judaism and Christianity as true religions that were forms of the one true religion, valid for a special period of history. For Muslim tradition the missions of Moses and Jesus were limited in time and space. God sent Moses and Jesus only to the children of Israel; but Muhammad came with a mission to the whole world."

This key belief is at the heart of the Qur’an and Jomier spends much of the book examining it. He presents the references to the Bible found in the Qur’an—indicating the Qur’an’s apparent respect for the Bible—noting the tensions that exist between the two, as well as the fact that most Muslims have never read the Bible. The serious differences between Islam and Chrisianity are all discussed: the Islamic rejection of supernatural grace, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the redemptive death of Christ on the cross.

Jomier describes the Qur’an as "a book of apologetics," for it is very concerned with addressing the person of Jesus Christ: "One the one hand, the Qur’an speaks of Jesus with great respect; several statements suggest His holiness very clearly. But on the other hand, the Qur’an mentions Jesus in an apologetic context to show that He is just a mere creature." Jesus (as well as Mary) is described as being a creature of exceptional purity—but only a creature: "[The Qur’an] rejects clearly the mystery of the Incarnation." The idea that God could have become incarnate is incompatible with the Islamic understanding of God’s "unity and transcendence." Although the Qur’an does refer to Jesus as "the Word," the "Christology of Islam . . . is rather like that of the Judeo-Christians who looked upon Jesus as a prophet in the chain of the prophets sent by God to restore the natural religion with its belief in God, Creator and Providence…"

Other topics include the last judgement, salvation, the saints, and Muslim law. The appendix contains recent Catholic documents by Vatican II and John Paul II about Islam, along with Fulton Sheen’s essay, "Mary and the Muslims." Originally written in French, The Bible and the Qur’an does not always read smoothly, and many chapters end quite abruptly. However, this is a balanced and critical overview, perfect for those looking to better understand Islam and its sacred book.

The Double Standard

The Catholic News Agency reports that José María Aznar, the former president of Spain, is tired of the "double standard in relations between Islam and the West":

Speaking at a Washington think tank, Aznar asked why no Muslims have apologized for the 800 year Moorish invasion of his country.

Speaking at a weekend conference at the Hudson Institute, Aznar asked, “What is the reason ... we, the West, always should be apologiz(ing) and they never should ... apologize? It's absurd!  They occupied Spain for eight centuries!”

Aznar also said that the Western world is in serious trouble when it comes to relations with the Islamic world, and not just because of radical Islamic terrorists. The former president said that poor leadership in the West has led to a sense that Western values are indefensible. “I can put on the table the names of various Western leaders who don’t believe in the West,” he said.

Unfortunately, no table big enough could be found, so the names have not yet been revealed. But what of Aznar's complaint that Muslims have never apologized for invading and conquering Spain? A recent statement by the Muslim American Society, given in response to Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture, "explains" why such apologies will probably never be made:

Islam does not, and never did, sanction spreading the faith by the sword. More than half of the Muslims today live in countries that were never militarily conquered by Muslims, such as Southeast Asia, sub-saharan Africa, Europe and the Americas. In lands that were conquered by early Muslim armies, no forced conversion ever occurred and there is no historical evidence indicating such. The perception of “spreading faith by the sword” was circulated by eighteenth and nineteenth century Eurocentric scholars, who in their analysis of the Muslim world relied on dogma more than objective observation and research. The Quran which is the first source of legislation in Islam states unequivocally: “…There is no compulsion in religion.” (Surah 2, verse 256)

But, in addition to being confused (if Islam was never spread by the sword, why were Muslims continually invading and conquering countries for so many centuries? For the fun of it?), this is false. An exhaustive resource (nearly 600 pages long) demonstrating otherwise is The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (Prometheus Books, 2005), edited by Robert Spencer. In the foreword, "The Genesis of a Myth," former Muslim Ibn Warraq writes:

Those [Muslim] apologists who continue to perpetuate the myth of Islamic tolerance should contemplate the massacre and extermination of the Zoroastrians in Iran; the million Armenians in Turkey; the Buddhists and Hindus in India; the more than six thousand Jews in Fez, Morocco, in 1033; hundreds of Jews killed in Cordoba between 1010 and 1013; the entire Jewish community of four thousand in Granada in 1066; the Jews in Marrakesh in 1232; the Jews in Tetuan, Morocco in 1790; the Jews of Baghdad in 1828; and so on ad nauseam.

Warraq outlines the intriguing theory that the myth of Islamic tolerance came about, in large part, because of mythology of the "noble savage," which was developed by thinkers such as Montaigne, Pierre Jurieu, and Pierre Bayle. "Thus," he writes, " by the eighteenth century, the noble savage was simply a device to criticize and comment on the follies of one's own civilization. The noble savage is no longer the simpleton from the jungle but a sophisticated and superior observor of the contemporary scene in Europe. By emphasizing the corruption, vice, and degradation of the Europeans, eighteenth-century writers exaggerated the putative superiority of the alien culture, the wisdom of the Chinese or Persian or Peruvian moralist and commentator." Within this setting, many intellectuals were ready to "adopt the myth of Muhammad as a wise and tolerant ruler and lawgiver..."

One retort to this would be, "But what about the Crusades?" It is widely accepted that, at best, the Crusades were perhaps equal in moral weight to acts of Muslim aggression but, more likely, were the cause of any military action by adherents of Muslim. Not so, writes Bernard Lewis, considered by many to the West's leading expert on Islam. In The Crisis of Islam (Random House, 2003), Lewis takes pains to distinguish between the purposes behind jihad and the Crusades:

Jihad is sometimes presented as the Muslim equivalent of the Crusade, and the two are seen as more or less equivalent. In a sense this is true — both were proclaimed and waged as holy wars for the true faith against an infidel enemy. But there is a difference. The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attaack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of a holy war, more commonly, a just war, was familiar since antiquity. Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history — in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companians and immediate successors. It has continued throughout Islamic history and retains its appeal to the present day. The word crusade derives of course from the cross and originally denoted a holy war for Christianity. But in the Christian world it has long since lost that meaning  and is used in the general sense of a morally driven campaign for a good cause. ... The one context in which the word crusade is not used nowadays is precisely the original religious one. Jihad too is used in a variety of senses, but unlike crusade it has retained its original, primary meaning. (pp 37-8).

And yet the mythology of nasty, brutish crusading Christians attacking peace-loving, tranquil Muslims continues, often promoted and continually allowed to pass for truth by many in the West who either should know better or who do not believe in the West. Perhaps it's time to get Mr. Aznar that table.

Having it both ways

Jewish columnist Dennis Prager compares criticisms of Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XVI and marvels at the cognative dissonance revealed:

If the same people who attack Pope Pius XII for his silence regarding the greatest evil of his time are largely the same people who attack Pope Benedict XVI for confronting the greatest evil of his time, maybe it isn't a pope's confronting evil that concerns Pius's critics, but simply defaming the Church.

After all, has not Benedict done precisely what Pius's critics argue that Pius, and presumably any pope, should have done -- be a courageous moral voice and condemn the greatest evil and greatest manifestation of anti-Semitism of his time?

Take The New York Times editorial page, for example. It is written by people who condemn Pius for his alleged silence and now condemn Benedict for not being quiet. According to the Times, Benedict will only create more anti-Western Muslim violence. But that was exactly the excuse defenders of Pius XII so often offered for why Pius XII did not speak out more forcefully -- that he was afraid it would only engender more Nazi violence. Yet Pius's critics have (correctly) dismissed that excuse out of hand.

Another example is Karen Armstrong, the widely read ex-nun scholar of religion. She has written of Pius XII that his "apparent failure to condemn the Nazis has become a notorious scandal." Moral and logical consistency suggest that she would welcome a pope who did confront today's greatest evil. But she has joined those condemning Pope Benedict. She wrote (putting these arguments in the mouths of affronted Muslims with whom she sympathizes): "the Catholic Church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself . . . under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust."

Prager concludes his column: "But the condemnations of Pope Benedict by virtually every major critic of Pius XII lead me to wonder whether the critics really want popes to confront evil or just want popes to think like they do." Exactly right. Simply more usual suspects with the usual suspect stuff...

"Pope fosters suspicion"

Last Thursday, my local newspaper contained this piece of erudite analysis — which reflects, I'm guessing, the views of far too many people — in the "Letters to the Editor" section:

Pope fosters suspicion

It is sad that Pope Benedict XVI dragged out of all history a statement that Islam was "evil and inhuman."

Why quote these inflammatory words? Does the pope forget the many years of the crusades during which the church encouraged and blessed armies to exterminate Muslims? So hated is the word that U.S. Army personnel in Iraq today are cautioned not to use the word "crusade" in reference to the American military adventure.

It is also sad that Pope Benedict, appearing on a balcony of the papal palace for the first time as the vicar of Christ, said to the cheering throng, "I am a humble man." So then he is proud of his humility!
Reinhold Niebuhr said, "Discourses on humility are a source of pride to the humble." Neither Abe Lincoln nor Ghandi nor Martin Luther King nor Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed their humility. They just lived it.

Efforts of this pope to bring about reconciliation in the troubled Middle East are apt to be met with suspicion.

DEAN MORDHORST

My hasty response was printed two days later:

Christians defended own lands

Dean Mordhorst's Sept. 21 letter ("Pope fosters suspicion") was filled with errors.

The crusades were not about "exterminating" Muslims, but regaining Christian lands taken by force by Muslim armies. From Muhammad's time (A.D. 570-632) on, Muslims set out to conquer Christian lands. Within 500 years, they had conquered North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain - about two-thirds of  the Christian world. Christians had to either defend their lands or accept Muslim rule. The First Crusade was called in 1095 by Pope Urban II, who responded to pleas for aid from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople.

Upon his election, Pope Benedict did not refer to himself as "a humble man," but as "a humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord," emphasizing his proper place before God; he was hardly making a prideful statement.

As for proclamations of humility, Jesus said, "I am gentle and humble in heart" (Matthew 11:29); noting your humility is prideful only if you are not truly humble. Benedict's writings and life provide ample evidence of an intellectual giant who is well aware of his limitations.

Benedict's remarks in Regensburg did not foster suspicion. Rather, his use of a historical anecdote emphasized the need for religion - whether Christianity or Islam - to be guided by reason. It was followed by an intellectual examination of the West's growing rejection of both reason and religion, an examination that truly fosters meaningful dialogue for those who wish to engage in it.

Much more could be said, of course, but there was a word limit and I don't like to waste too many pearls...

The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science

The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science | An interview with physicist Dr. Stephen Barr | By Mark Brumley | September 25, 2006              

Some news hooks are irresistible, even when they're false or at least incomplete. Case in point: the alleged conflict between science and religion. Is science opposed to religion? The answer depends in large measure on what you mean by religion. If your "religion" is, say, astrology, then you could say there's a conflict between science and "religion". The science of astronomy does conflict with the "religion" of astrology.

Probably most people who speak of a conflict between science and religion, though, don't mean the "religion" of astrology -- if they think of astrology as a religion at all. They mean Christianity or perhaps Judeo-Christianity. They have before their minds Galileo and his struggle with the Inquisition of the Catholic Church over geocentrism or, more recently, the argument certain Christians have with the theory of evolution. Or perhaps they have only a vague idea that as science progresses religion becomes more and more problematic. Religion, in this view, is simply a way of talking about things science hasn't yet explained. When science gets around to explaining them, no role for religion will remain, and like the State in the Marxist paradise, it will wither away.

Those ideas about science and "religion" suppose an inherent conflict between the two fields. Conflicts, of course, make for more exciting news stories. But does the constant "hook" of a battle between science and religion reflect reality? Are science and religion -- specifically Christianity -- inevitably at odds with one another?

No, says physicist and Catholic Stephen Barr, author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (University of Notre Dame Press). Dr. Barr is professor of physics at the Bartol Research Institute at the University of Delaware. His writings include essays such as "A new Symmetry Breaking Pattern for SO(10) and Proton Decay" and "Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron and of the Neutron", though IgnatiusInsight.com readers are more likely to know Stephen Barr's essays and reviews in First Things magazine, where he writes on such topics as evolution and Intelligent Design and naturalism.

Ignatius Insight recently interviewed Dr. Barr on science and religion. Continue reading...

2nd 'Ignatius Night At The Movies' Season

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 25 /Christian Newswire/ -- Following a successful first-season last Spring, Ignatius Press is kicking off its second “Ignatius Night At The Movies” series this Fall with a national premiere of the never-before-seen-on-big-screen “Pope John Paul II” film, starring internationally renowned actors  Jon Voight and Cary Elwes.  Voight was nominated for a 2006 Emmy Award for his performance in the film.

The film will be shown in select parishes, shrines, colleges, Catholic conference centers, and schools throughout the U.S. and Canada, beginning the weekend of Oct. 27 and continuing through the weekend of Nov. 17.  Organizations interested in scheduling a showing should contact Diane Hanson at 734-453-8487.  The new DVD version of the film will be provided free-of-charge for the showing.

Read more here.

Another former Cat(holic) who was victim...

...of poor catechetical training. Or perhaps time and the journey from '70s pop/rock stardom to life as a devout Muslim have colored how Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens, understands the criteria for ex cathedra statements. From the Associated Press:

The singer, whose hits such as "Moon Shadow" and "Peace Train" made him a star in 1960s and 1970s, said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. that the pope's words proved he was not infallible. "At one point, I used to believe that the pope was infallible," Islam said, referring to teachings he received while attending a Catholic school as a boy.

According to Islam-Online.net, the ex-Catholic suggested the pope learn more about Islam by reading the works of a Hindu:

The former pop star, who reverted to Islam in 1977  and has since become a prominent member of Britain 's Muslim  community, stressed that the pope's comments showed he was fallible. "Because of the kind of interpretation he had  of Islam, he should read Gandhi and find out what he said about Islam," said the singer, adding that the Indian leader had a more  peaceful interpretation of the faith.

The article also reports:

Islam is marking his comeback with a live  performance in London on September 26 to an audience that includes  former US president Bill Clinton, Virgin Group founder Sir Richard  Branson as well as the famous acting couple, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. In November, 40 years after his debut album, he is  releasing a new album to bridge the widening gap between Islam and the West.

There was no mention of whether or not Christian musicians would be playing similar concerts in Muslim countries in the near future.

Muslim Leader: The Pope should defend Islam

Egypt's Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Tantawi is reported to have said regarding the Pope's quoting a Byzantine emperor's harsh comment about Islam, "The Pope should have expressed his opinion on it because otherwise everyone thinks this is his opinion. We expected him to defend Islam".

The Pope was supposed to "defend Islam"?

Critics insist that Benedict XVI should have given his opinion on the Christian emperor's remarks.  You have to wonder whether they have gone back and listened to the remarks he made. In any case, Benedict referred to the words of the emperor as being "astonishingly brusque" or "suprisingly harsh", clearly distinguishing the emperor's comments from his own. 

Maybe that is not as great a distancing of the Pope from the emperor's words as Muslims would like. Okay. How about this: The Pope will agree to be clearer about when he is quoting someone and when he is making a statement for himself, if Muslim leaders worldwide will agree vocally to condemn violent words and actions of their putative coreligionists when the Pope happens to say something they don't want to hear. 

Benedict's Address to Muslim Ambassadors

Pope Benedict XVI met today with ambassadors from countries with Islamic majorities and representatives of Muslim communities in Italy. He wasn't confrontational nor did he reverse previous comments.  He reiterated the teaching of Vatican II, which he affirms, and he restated what he said to Muslim representatives at Cologne in 2005.

The circumstances which have given rise to our gathering are well known. I have already had occasion to dwell upon them in the course of the past week. In this particular context, I should like to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers, calling to mind the words of the Second Vatican Council which for the Catholic Church are the Magna Carta of Muslim-Christian dialogue: "The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God" (Declaration Nostra Aetate, 3). Placing myself firmly within this perspective, I have had occasion, since the very beginning of my pontificate, to express my wish to continue establishing bridges of friendship with the adherents of all religions, showing particular appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and Christians (cf. Address to the Delegates of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of Other Religious Traditions, 25 April 2005). As I underlined at Cologne last year, "Inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is, in fact, a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends" (Meeting with Representatives of Some Muslim Communities, Cologne, 20 August 2005). In a world marked by relativism and too often excluding the transcendence and universality of reason, we are in great need of an authentic dialogue between religions and between cultures, capable of assisting us, in a spirit of fruitful co-operation, to overcome all the tensions together. Continuing, then, the work undertaken by my predecessor, Pope John Paul II, I sincerely pray that the relations of trust which have developed between Christians and Muslims over several years, will not only continue, but will develop further in a spirit of sincere and respectful dialogue, based on ever more authentic reciprocal knowledge which, with joy, recognizes the religious values that we have in common and, with loyalty, respects the differences.

He underscored the important of Christians and Muslims talking with each other and avoiding violence.

Inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is a necessity for building together this world of peace and fraternity ardently desired by all people of good will. In this area, our contemporaries expect from us an eloquent witness to show all people the value of the religious dimension of life. Likewise, faithful to the teachings of their own religious traditions, Christians and Muslims must learn to work together, as indeed they already do in many common undertakings, in order to guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence; as for us, religious authorities and political leaders, we must guide and encourage them in this direction. Indeed, "although considerable dissensions and enmities between Christians and Muslims may have arisen in the course of the centuries, the Council urges all parties that, forgetting past things, they train themselves towards sincere mutual understanding and together maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all people" (Declaration, Nostra Aetate, 3). The lessons of the past must therefore help us to seek paths of reconciliation, in order to live with respect for the identity and freedom of each individual, with a view to fruitful co-operation in the service of all humanity. As Pope John Paul II said in his memorable speech to young people at Casablanca in Morocco, "Respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres, especially in that which concerns basic freedoms, more particularly religious freedom. They favour peace and agreement between peoples" (no. 5).

Benedict XVI also stated:

Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that in the current world situation it is imperative that Christians and Muslims engage with one another in order to address the numerous challenges that present themselves to humanity, especially those concerning the defence and promotion of the dignity of the human person and of the rights ensuing from that dignity. When threats mount up against people and against peace, by recognizing the central character of the human person and by working with perseverance to see that human life is always respected, Christians and Muslims manifest their obedience to the Creator, who wishes all people to live in the dignity that he has bestowed upon them.

Here is the Vatican's text in English translation: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060925_ambasciatori-paesi-arabi_en.html.

Let's hope something isn't taken out of context here and used by militants to set off yet another round of public protests and acts of violence. 

Pope posed tough questions that the world must answer

George Weigel wrote the following in USA Today:

Over the 18 years I have known Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, I've formed some distinct impressions of the man.

He is, first of all, a Christian gentleman whose exquisite manners reflect his innate shyness and respect for others. Then there is his encyclopedic knowledge of theology, which ranges far beyond the borders of the Catholic Church; Benedict XVI has read widely and deeply in Protestant and Orthodox thought, in Jewish scholarship, in Islamic sacred texts and commentaries. And there is the precision of his mind: I have often described Benedict as one of those rare men who, when asked a question, pauses, reflects — and then answers in complete paragraphs.

All of which sheds some light on the global controversy that has swirled around the pope since his lecture on faith, reason, Christianity and Islam two weeks ago. Benedict XVI says precisely what he means and means exactly what he says. So what exactly was the pope saying, and why did he say it?

Here is the entire article: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/09/pope_posed_toug.html.

All of which sheds some light on the global controversy that has swirled around the pope since his lecture on faith, reason, Christianity and Islam two weeks ago. Benedict XVI says precisely what he means and means exactly what he says. So what exactly was the pope saying, and why did he say it?

The Price of Abandoning Reason | Dr. Jose Yulo

The Price of Abandoning Reason | Dr. Jose Yulo | September 25, 2006                

"Therefore (it) is all continuous; for what-is is in contact with what-is. Moreover, changeless in the limits of great chains (it) is un-beginning and unceasing, since coming-to-be and perishing have been driven far off, and true trust has thrust them out. Remaining the same and in the same, (it) lies by itself and remains thus firmly in place; for strong necessity holds (it) fast in the chains of a limit, which fences it about." -- Parmenides

It is not surprising that Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture should have attracted the attention that it has. Strictly as a lecture   it speaks copiously, yet with undeniable clarity, of the polar extremes reached when man attempts for whatever inclination to divorce faith and reason from each other. Roughly, the first part of the Pope's delivery touched on the confused (and then detrimental) ramifications of carving reason from faith, as seen in the now infamous citation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus. The latter section delved into modernity's desire to jettison faith from reason, as the former was seen as unnecessary and archaic, as witnessed by a three-stage process of de-Hellenization.

Continue reading...

Hypocrisy and Pedantry

I've already noted (here and here) how some folks in the media and even within the Church are playing the "good pope" vs. "bad pope" with JP2 and B16. Sometimes this is presented as the "pope who 'got it'" vs. "the pope who is clueless." Or, "the pope of peace" vs. "the pope of dogmatic rigidity." The latter is in full force in this article in The Guardian, which insists that B16 is "a shrewd and ruthless operator" and then states:

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI's short papacy has marked a significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue. John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace. He felt keenly the terrible history of Catholic-Jewish relations, and having fought with the Polish resistance to save Jews in the second world war, John Paul II made unprecedented efforts to begin to heal centuries of hostility and indifference on the part of the Catholic church to Europe's Jews. John Paul II also addressed himself to the ancient enmity between Muslims and Catholics; he apologised for the Crusades and was the first Pope to visit a mosque during a visit to Syria in 2001.

Nevermind that JP2 didn't apologize for the Crusades (see Myth #7 here). And, as anyone who has bothered to read B16's works (such as Many Religions, One Covenant) knows, he has long reflected, in very sympatheric and charitable terms, about Judaism and the Jewish people. But, of course, there are always some who refuse to let annoying facts get in the way of established personal prejudices.

Anyhow, all of this is taken up very well here by Fr. Richard Neuhaus of First Things, who takes on comments from a couple of priests who have been more than a little condescending in their remarks about B16 and the Regensburg lecture. He writes:

There is some amusement in watching those who railed against the alleged authoritarianism of John Paul now contrasting him favorably with the alleged authoritarianism of Benedict. They live in the hope that some day they will get a John XXIV who will demonstrate that he is not isolated and authoritarian by following their advice.

Why Benedict XVI Did not Want to Fall Silent or Backpedal

Writes Sandro Magister:

The masterful lecture that the pope-theologian delivered at the University of Regensburg really did send shivers throughout the world. Because what Benedict XVI said there is just what happened afterward. The pope explained the distance that runs between the Christian God, who is love, immolated in Jesus on the cross, but also “Logos,” reason; and the God worshipped by Islam, so transcendent and sublime that he is not bound by anything, not even by that rational assertion according to which there must not be “any coercion in matters of faith.” The Qur’an says this in the second sura, to which the pope conscientiously made reference, but it then makes other and opposite statements. And the violent eruption in the Muslim world against the pope and Christians confirms that this other tendency has the upper hand, giving form and substance to the way in which myriads of the faithful of Allah view the world of the infidels. The other side of pope Joseph Ratzinger’s lecture in Regensburg is the blood poured out in Muslim Mogadishu by sister Leonella Sgorbati, a woman veiled and yet free, a martyr whose last words were addressed to her killers: “I forgive you.”

His full coverage is found here: http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=85302&eng=y.

Benedict Takes the Next Step with Islam | Mark Brumley

Benedict Takes the Next Step with Islam | Mark Brumley | September 21, 2006              

We're hearing calls for more dialogue with Islam in the wake of the uproar following Pope Benedict XVI's remarks at the University of Regensburg. Yet the uproar itself underscores the problem with such calls for dialogue. How can you talk seriously with people when they're apt to react violently as soon as you say something they don't want to hear?

Continue reading...

The Pope Was Right

By George Weigel

IN A BRILLIANT lecture at the University of Regensburg last week, Pope Benedict XVI made three crucial points that are now in danger of being lost in the polemics about his supposedly offensive comments about Islam.

The pope's first point was that all the great questions of life, including social and political questions, are ultimately theological. How we think (or don't think) about God has much to do with how we judge what is good and what is wicked, and with how we think about the appropriate methods for advancing the truth in a world in which there are profound disagreements about the truth of things.

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weigel20sep20,0,2851673,print.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail.