Benedict the Brusque?

Benedict the Brusque? On Fr. Clooney's Vision of interreligious Dialogue | Carl E. Olson | January 11, 2007

Francis X. Clooney, S.J., is a professor of divinity and of comparative theology at Harvard University and author of several books, including Divine Mother, Blessed Mother: Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary (Oxford University Press), and, as editor, a soon-to-be-published volume, Jesuit Postmodern (Lexington Books). If the titles don't provide a clear enough idea of where Fr. Clooney is coming from, his recent article in Commonweal, titled "Learning to Listen: Benedict XVI and Interreligious Dialogue," certainly will. Take, for instance, the opening paragraph:

The controversy over Pope Benedict's September lecture in Regensburg and his use of the now infamous quote from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus condemning Islam was a perfect storm. But it was not the first time that stern words and brusqueness have been associated with Joseph Ratzinger.

In the course of the 3,280 word article, the words "brusque" and "brusqueness" appear sixteen times...

Continue reading...

Comments

[Brian John Schuettler]

Clooney is just another of those latter day Jesuits who have wandered off the reservation. All that education and training but no prayer life...he doesn't have a clue as to where B16 is coming from and probably has long departed from the habit of asking the Holy Spirit to guide his thoughts and actions. Indifferentism has replaced a lively faith, resulting in an unfortunate and insipid relativistic world view that panders to the latest form of political correctness. I am afraid that this soldier of Christ has deserted to the enemy.

[Jackson]

This constant "brusque" charge really proves the poverty of their attacks. They have no force against his substance, therefore they must attack his (alleged) form.

[Chuck O'Malley]

If Islam is a religion based on feeling that also denies a natural law, then dialogue will not produce unity but only escalate the tensions of our disunity.

There is no truth to be discovered in matters of taste, beliefs which emanate solely from feelings – de gustibus non est disputandem. Dialogue can only be meaningful if it begins with propositions held as self-evident by both parties such as God has made man in His image and through right reason man may discern His image at least dimly.

The gospel, I think, does not unconditionally oblige Christians to dialogue with non-believers. We are to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) until the nations reject our words and us (Matthew 10:14).

Charity, I think, obliges us to “just walk away” from the invincibly ignorant because JP II's principle remains valid: "The Church proposes, she imposes nothing" (Redemptoris Missio, 39). The work of conversion belongs to the Holy Spirit; we can only be His instruments, always acting with charity as our first commandment.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Harry,
Does the 666 in your e-mail address mean that you are...you know, ??? If you are...then Cat Stevens is the least of your problems.

[Kevin V]

What's pathetic is Benedict has all but capitulated in the face of bared mohammadian violence and the apostates that call themselves catholic still aren't satisfied.

[Brian John Schuettler]

"What's pathetic is Benedict has all but capitulated in the face of bared mohammadian violence and the apostates that call themselves catholic still aren't satisfied."

On the contrary, B16 is standing, not capitulating. Why would Regensburg have engendered such anger in the Islamic world? He put himself in mortal danger in going to Turkey to be in solidarily with our Orthodox brethren. It's not pathetic, it's heroic.

[Dale Price]

So, according to Fr. Clooney, the Catholic responsibility in interreligious dialogue is to do the following:

Cringe, apologize, bootlick. Repeat.

I'll pass. The castigation of those who refuse to refer to Muhammad as a true prophet is particularly pathetic, not to mention revealing.