Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Possessed of Both Reason and Revelation: Revisiting Regensburg

Possessed of Both Reason and Revelation: Revisiting Regensburg | Brian Jones, MA | Ignatius Insight | September 13, 2011

On September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI gave an address at University of Regensburg, where he was once a distinguished professor and scholar. In the days and weeks that followed his lecture, outcries began to surface, and many commentators misinterpreted not only what the pope actually said, but also missed the heart of the lecture. Quite a few felt (notice that I said "felt" and not "thought") that the pope negatively criticized Islam, and this was clearly seen in the riots that broke out in some Muslim countries. Other commentators (such as Fr. James V. Schall, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, George Weigel, and C.S. Morrisey) noted how greatly the message of the Holy Father was distorted and misunderstood, especially by many in the Western world.

Although Benedict did discuss a few issues regarding Islam, this is not his main focus. His reflections were meant to challenge us to ask the most basic and fundamental questions about faith and reason: How are we to understand the two: as united, or as entities that must be separated? Is reason more itself with or without the aid of knowledge outside of itself? The great inheritance of the Catholic intellectual tradition reveals that faith and reason can never be separated, but must be harmoniously united so as to uphold the full dignity of each.

According to Benedict, if faith and reason are mutually exclusive, then they become distorted and susceptible to a widespread confusion about their true purpose and nature. By establishing a correct understanding of faith and reason (along with their proper integration), Benedict gave the world "an interreligious and ecumenical vocabulary by which Muslims, Jews, Christians, adherents of other world religions, and non-believers can engage in genuine conversation." [1] In his book, The Nature and Mission of Theology, the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said that men are capable of reciprocal comprehension in truth so that "the greater their inner contact with the one reality which unites them, namely, the truth, the greater their capacity to meet on common ground." [2] Without this understanding, dialogue would merely be spoken on "deaf ears."

This essay will elaborate upon this ever-present dismantling of the unity of faith and reason, by first examining the idea of God as Logos (Reason) versus the idea of God as purely "will," and then explain the consequences of separating God from reason, what Benedict calls the "dehellenization of Christianity." If man is capable of seeing why this synthesis of faith and reason is so vital for every culture, then their proper reconciliation can be achieved. This achievement will also enable faith and reason to remain intact, and prevent politics from becoming that science most proper to man, namely, metaphysics.

Read the entire essay on Ignatius Insight...

Today is the fifth anniversary ...

... of Pope Benedict XVI's now famous lecture at the University of Regensburg, where he once taught theology—a lecture that is, I think it is safe to say, considered his most controversial and polarizing public utterance as pontiff.

But, in reflecting on what the Pope said five years ago, a few simple questions are in order for, well, anyone interested in the topic:

1. What is the Regensburg Address considered so controversial and, by some, so tone deaf and insensitive?
2. What did Benedict XVI actually say about Islam?
3. What, in a sentence or two, was the central thesis/point of the Address?
4. Who or what is criticized the most heavily in the Address? For what?
5. Have you actually read the Address?

Back in 2006, I posted liinks to some Ignatius Insight essays about the Address. Here they are:

Pope Benedict XVI, Regensburg, and Islam | Autumn 2006

• Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture | Vatican Website

• Is Dialogue with Islam Possible? Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI's Address at the University of Regensburg | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
Both before and since his elevation to the papacy, Benedict has taken a consistent approach to controversial issues: he locates the assumptions and fundamental principles underlying the controversy, analyzes their "inner" structure or dynamism, and lays out the consequences of the principles. Continue reading...

• The Regensburg Lecture: Thinking Rightly About God and Man | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
On September 12, on his visit to his native Bavaria, Benedict XVI gave a formal academic lecture at the University at which he formerly was a professor. It is a brilliant, stunning lecture, and it is a lecture, not a papal pronouncement. It brings into focus just why there is a papacy and why Catholicism is an intellectual religion. Indeed, it is a lecture on why reason is reason and what this means. The scope of this lecture is simply breathtaking, but also intelligible to the ordinary mind. Continue reading...

• Benedict Takes the Next Step with Islam | Mark Brumley
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...

• Ratzinger and Regensburg: On What Is a University? | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
The controversy over Benedict XVI's lecture at the University of Regensburg is not just about the status of truth in Islam. Rather at issue is the nature of a university. What happens there? The notion of state ministers and legislatures entering into this issue by their political methods, threatening this or that because of what is argued in a university, is itself a failure to grasp what a university is, let alone what a state is. Continue reading...

• The Price of Abandoning Reason | Dr. Jose Yulo
• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Usual Suspects, the Usual Suspect Stuff | Carl E. Olson
• The Double Standard | Carl E. Olson
• The (False) Tale of Two Popes | Carl E. Olson
• Learn "History" From the MSM! | Carl E. Olson

IGNATIUSINSIGHT.COM ARTICLES ON RELATED TOPICS:

• On Reading the Pope | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• 9/11 Revisited | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Tom Burnett: A Hero on Flight 93 | An interview with Deena Burnett, author of Fighting Back
• Martyrs and Suicide Bombers | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• On the Term "Islamo-Fascism" | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Spartans, Traitors, and Terrorists | Dr. Jose Yulo
• Plato's Ring in the Sudan: How Freedom Begets Isolation of the Soul | Dr. Jose Yulo
• The Molochs of Modernity | Dr. Jose Yulo
• The Echo of Melos: How Ancient Honor Unmasks Islamic Terror | Dr. Jose Yulo
• Urban II: The Pope of the First Crusade | Régine Pernoud
• Crusade Myths | Thomas F. Madden
• Mistakes, Yes. Conspiracies, No. | The Fourth Crusade | Vince Ryan

Abp. Fulton Sheen on four false assumptions often made in comparing religions

One of my favorite books by Abp. Fulton Sheen is Philosophy of Religion: The Impact of Modern Knowledge on Religion, originally published in 1948 by Appleton-Century-Crofts (New York). What follows is a short overview, originally published in This Rock magazine, of some points made by Sheen about comparing Christianity to other religions:

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen outlined the problems with the arguments that Christianity was derived from pre-Christian paganism, made in the early twentieth-century by men such as H. G. Wells, H. L. Mencken, and Sir James G. Frazer (author of The Golden Bough, an influential study in comparative folklore, magic, and religion). In Philosophy of Religion: The Impact of Modern Knowledge on Religion, written nearly sixty years ago and aimed at more scholarly works, Sheen lists false assumptions underlying comparative religion that provide a helpful apologetic yardstick for gauging works that claim "all religions are the same" or that "Christianity stole its beliefs from pagan religions."

First false assumption: Religion represents the primitive instincts of man and the "infant stage" of civilization and "progress." Thus, the religion of primitive peoples today (say, the aborigines) represents the religion of ancient man. The mistake here is conjoining "the lowest forms of humanity with the oldest." This is the mythology of inevitable human progress, which assumes that the spiritual insights of the twenty-first-century man must be of a higher order than those of ancient nomadic Hebrews or third-century Christians. It underlies the assumption that either science or "spirituality" (non-Christian, of course) supplants religion as man evolves into a higher state of intelligence, "consciousness," or humanity.

Second false assumption: The true religion must be completely different from all other human religions. Since Christianity and non-Christian religions are not completely different in every detail, "it is falsely concluded that the Christian religion is not divine." Christianity and other religions do resemble each other in certain ways when it comes to natural truths, since those truths "may be known to anyone endowed with reason." These include moral teachings, use of symbols, and certain liturgical themes. Even when it comes to supernatural truths, Christians and pagans still share some general ground, such as the awareness of sin and the need for a redeemer. The key difference is that Christians "know definitely that Redeemer is Christ." The distinctively Catholic doctrine is that God does not ignore or discount our human nature but perfects it through supernatural grace.

Third false assumption: Resemblances between Christianity and other religions are "possible only through plagiarism, or borrowing, or imitation." A distinction must be made between complete and partial borrowing. If the borrowing is complete, then Christianity is not unique nor divine. But "there are some elements in Christianity that are absolutely original," despite some wild and unfounded claims: the historical facts of Christianity and the unique doctrines of the Catholic Church, including the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eucharist.

Fourth false assumption: Since the supernatural is impossible or cannot be demonstrated, religions and the history of religions "should be studied apart from all intervention of God." But "it is one thing to abstract the supernatural character from religion and quite another thing to deny the supernatural." Since Christianity claims to be supernatural, it should be investigated as if it were so. Failing to consider this claim, upon which all of Christianity rests, reflects a materialist bias, often presented as "scientific."

Also read the accompanying longer article I wrote for the May-June 2006 issue of This Rock, titled, "Jesus and the Pagan Gods".

What We All Know--And Why We Can't Not Know That We Know It | An Interview with J. Budziszewski

What We All Know--And Why We Can't Not Know That We Know It | An Interview with J. Budziszewski, author of What We Can't Not Know: A Guide | Ignatius Insight | May 9, 2011

Ignatius Insight: In a nutshell, what is it that "we can't not know"?

Budziszewski: Despite the easy contemporary chatter about morality being relative, we all really know the foundational principles of right and wrong -- for example that good is to be done, that evil is to be avoided, and that it is always wrong to gratuitously harm my neighbor. Moreover we all really know the first ring of precepts that follow from these principles -- deep down even the adulterer knows that he ought to be faithful to his wife, even the murderer knows that he should never deliberately take innocent human life, and even the God-mocker knows the wrong of mocking God.

The best short summary of the things we "can't not know" is the Decalogue, provided that you take it together with what it suggests, what it implies, and what it presupposes. The commandment of spousal faithfulness, for example, presupposes the institution of marriage, and suggests the deep importance of sexual purity in general.

Ignatius Insight: What are some of the key reasons that people don't always seem to know what they "can't not know"?

Budziszewski: Let me begin with a little clarification: I don't claim that everyone knows everything. Genuine ignorance and confusion are possible about the moral details. It is only the moral basics that I claim we "can't not know."

One reason why people don't always seem to know what they "can't not know" is that the knowledge is latent. They may never have thought about it. It has to be brought to the surface. Thomas Aquinas remarks that we have a natural "habit" of knowing the first principles of practical reason, but that this doesn't mean we are actually thinking about them.

Another reason why people don't always seem to know what they "can't not know" is that morally careless ways of life make moral knowledge fuzzy and indistinct. I've claimed that even the adulterer knows the good of faithfulness, but I don't claim that he knows it clearly. His way of life dims his moral vision. To him it seems a dim abstraction. A host of other things are in clearer focus, crowding it out.

The most troubling of all reasons why people don't always seem to know what they "can't not know" is that we sometimes work very hard to convince ourselves that we don't know what we really do know. We are trying not to let their guilty knowledge rise to the surface, not to think about it, not to draw its implications -- because it would accuse us. The suppression of guilty knowledge takes a lot of energy, and a whole set of symptoms betray the effort. I may compulsively confess, to everyone who will listen, every sordid detail of what I did except that it was wrong. Or I may pour myself into constructing elaborate excuses for it. Or I may ruin my own life and destroy my relationships in a false bid for atonement -- paying pain after pain, price after price, all because I refuse to pay the one price demanded, a contrite and broken heart.

Ignatius Insight: In the Preface to the new edition of What We Can't Not Know, you speak of three general "historical phases" of the natural tradition, and write that we are now entering a fourth. What, in short, are four phases?

Read the entire interview on Ignatius Insight...

Highlights from Blessed John Paul II's writings...

... to Muslims and about Islam, selected and with an introduction and commentary by Fr. Samir Khalil Samir S.J., author of 111 Questions on Islam.

The Pope, the "time of the Gentiles", and the "mission of Israel"

Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press, takes a look at one of the more challenging and (in my mind) intriguing passages in Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week:

Pope Benedict writes nothing new in Jesus of Nazareth: Part 2 when he states that the Jewish people are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death. Readers will be pardoned if they think otherwise, since some media outlets have treated the Holy Father’s statements as if they were revelations. Perhaps that’s understandable, given the history of the relations between Christians and Jews. But it’s still not news.

Likewise, readers may think Pope Benedict has said something novel about a related topic — the conversion (or non-conversion) of Jews to Christianity. According to some reports, Christians shouldn’t try to convert Jews, in Benedict’s view. Is that so? What does Benedict actually say?

Let’s begin with what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say that Jews shouldn’t become Christians, that Jews shouldn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Nor does he say Christians shouldn’t try to convert Jews.

Some background should help. In speaking of Jesus’ discourse about the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the end of the world, Pope Benedict explains the place of evangelization in the unfolding of history. He quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s words to Pope Eugene III that he needn’t concern himself with the conversion of the Jewish people; God has left the matter until the time when “the full number of the Gentiles” to become Christians has been reached (pp. 44-45). Benedict then quotes commentator Hildegard Brem, who says that Bernard’s comments reflect Roman 11:25, which Brem interprets to mean that “the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in’” (p. 45).

It’s clear that Benedict thinks Israel, in some sense, “retains its own mission” (p. 46). The Church’s mission, on the other hand, is to focus on the Gentiles. He interprets the Lord’s teaching about the destruction of the Temple as linked to the “times of the Gentiles” — an unspecified period between the time of Jesus and the end of the world. During the “times of the Gentiles,” “the evangelization of the Gentiles” is “the disciples’ particular task — thanks above all to the special commission given to Paul as a duty and a grace” (p. 46). In other words, the age of the Church stresses converting the Gentiles to the message of Jesus, not converting Jews.

Read the entire piece, "Jesus For Jews?", on the National Catholic Register site. Mark is co-author, with Curtis Mitch and Laura Dittus, of the Study Guide for Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week.

Time to Take Religious Freedom Seriously

Time to Take Religious Freedom Seriously | Philip F. Lawler | Editorial | Catholic World Report | April 2011

Christians in the West must press their government leaders for action against persecution.

Two years into his administration, President Barack Obama still has not filled the post of roving US ambassador for religious freedom. Meanwhile in Pakistan the government’s only Christian cabinet minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, was assassinated for suggesting that the country’s blasphemy law should be changed.

Urged to pass a resolution condemning the persecution of Christians, the European Parliament instead approved a vague statement, worded in general terms, decrying intolerance of all faiths. Meanwhile in Egypt Copts were slaughtered, in China “house churches” were raided by police, in Nigeria a Christian village was torched.

In Iraq, Chaldean Christians are hunted down and executed, gangland-style, by Islamic zealots. In Afghanistan a Christian man faces the death penalty for the “crime” of conversion from the Islamic faith. And these are countries where American troops are shedding their blood in defense of freedom!

The Pope’s Plea

In his message for the World Day of Peace this year, Pope Benedict gave the world’s leaders a much-needed reminder that religious liberty is an essential aspect of human freedom. It follows logically that to pursue freedom without acknowledging religious liberty is to embark on a hopeless quest. In fact, the Holy Father observed, it is a downright dangerous quest, because false conceptions of freedom beget new threats to human rights, new threats to peace.

Unfortunately the leaders of the Western world have not yet recognized the force of the Pontiff’s argument. The policy-makers of Europe and America cling to the illusion that they can somehow promote freedom, both at home and abroad, while ignoring religious affairs. This approach will not work. It cannot work. It is a recipe missing an essential ingredient.

Read the entire editorial on www.CatholicWorldReport.com...

Jimmy Akin carefully considers Benedict XVI's thoughts on the conversion of Jews

Apologist and author Jimmy Akin has penned a lengthy and thoughtful piece on the National Catholic Register blog titled, "Pope: Don't Evangelize Jews! Really?" Here is the opening:

Pope Benedict’s remarks concerning Jewish individuals in his recent book Jesus of Nazareth (vol. 2) (GET IT HERE! GET IT HERE!) have attracted considerable attention.

For example, the book contains a passage which some have interpreted as saying that the Church should not seek to convert Jewish individuals. It is not at all clear to me that this is what the pope is saying. The passage is complex and bears more than one interpretation. So let’s dive in and see what we can make of it.

The beginning of the discussion (which is not usually quoted by people commenting on the text) is this. Starting on p. 44 of the book, Pope Benedict writes:

At this point we encounter once again the connection between the Gospel tradition and the basic elements of Pauline theology. If Jesus says in the eschatological discourse that the Gospel must first be proclaimed to the Gentiles and only then can the end come, we find exactly the same thing in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (11:25–26).

The full number of the Gentiles and all Israel: in this formula we see the universalism of the divine salvific will. For our purposes, though, the important point is that Paul, too, recognizes an age of the Gentiles, which is the present and which must be fulfilled if God’s plan is to attain its goal.

So Pope Benedict is contemplating the two-stages of phases of history that precede the end of the world. First, there are what Our Lord refers to as “the times of the gentiles,” in which the gospel is preached to all nations and the gentiles are given the chance to convert, and then the second stage in which the partial hardness that has come upon Israel is removed and so “all Israel will be saved”—a reference to a corporate conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history.

Note how this viewpoint differs from two rival viewpoints: First, it differs from the “Jews don’t need Jesus, they have their own covenant” perspective. This idea, which has been trendy is some Catholic circles of late, is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and to the historic teaching of the Church’s magisterium. It also is not what Pope Benedict is advocating here. He is not saying that Jews don’t need Jesus or that they don’t need to become Christians. He is saying that they will corporately convert to Christ, but not until the end of time. Prior to that point, individual Jews may become Christians—as with the apostles and the very first Christians and with other converts from Judaism down through history. But the full, corporate conversion of Israel (which even then might not involve every single individual without exception) is something to be found only at the end of the world.

Definitely read the entire piece. Akin rightly focuses, I think, on the key distinction to be made between individuals who are Jewish and "all Israel", which is the primary focus of Benedict XVI in this section of Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week.

Also, I would point out that anyone who is inclined to say, "The Pope doesn't think Jews need Jesus in order to be saved!" that, first, the passage in question doesn't say any such thing, and secondly, it directly contradicts what Ratzinger/Benedict has said many, many times over many, many years. Here is one of many possible examples of his insistence on the unique and necessary salvific work of Jesus Christ:

Listen to Fr. Fessio, Dr. Neusner, Dr. Evans, Dr. Pitre, and several others...

... discuss Pope Benedict XVI's book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week; via the book's blog:

On the eve of the worldwide release of Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week an unprecedented tele-press conference featured a renowned interfaith group of biblical scholars and theologians discussing the Pope, the book, and its impact on the figure of Jesus.

The panel includes Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, founder and publisher of Ignatius Press and a former student of then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI); Dr. Jacob Neusner of Bard College, author of A Rabbi Talks With Jesus; Dr. Craig A. Evans of Acadia University's (Canada) Acadia Divinity College and co-author of Jesus, The Last Days; Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFMCap, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Doctrine; Dr. Brant Pitre of Notre Dame Seminary (Louisiana) and author of Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper; Dr. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary (Kentucky) and author of The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth; and Mark Brumley, president and CEO of Ignatius Press and author of the study guides for both of Benedict XVI's volumes on Christ's life. 

• Listen to/Download Conference Audio - MP3, 17.4MB >>
• Read/Download Conference Transcript - PDF, 154KB >>

If you aren't a fan of PDF files, the written transcript of the conference is available on Dr. Ben Witherington III's blog, "The Bible and Culture". Also, Dr. Witherington, a highly regarded Evangelical Scripture scholar, has written a lengthy review of the Holy Father's book.

What Benedict XVI has written about the Jews is news—but not new news

There is one topic that has dominated news stories so far about Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth, Part Two: Holy Week—From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, as can be seen in these headlines from the past two days:

• Pope's new book says Jewish people not guilty of Jesus' death (USA Today)
• Settled After 2000 Years: Jews Not Guilty for Jesus' Death, Pope Says In New Book (The Daily)
• Jews in the clear on death of Christ (Sydney Morning Herald)
• Pope book says Jews not guilty of Christ's death (Reuters)
• Pope Benedict strikes welcome blow against rising world anti-Semitism with his new book about Jesus (New York Daily Times)
• PM praises Pope for clearing Jews of Jesus' death (The Jerusalem Post)
• Pope Benedict XVI Points Fingers on Who Killed Jesus (Christianity Today)

Each of these is referring to this section from chapter 7, "The Trial of Jesus" in which Benedict writes:

Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus’ accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death?  We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to this question.  According to John it was simply “the Jews”. But John’s use of this expression does not in any way indicate — as the modern reader might suppose — the people of Israel in general, even less is it “racist” in character. After all, John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers.  The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews.  In John’s Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy.  So the circle of accusers who instigate Jesus’ death is precisely indicated in the Fourth Gospel and clearly limited: it is the Temple aristocracy-and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus (7:50-52) shows.

In Mark’s Gospel, the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the “ochlos” enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas.  “Ochlos” in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the “masses”.  The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning “mob”.  In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such.  In the case of the Passover amnesty (which admittedly is not attested in other sources, but even so need not be doubted), the people, as so often with such amnesties, have a right to put forward a proposal, expressed by way of “acclamation”.

Popular acclamation in this case has juridical character (cf.  Pesch, Markusevangelium II, p.  466). Effectively this “crowd” is made up of the followers of Barabbas who have been mobilized to secure the amnesty for him: as a rebel against Roman power he could naturally count on a good number of supporters.  So the Barabbas party, the “crowd”, was conspicuous, while the followers of Jesus remained hidden out of fear; this meant that the vox populi, on which Roman law was built, was represented one-sidedly.  In Mark’s account, then, in addition to “the Jews”, that is to say the dominant priestly circle, the ochlos comes into play, the circle of Barabbas’ supporters, but not the Jewish people as such.

An extension of Mark’s ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew’s account (27:25), which speaks of “all the people” and attributes to them the demand for Jesus’ crucifixion.  Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death?  It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John’s account and in Mark’s.  The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the “crowd” of Barabbas’ supporters.

Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city, and Temple were taken from them (cf.  Matthäusevangelium II, p.  459).  Matthew is thinking here of Jesus’ prophecy concerning the end of the Temple: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!  How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!  Behold, your house is forsaken .  .  .” (Mt 23:37-38: cf.  Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, the whole of the section entitled “Gerichtsworte”, II, pp.  295-308).

In a piece for Headline Bistro, "Jesus of Nazareth and Anti-Semitism", Pia de Solenni makes this important point:

This time, the media find it newsworthy that the pope writes that the Jews were not responsible for the death of Christ. Ironically, what he’s saying really isn’t news. Sadly, it still needs to be heard.

I agree: it certainly does need to be heard. And part of the reason it needs to be heard is that many people, for various reasons, haven't noticed or don't know that the essential point made by Benedict XVI is a point that has been made many times over by the Catholic Church for several decades now. As de Solenni notes, the Vatican II Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), stated:

Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., on the question, "Who killed Jesus?"

From the "Jesus of Nazareth, Part Two" blog:

Earlier today, excerpts from Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week became available. One of them includes the section of this fascinating volume on Christ's life in which Pope Benedict XVI addresses the controversial question, "Who killed Jesus?"

Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fessio, founder and publisher of Ignatius Press, talks about it in this post:

At a critical point in the book (pg. 184) Benedict poses the questions simply, clearly, and without evasion: “Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus’ accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death?” And, with his customary directness, he answers the questions in the space of only three pages. He passes the Gospels in review in a way that beautifully exemplifies the fundamental purpose of the book: to present the “figure and message of Jesus” through the complementary use of scientific scholarship (a “historical hermeneutic”) and the vision of faith (“faith-hermeneutic”).

For John, the accusers were “simply ‘the Jews’”. But Benedict shows that in John’s Gospel that designation has a “precise and clearly defined meaning”, i.e. the Temple aristocracy, not the Jewish people as an undifferentiated whole.

 In Mark, there is a widening of the circle of accusers: the “ochlos”, the crowd, “the masses”. But Benedict points out that the crowd was mainly comprised of sympathizers of Barabbas, who wanted the customary amnesty to be granted to him. The followers of Jesus “remained hidden out of fear”. This crowd, therefore, does not represent the attitude or the actions of the Jewish people with respect to Jesus.

Read the entire post.

The Fundamental Path to Peace

The Fundamental Path to Peace | George Neumayr | Editorial | Catholic World Report | February 2011

The pagans of Rome cast the early Christians as bad citizens, a charge which reappears today in both the West and East: secularists in the Americas and Europe gradually move to marginalize a Christian presence in public life while Islamic extremists and totalitarian regimes use starker measures to purge Christians from society altogether.

Pope Benedict XVI drew attention to these violations of religious freedom in his January address to members of the world diplomatic corps stationed at the Vatican. He began his survey by remembering the plight of Christians in Iraq, the terrorism in Egypt that “brutally struck Christians as they prayed in church,” Pakistan’s anti-Christian blasphemy law, the attacks on Christians in Nigeria during Christmas, and the trials and difficulties Christians still face in Communist China.

Turning to the West, he noted that its violations of religious freedom assume a more subtle character, often appearing in countries “which accord great importance to pluralism and tolerance.” He said that Christian doctors, nurses, and legal professionals have seen their right to conscientious objection wither. He decried “the banning of religious feasts and symbols from civic life under the guise of respect for the members of other religions or those who are not believers.” And he expressed dismay at the tendency of Western societies to harass Christian social, educational, and charitable agencies even when they “contribute to society as a whole.”

Western society only undercuts itself by hampering these groups, Benedict argued. Far from endangering the common good, the truly religious make the deepest contribution to it. “A clear example of this was Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta,” he said. “People like her show the world the extent to which the commitment born of faith is beneficial to society as a whole.”

Read the entire essay on www.CatholicWorldReport.com...

Religious Freedom and Religious Persecution

Religious Freedom and Religious Persecution | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | January 27, 2011 | Ignatius Insight

"'The right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person' whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked. ... Without the acknowledgement of his spiritual being, without openness to the transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find answers to the heart's deepest question as about life's meaning fails to appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to experience authentic freedom and to build a just society."
— Benedict XV, Message for the World Day of Peace, #2 ("Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace", December 8, 2010, L'Osservatore Romano, English, December 22, 2010).

"At present, Christians are the religious group which suffers most from the persecutions on account of its faith."
— Benedict XVI, Message for the World Day of Peace, #1.

I.

Robert Royal, author of the Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, recently wrote, "Many people, especially in the developed world, find it hard to take seriously that there has been systematic Christian persecution in modern times, especially of the Catholic Church as the largest and most cohesive Christian body" (Catholic Thing, January 13, 2011). The facts are otherwise, of course, and we wonder why the facts are not noticed, even by Catholics. We find Benedict XVI, in his recent "World Day of Peace" Address, as cited above, states the same truth. Even though Scripture tells us that we should expect such things, we find it hard to admit the fact.

"Why is this?" In part, I think, it is because much of the persecution is found in the Muslim world where it is seen as an exercise of "religious freedom" as they understand it. It also comes from the fact that the secular mind wants to think that all religions are fanatical by definition. A few odd religious people killing each other are to be expected. The only solution, in such sectarian minds, is to get rid of religion. Still others think that everyone has freedom of religion and the killings are due to a few extremists.

The Holy Father recognizes that, in light of the targeted killings of Copts and Catholics in Egypt and Iraq especially, he needs to state what is at stake—what is the central issue. "It is painful to think that in some areas of the world it is impossible to profess one's religion freely except at the risk of life and personal liberty." Just where these places are is not mentioned. Everyone who keeps up with the news knows generally, but the press itself rarely delves deeply into these causes.

Read the entire essay on Ignatius Insight...

Did Vatican II reverse the Church’s teaching on religious liberty?

Did Vatican II reverse the Church’s teaching on religious liberty? | By Fr. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap. | Homiletic & Pastoral Review
 
Catholic teaching on religious liberty has remained consistent over the centuries.

In his 1864 document Quanta Cura, Pius IX labeled “erroneous” the opinion that the “liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man.”1 But the Second Vatican Council declared in its 1965 document Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom) that “in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.”2 So, did Vatican II reverse or contradict the teaching of Pius IX on religious liberty?

Since the close of the Second Vatican Council, many heterodox theologians have claimed that Dignitatis Humanae “reversed” past papal teaching on religious liberty.3 In 1985, for example, the excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre claimed that Quanta Cura “condemned” an “assertion” which was later found in the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae.4 But other “progressive” theologians like Charles Curran and Richard McBrien also saw, and welcomed, an utter reversal of Catholic teaching.5 So, on this point both the excessively “conservative” and “liberal” meet, but what are the “centrally” orthodox to make of the Church’s current teaching on religious liberty?

The aim of this article is to demonstrate that there is no inconsistency between the doctrine of Pius IX and of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty. The article will show that these teachings are consistent with each other: first in regard to a person’s freedom in religious matters in relation to the state; and second in regard to a person’s freedom in religious matters in relation to the Church. Let’s take a closer look at Quanta Cura and Dignitatis Humanae.

Read the entire essay on www.hprweb.com...

Fr. Fessio on Benedict XVI's thoughts on faith and reason, Islam, and the Liturgy

Previous videos:

• Fr. Fessio talks about Pope Benedict XVI and Ignatius Press
• Fr. Fessio talks about Pope Benedict XVI and the abuse scandal
• Fr. Fessio talks about Pope Benedict XVI the Teacher

On Ignatius Insight:



• Biography of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• Second Jesus of Nazareth book due in Spring 2011
• All books by or about Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• Excerpts from books by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• Articles about Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI

The Jerusalem Post: "Light of the World" "provides a lively guide to Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts..."

From a just published article, "New book shows Pope’s commitment to Jews and Israel", about Light of the World:

Joseph Ratzinger, the man and the Pope, replies without reticence, revealing the reflective and unpretentious traits of his personality and an unusual capacity to listen respectfully.

He makes no attempt to hide the uncertainties and errors behind the series of crises that have marked his papacy, optimistically transforming them into a learning process from which he believes the Church will benefit.

Interspersed throughout the book – amidst talk about his world vision, self-doubts about his public role, ecology, God, good and evil, original sin, the contradictions of modernity and contemporary atheism, sex, bioethics, AIDS, condoms, abuse scandals, mission, ecumenism and interreligious relations – Benedict XVI speaks extensively on issues related to Israel and the Jewish world, confirming his unwavering personal commitment to both. He also explains the reasons for his conviction that Pius XII was “one of the great righteous men,” but without advocating further moves toward proclaiming him a saint.

Ratzinger holds true to his belief in the “intrinsic unity of the Old and the New Covenant, the two parts of the Holy Scripture,” an awareness he says he acquired “since the very first day” of his early theological studies. He first made his theological views on Judaism public in 1990, when as the cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he was interviewed in “Jews and Judaism in the Universal Catechism,” a piece published simultaneously in Studi Cattolici (in Italian) and Midstream (in English).

He says, “We can read the New Testament only together with what preceded it, otherwise, we would completely fail to understand it.”

Read the entire piece.

Related links:

• Order the hardcover book at www.ignatius.com
• Light Of The World  - Downloadable Audio File
• Light Of The World  - Electronic Book Download
• Light Of The World  - Audio Book on CD
• Luz Del Mundo  - Spanish Edition (Paperback)
• The book's Facebook page
• The book's site, www.LightOfTheWorldBook.com
• The book's blog, "Light of the World" Official Blog

Kreeft and Spencer debate: "Is the Only Good Muslim a Bad Muslim?"

John Zmirak provides an introduction on Inside Catholic:

Last week I was privileged to moderate a debate between two of the best writers on religion in the English-speaking world, Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft and Jihadwatch director Robert Spencer. How was I able to land two eminent speakers on the same night? Easy: I was their editor. Both Kreeft and Spencer contributed eloquent essays to the collection I compiled: Disorientation: How to Go to College without Losing Your Mind. The debate took place at the wonderful little Catholic liberal arts academy where I teach, Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts, which accounts for the atmosphere of amity and clarity that prevailed at the event. It could have gone much differently, since the speakers were handling nitroglycerine.

The Thomas More College blog has much more, including:

Mr. Spencer came to argue that Islam as codified in the Q’uran and explicated by all authoritative sources aspires to subjugate and oppress “unbelievers” and impose sharia law throughout the world; because sharia law is inimical to religious freedom and to human dignity, we as Catholics should hope that Muslims are not devout enough to advocate it, (as their own faith says they must) by either warlike or peaceful means.

Dr. Kreeft came to offer his own perspective on the religion of Islam. In his latest book, Between Allah and Jesus (Nottingham, England: IVP Books, 2010), Prof. Kreeft uses the figure of ‘Isa, a devout Muslim studying at Boston College, to highlight the commonalities Kreeft sees between Islamic and Catholic piety, and point up all that we can learn from truly devout adherents of Islam—set in stark contrast to the post-modern, dissenting Catholicism widely accepted at secularized Catholic colleges. Through ‘Isa (whose name is the Arabic form of Jesus, accepted by Muslims as merely a prophet), Kreeft argues that terrorism, military jihad, and the aspiration to subjugate “unbelievers” such as Jews and Christians, are not necessarily germane to the religious lives of Muslims. Isa insists that such manifestations of Islam are perversions of its true spirit, as witch-burnings, inquisitions, and religious wars were distortions of Christian faith.

Read the entire post. Or watch the video. Or both!

Many of Dr. Kreeft's books (forty or so) have been published by Ignatius Press; here is a full listing.

Rabbi David Rosen: "The relationship today between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people..."

"...  is a blessed transformation in our times."

From the Vatican Information Service:

The general congregation of the Synod of Bishops was then addressed by a guest specially invited by the Holy Father: Rabbi David Rosen, adviser to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and director for inter-religious affairs of the American Jewish Committee and the Heilbrunn Institute for International Inter-religious Understanding. Rabbi Rosen focused his remarks on the subject of Jewish-Christian relations and the Middle East.

 Extracts of his speech are given below:

 "The relationship today between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people is a blessed transformation in our times - arguably without historic parallel. In his words in the great synagogue here in Rome last January, Pope Benedict XVI referred to the teaching of the Vatican Council II as 'a clear landmark to which constant reference is made in our attitude and our relations with the Jewish people, marking a new and significant stage'.

 Until recently most of Israeli society has been quite unaware of the profound changes in Catholic-Jewish relations. However this situation has begun to alter significantly in the last decade for different reasons, but two in particular are especially noteworthy. The first is the impact of the visit of the late Pope John Paul II in the year 2000, following the establishment of full bilateral relations between Israel, and the Holy See six years earlier. ... It was the power of the visual images, the significance of which Pope John Paul II understood so well, that revealed clearly to the majority of Israeli society the transformation that had taken place in Christian attitudes and teaching towards the Jewish People with whom the Pope himself had maintained and further sought mutual friendship and respect. For Israelis to see the Pope at the Western Wall, the remnant of the Second Temple, standing there in respect for Jewish tradition and placing there the text that he had composed for a liturgy of forgiveness that had taken place two weeks earlier here at St. Peter's, asking Divine forgiveness for sins committed against the Jews down the ages, was stunning and overwhelming in its effect. Israeli Jewry still has a long way to go in overcoming the negative past, but there is no question that attitudes have changed since that historic visit".

 "The other major factor is the influx of other Christians who have doubled the demographic make-up of Christianity in Israel. I refer first of all to the estimated approximately fifty thousand practicing Christians who were part and parcel of the immigration to Israel in the last two decades from the former Soviet Union. ... However there is a third significant Christian population in Israel whose legal standing is sometimes problematic. These are the scores of thousands of practicing Christians among almost a quarter of a million of migrant workers - from the Philippines, Eastern Europe, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Most of them are in the country legally and temporarily. However close to half of them have entered or remained illegally and their position is legally precarious. Nevertheless the substantial Christian presence among this population maintains a vibrant religious life and constitutes a significant third dimension to the Christian reality in Israel today. These factors have contributed, among others, to an increasing familiarity in Israel with contemporary Christianity".

 "Christians in Israel are obviously in a very different situation from their sister communities in the Holy Land who are part and parcel of a Palestinian society struggling for its independence and who are inevitably caught up in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a daily basis. ... It is only right and proper that such Palestinian Christians should express their distress and their hopes regarding the situation. ... The plight of Palestinians generally and Palestinian Christians in particular should be of profound concern to Jews both in Israel and the diaspora. To begin with, especially as Judaism brought the recognition to the world that every human person is created in the divine image. ... We have a special responsibility in particular for neighbours who suffer. This responsibility is even greater when suffering is born out of a conflict of which we are a part and paradoxically precisely where we have the moral and religious duty to protect and defend ourselves. ... Indeed Jewish responsibility to ensure that Christian communities flourish in our midst, respecting the very fact that the Holy Land is the land of Christianity's birth and holy places, is strengthened by our increasingly rediscovered fraternity.

 "Yet even beyond our particular relationship, Christians as a minority in both Jewish and Muslim contexts, play a very special role for our societies at large. The situation of minorities is always a profound reflection of the social and moral condition of a society as a whole. The wellbeing of Christian communities in the Middle East is nothing less than a kind of barometer of the moral condition of our countries. The degree to which Christians enjoy civil and religious rights and liberties, testifies to the health or infirmity of the respective societies in the Middle East. Moreover as I have already indicated, Christians play a disproportionate role in promoting inter-religious understanding and co-operation in the country. Indeed I would presume to suggest that this is precisely the Christian metier, to contribute to overcoming the prejudice and misunderstanding that bedevil the Holy Land".

 "The 'Instrumentum laboris' of this Special Assembly for the Middle East quotes Pope Benedict XVI: ... 'It is important on the one hand to have bilateral dialogues - with the Jews and with Islam - and then also trilateral dialogue'. Indeed this last year, for the first time, the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews co-hosted together with the International Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations (IJCIC) and the foundation for the Three Cultures in Seville Spain, our first trilateral dialogue. This was a particular joy for me, ... and I earnestly hope that this is just the beginning of more extensive trilateral dialogue, to overcome suspicion, prejudice and misunderstanding, so that we may be able to highlight the shared values in the family of Abraham for the wellbeing of all humanity".

Ricci and Ratzinger

Sandro Magister makes the comparison:

China is one of the most colossal challenges that the Church is called to face today. And not only for reasons involving religious freedom.

In fact, the distance between the Western and Christian vision of the world and that of the great civilizations of the East – not only China, but also India and Japan – is decidedly more vast than with Islam, an historical religion that has always had many features in common with Judaism and Christianity.

The challenge is all the greater today, with China rising to become a new global superpower. But it has been one before.

Between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this challenge was taken up by a brilliant missionary, Jesuit Fr. Matteo Ricci, the fourth centenary of whose death is being marked in 2010 with exhibits, studies, and conferences, including in China, where he is considered a national treasure. His beatification process is also underway.

In dialoguing with the intellectual circles of Beijing at the time, Ricci adopted an approach remarkably similar to the one proposed by Benedict XVI today. He knew very well that the Christian Gospel was an absolute innovation, come from God. But he knew that human reason also has its origin in the one Lord of Heaven, and is common to all who live under the same sky.

He was therefore confident that the Chinese could also accept "the things of our holy faith," if these were "confirmed by much evidence of reason."

His proclamation of the Christian news was therefore gradual. He took his cues from the philosophical principles of Confucianism, from the traits it had in common with the Christian vision of God and of the world, in order to build gradually to the absolute novelty of the Son of God made man in Jesus.

Matteo Ricci did not do the same thing with Buddhism and Taoism, instead subjecting them to severe criticism. A little like the Fathers of the Church had done before him, being extremely critical of pagan religion but in respectful dialogue with the wisdom of the philosophers.

Read the entire piece. Also see:

Christians and Muslims, Living Together

Christians and Muslims, Living Together | Preface to English Edition of 111 Questions on Islam | Samir Khali Samir, S.J. on Islam and the West | Interviews conducted by Giorgio Paolucci and Camille Eid

It Is a Fact That Muslims Are Now Part of Western Society

Due to large-scale immigration to Europe and the Western nations from Muslim countries since World War II, Islam is no longer a distant, exotic religion. In fact, Muslims are present throughout Europe and in many parts of the United States. Demographers project that the number of American and European Muslims will increase in the immediate future.

At present, Europeans are dealing with the challenge of protecting their values while seeking a solution to the social ills of alienation, segregation, poverty, and terrorism associated with the Muslim immigrants. Europeans express concerns about the rapid development of Eurabia.

Since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center "Twin Towers" in New York City on September 11, 2001, Islamophobia has spread through the Western nations. The following pages were prepared to help readers understand three things:

1. how Muslims and Christians can coexist peacefully;

2. what are the causes for the deep unrest that pervades the entire Muslim world;

3. and what are the means to promote greater dialogue and understanding between Muslims and Christians that will lead to a joint social, universal, and political effort for the benefit of all people.

In order to remain sensitive to and balanced in discussing the past and present situation, a question-and-answer format is used. The author responds to a series of questions posed by two journalists, one Italian and the other Lebanese. The intent of this balanced approach is to offer readers a clear portrait of Islam.

Continue reading...