Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

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...

Good advice, unheeded

From Christopher Dawson's essay, "The Study of Christian Culture," in the collection, Medieval Essays (Sheed & Ward, 1954):

It is sometimes said that the emphasizing of the Christian character of Western culture makes us blind to the value of other civilizations. I believe that the case is just the contrary. The more we understand Christendom, the more we shall understand Islam, and the more we underestimate the religious element in our own culture the less we shall appreciate the cultures of the non-European world. ...

A secularized society must inevitably be unfavorable to the study of Christian culture, since its own way of life and its beliefs and ideals are totally alien. We see this most clearly in the case of Communist society which is professedly anti-religious and regards the history of Christian culture as nothing but the story of an illusion which has led mankind down a blind alley for 1,700 years. And a similar attitude is also to be found in a less extreme form in the educational theory of democratic idealists like the late Professor Dewey, who believe that education is essentially an instrument for creating a common democratic mentality and that all study must be directed towards sharing the experience of contemporary democratic society and creating new democratic values.

Related Ignatius Insight Interviews and Excerpts:

• The Vision and Principles of Christopher Dawson | David Knowles
• An excerpt from "Christianity and the History of Culture" | Christopher Dawson | From Chapter 2 of The Formation of Christendom
• Rediscovering Christopher Dawson | An Interview with Dr. Bradley J. Birzer

Fr. Samir on the place of Islam in God's salvific plan

Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, author of 111 Questions on Islam (Ignatius Press, 2008) and professor of Catholic theology and Islamic studies at St. Joseph University in Beirut, is asked some tough but excellent questions by ZENIT about the place of Islam in God's plan of salvation:

ZENIT: In what way can we insert the birth and diffusion of Islam within the salvific plan?
 
Father Samir: This is a delicate but legitimate question. We can express it thus: "Insofar as what has been given to men to know about this, does Islam have a place in God's plan?"
 
In the course of history, Christians of the East have often asked themselves this question. The answer of Arab Christian theologians was: "God has permitted the birth of Islam to punish Christians for their infidelities." I think the truth about Islam leads back to the division between Eastern Christians, a division often due to nationalist and cultural motives hidden behind theological formulas. This situation impeded them from proclaiming the Good News to the peoples of the region, something that Islam has done partially.
 
Islam served to reaffirm faith in one God, the call to dedicate ourselves completely to him, to modify our life to adore him. It was a healthy reaction, in continuity with the Jewish and Christian biblical tradition. But in reality, to come to this it eliminated everything that created a bit of difficulty, in particular: the human and at the same time divine nature of Christ; the One and Triune God, who is dialogue and love; and the fact that Christ became obedient unto death on the cross, that he emptied himself, as St. Paul says, out of love for us.
 
Hence, it is a rationalized religion, not in the sense according to the Spirit and divine rationality, but in the sense of being simplified of those aspects that human reason cannot contain. Hence, Islam presents itself as the third and last revealed religion ... and for us, obviously, it isn't. After Christ -- whom the Quran recognizes as Word of God, Verbum of God -- it is incomprehensible that God sent another Word that is the Quran.
 
If the Quran was in agreement and served to clarify the Gospel, I would say: why not? Like the saints who throw light on the Gospel and on the person of Jesus. But here, no: it is in contradiction. That is why I cannot say that God has sent a prophet -- which would be Mohammed -- with a new revelation. Even less can I say of him that he is "the seal of the prophets," khatam al-nabiyyin, as the Quran states, namely, that he completes and corrects and leads the revelation of Christ to fulfillment.  
 
ZENIT: But then, what is Islam's place in God's plan?
 
Father Samir: I think that for us Christians it is a stimulus to lead us back to the foundation of it all: God is the Only One, the Ultimate Reality -- which is the fundamental Jewish and Christian affirmation, taken up by the Quran in the beautiful sura 112: "Yes: God is the Only One! God is the Impenetrable One!" etc. An affirmation, which modern life runs the risk of making us forget. Islam reminds us that, if Christ is the center of the Christian faith, he is so always in relation with the Father; to remain in unity, even if the Quran has not managed to understand what the Holy Spirit is.
 
We are questioned every day by Muslims about our faith, and this leads us to rethink it constantly from the perspective of Islam. I thank Muslims for their criticisms, so long as they make them as reflection and not as controversy. I would say the same for Christians' questions.

Read the entire piece, which was posted today.

• Christians and Muslims, Living Together | Samir Khali Samir, S.J. | The preface to the English edition of 111 Questions on Islam.
• The Ambiguity of Islam | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | A reflection on Fr. Samir Khali Samir's book, 111 Questions on Islam.

"His guideline was truth and not the spirit of the time."

Alice von Hildebrand, wife of the late Dietrich von Hildebrand, was one of the featured speakers at last week's Hildebrand Legacy Project-promoted conference "The Christian Personalism of Dietrich von Hildebrand: Exploring His Philosophy of Love." From a CNA article about the event:

Speaking of the current age of philosophy which cuts out the supernatural and is "a time of concentrated nonsense which sits well because it has the appearance of truth" she referred to the characteristic unity of her late-husband's thoughts which, in contrast to the "blunder" of Aristotle, kept God as the reference point.

If you examine his thought in different philosophical areas, she explained, "there is a perfect line of continuity, you can predict, so to speak, what he's going to do ... he becomes a Catholic and he understands this is 'the truth,' not (just) 'a truth' because Christ is the only person, neither Mohammed nor Moses, nor anybody, ever dared say 'I am the truth!'

Dr. Hildebrand explained that, according to her husband, "if you truly understand the meaning of truth, it leads you to the truth and then you fall on your knees and you adore."

His philosophy, she explained, "did not dictate what he had to think, it was simply an approach to life: let the object reveal itself and purify your mind, eliminate prejudices."

This, she said, is why he was able to take a new approach to the classical philosophies, purified and with fresh eyes.

"His guideline was truth and not the spirit of the time."

And in his final days, he called her to his side. Noting the weakness of his body but the "soul of a lion" that remained, he told her that if ever in his writings there was even a hint of incongruency, "if you find a word that is not in line with the Church, burn it!

"And that,” she exclaimed, “was my husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand!"

Talks from the conference can be heard at the Hildebrand Legacy website.

For more about von Hildebrand, one of the 20th-century giants of Catholic philosophy:

 The Soul of a Lion: The Life of Dietrich von Hildebrand

by Alice von Hildebrand

Dietrich von Hildebrand, widely regarded as one of the great Catholic philosophers of the 20th century, is well-known for his numerous books, but, until this present work, not much has been known of his remarkable and inspiring life. Written by his wife, Alice, also a highly respected Catholic thinker, this is a fascinating, moving and, at times, gripping account of a truly great man of the Church who suffered much for the faith.

Based on a very long "letter" Dietrich wrote to his wife late in his life, it tells his story from his glorious youth with a unique intellectual and cultural formation, his conversion to Catholisism, his great passion for truth and beauty, his extensive writing on Christian philosophy and theology, and his steadfast, determined opposition to Nazism that made him a marked man who miraculously escaped execution. A powerful biography of a relentless fighter against injustice, a devoted son of the Church, a man who had the "soul of a lion". Illustrated.

"A man whose life and work have left an indelible mark on the history of the Church in the 20th century. Alice von Hildebrand has done a great service in giving us this fascinating portrait of his extraordinary and inspiring life."
—Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Related Ignatius Insight Excerpts and Articles:

• Contemplation | From "Reflection and Contemplation," chapter 6 of Transformation in Christ | Dietrich von Hildebrand
• From Defeat to Victory: On the Question of Evil | Alice von Hildebrand

But What About the Moral Failings?

Here is a snippet from Chapter 1 of Fr. Walter Brandmüller's Light and Shadows: Church History amid Faith, Fact and Legend, published last year by Ignatius Press, that seems quite apropos for our day and age (or any day and age, I suppose):

But What About the Moral Failings?

One can with good reason retort that the most extensive knowledge about a subject of this kind will not suffice to excuse the religious and moral failings of important members of the Church throughout the centuries and in every locality, down to the papal adulterer Alexander VI. But then the question arises, on what do we actually base the trust that we place in the Church?

The real basis for our trust can never be a splendid spiritual, moral and religious manifestation of the Church in this world. This has existed and indeed does exist always and everywhere—but one likewise finds always and everywhere the much more conspicuous opposite. Thus all romanticism about the early Church, a romanticism that imagines it sees in the first generations of Christians nothing but holiness and greatness, necessarily runs aground on the hard facts: the Christian married couple Ananias and Sapphira tried to defraud the Apostle Peter; in Paul's congregation at Corinth, there was a case of incest and rebellion against the Apostle; in Philippi, Saint Paul's committed female co-workers Euodia and Symyche quarreled with each other so much that Paul had to give them a serious warning. Indeed, Paul himself parted with Mark and Barnabas during one of his journeys due to differences of opinion that were evidently insuperable. Finally, as early as the year 70, according to the latest research, there was an uprising in Corinth against the priests, such that the Bishop of Rome had to intervene forcefully.

Thus the Church has never had that spotlessly radiant appearance that she ought to have. So it is no wonder, either, that those who believed that they were especially devout were scandalized again and again by this and founded their own "church of the blameless". In contrast, the Church has always shown herself to be a great realist who has always and everywhere reckoned with the failure of her members. Not for nothing did the Lord Jesus himself, who searches and knows the depths of the human heart, institute the sacrament for the forgiveness of sins.

It cannot be said, either, that the shepherds and members of the Church have always and everywhere reacted correctly to the challenges of history. On the contrary, many mistakes have been made that subsequently became notorious. For example, was not it disastrous that Pope Clement V allowed himself to be intimidated by the demands of the French king Philip and abandoned the order of Knights Templar, who as a whole were certainly innocent, to a downfall that was in large pare bloody? Entire episcopates—today we would say bishops' conferences—fell into heresy during the Arian crisis of the fourth and fifth centuries. In the sixteenth century the bishops of England, with the exception of Saint John Fisher, followed King Henry Vlll into schism our of weakness and cowardice, and similarly the French episcopate, during the conflict over the freedom of the Church from the state, stood beside Louis XIV against the pope. For almost two centuries the French bishops promoted the heresy of Jansenism. There were not many exceptions, And how did the German bishops conduct themselves during the eleventh- and twelfth-century Investiture Controversy? In 1080 a majority of the German bishops, under the influence of Emperor Henry IV, made an attempt at a synod in Brixen to depose Pope Gregory VII and to elect an antipope. Those German bishops who found themselves confronted with the religious division of the sixteenth century no doubt failed in large measure, too.

Truly, all of this does not make for glorious pages in the ecclesiastical chronicles. In the end, therefore, we cannot place our trust in the wisdom and power of the shepherds, either. No promise was ever made to the Church that her shepherds and her faithful would be irreproachable or capable. What her Founder, the God-man Jesus Christ, did guarantee, nevertheless , is that she will continue unshakably and stand fast immovably in the truth until his return at the end of time. This means that the Church can never proclaim an error in matters of faith whenever she speaks in a form that is ultimately binding; that her sacraments always produce their characteristic effects of grace, provided that they are administered according to the Church's directions; and that her hierarchical-sacramental structure comprising the ministries of primacy, episcopacy and priesthood will always be maintain ed intact. Precisely thereby it is guaranteed that the graces of redemption will continue to be available to the people of all generations, until the Lord comes again.

Read more.

"What has happened to you?"

George Weigel has written an open letter to Hans Küng, the theological wunderkind who took several wrong turns back in the day and has been stuck in the late Sixties ever since.

As the man who single-handedly invented a new global personality-type—the dissident theologian as international media star—you were not, I take it, overly distressed by your friend’s warning. In 1963, you were already determined to cut a singular path for yourself, and you were media-savvy enough to know that a world press obsessed with the man-bites-dog story of the dissenting priest-theologian would give you a megaphone for your views. You were, I take it, unhappy with the late John Paul II for trying to dismantle that story-line by removing your ecclesiastical mandate to teach as a professor of Catholic theology; your subsequent, snarling put-down of Karol Wojtyla’s alleged intellectual inferiority in one volume of your memoirs ranked, until recently, as the low-point of a polemical career in which you have become most evident as a man who can concede little intelligence, decency, or good will in his opponents.

I say “until recently,” however, because your April 16 open letter to the world’s bishops, which I first read in the Irish Times, set new standards for that distinctive form of hatred known as odium theologicum and for mean-spirited condemnation of an old friend who had, on his rise to the papacy, been generous to you while encouraging aspects of your current work.

Before we get to your assault on the integrity of Pope Benedict XVI, however, permit me to observe that your article makes it painfully clear that you have not been paying much attention to the matters on which you pronounce with an air of infallible self-assurance that would bring a blush to the cheek of Pius IX.

You seem blithely indifferent to the doctrinal chaos besetting much of European and North American Protestantism, which has created circumstances in which theologically serious ecumenical dialogue has become gravely imperiled.

You take the most rabid of the Pius XII-baiters at face value, evidently unaware that the weight of recent scholarship is shifting the debate in favor of Pius' courage in defense of European Jewry (whatever one may think of his exercise of prudence).

You misrepresent the effects of Benedict XVI’s 2006 Regensburg Lecture, which you dismiss as having “caricatured” Islam. In fact, the Regensburg Lecture refocused the Catholic-Islamic dialogue on the two issues that complex conversation urgently needs to engage—religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by reason, and the separation of religious and political authority in the twenty-first century state.

You display no comprehension of what actually prevents HIV/AIDS in Africa, and you cling to the tattered myth of “overpopulation” at a moment when fertility rates are dropping around the globe and Europe is entering a demographic winter of its own conscious creation.

You seem oblivious to the scientific evidence underwriting the Church’s defense of the moral status of the human embryo, while falsely charging that the Catholic Church opposes stem-cell research.

Why do you not know these things? You are an obviously intelligent man; you once did groundbreaking work in ecumenical theology. What has happened to you?

What has happened, I suggest, is that you have lost the argument over the meaning and the proper hermeneutics of Vatican II. That explains why you relentlessly pursue your fifty-year quest for a liberal Protestant Catholicism, at precisely the moment when the liberal Protestant project is collapsing from its inherent theological incoherence. And that is why you have now engaged in a vicious smear of another former Vatican II colleague, Joseph Ratzinger. Before addressing that smear, permit me to continue briefly on the hermeneutics of the Council.

Read the entire piece over at First Things.

Jewish papal knight: "Pius XII was the greatest hero of World War II"

The New York Times has a profile of Gary Krupp, a retired medical equipment dealer from Long Island who was knighted by Pope John Paul II in 2000 "for persuading American manufacturers to donate $12 million worth of high-tech medical equipment to an Italian hospital." Krupp, who is Jewish, founded Pave the Way Foundation in 2002; it is dedicated, its website states, to "removing obstacles between the religions and ... initiating gestures of good will." Krupp has been getting attention for his vocal defense of Pope Pius XII:

He has pressed his case in a recent op-ed article for The New York Post, and in interviews with conservative Catholic television programs and Web sites, which have cited him as an expert on Pius.

And in a special audience at the papal summer residence in September 2008, Pope Benedict XVI thanked Mr. Krupp for bringing attention to “what Pius XII achieved for the Jews.”

Historians and religious leaders around the world have taken increasing notice of Mr. Krupp’s work — some with alarm, some with pleasure — because his advocacy has coincided with efforts within the Vatican to promote the canonization of Pius. Pope Benedict nudged that process forward in December by affirming Pius’s “heroic virtues” and pronouncing him “venerable,” a step on the path toward sainthood.

The controversy over Pius’s wartime conduct had stalled his elevation for so many years that Pope Benedict’s action shocked scholars on both sides of the debate. And while agreeing on little else, some in both camps credit Mr. Krupp for breaking the logjam.

“I wrote 10 books about Pius XII, but in all these years I never knew how to shake things up for the cause like this wonderful man, Mr. Krupp,” said Sister Margherita Marchione, a professor emerita at Fairleigh Dickinson University who is considered the foremost defender of Pius outside the Vatican.

Deborah Dwork, a professor of Holocaust history at Clark University, put it another way: “Pope Benedict would not have had the chutzpah to go forward with the veneration process if not for this P.R. work Gary Krupp does.”

Of course, it's "P.R. work" when it is in defense of Pius XII, but sober, careful, exacting historical research when John Cornwell labels Pius XII as "Hitler's Pope." Dr. Dwork states that Krupp's research is “amateurish, worse than amateurish — risible.” Never mind that his main points (here's a start) haven't been refuted, but are routinely ignored, perhaps because they don't fit at all with the mythology of an anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi pope. Does Dr. Dwork think that the campaign to slander Pius XII, begun in earnest in the 1960s in German Rolf Hochhuth's play, "The Deputy" (a work that was allegedly supported and produced by the KGB), has exhibited a level of professionalism and accuracy that rises above "risible"? Her comment about Benedict XVI is, frankly, quite laughable (that's a fancy word for "risible," in case you didn't know).

Having quoted Dr. Dwork's insinuating remark that Krupp is somehow leading the Vatican through the veneration process, the article then notes that Dwork thinks Krupp's "lack of experience in international affairs and historical research" makes him "highly vulnerable to being manipulated by factions inside the Vatican." Just as with the accusations that Pius XII was highly vulnerable to being manipulated by Nazis, no evidence apparently exists for this claim; it's enough to simply assume the bad motive and/or naivety of Catholic popes and the Jews who defend them. Krupp, on one hand, is leading the Vatican's public defense of Pius XII; on the other hand, he is in the pocket of the Vatican. In related news, warm weather proves man-made global warming, while record cold weather and snow storms—yep—prove man-made global warming. I'm with Bill Donohue: Dwork's credentials aren't in question, but her judgment is.

The Times piece, not surprisingly, makes certain to call into question Krupp's credentials and motives, if not his sanity: "In the debate over Gary Krupp, too, there will always be questions. Why is he doing this?" After all, he does not have a degree in history, nor has he held a job teaching history. He is delving into complex issues requiring years of study and proven expertise. But it's not entirely clear why these are considered negatives. After all, Al Gore was, until recently, considered some sort of climate guru/expert, despite possessing no academic credentials for measuring hot air (oh, wait, he did flunk out of a liberal Protestant seminary). And the current President of the United States, who has no business background or prior governing experience, has initiated the governmental takeover of banks, car companies, and the entire health-care industry.

The bottom line is that for The New York Times and Co., it is considered de rigueur that an accused Pope is likely guilty and a Catholic-friendly Jew is eccentric at best but most likely suspicious or stupid. There are only certain kinds of inconvenient truths to be considered and championed, especially when the truth really is inconvenient.

•  Pius XII and objectivity (January 22, 2010)
• The Charity of Pope Pius XII | Eugenio Zolli | From Before the Dawn: Autobiographical Reflections by Eugenio Zolli, Former Chief Rabbi of Rome

We have met the confused, the indifferent, and ...

... the poorly catechized, and they are us. Here is the opening of a Christian Science Monitor article, "Why some Americans mix Christianity, Eastern religions":

Chicago — Because she attends Catholic mass every Sunday and observes all the religious holidays of her faith, Angela Bowman may well exemplify the Latin root of the word “religion,” which is “to bind.”

But the Chicagoan also meditates several times each day and practices yoga every other week. She knows Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism have contradictory elements but is unfazed by her multiple observances because, to her, “it’s all pretty much the same thing.”

“The biggest part of praying is opening yourself up to a connection with God, and I perceive clearing your mind in meditation as another form of receptivity,” says the 30-something textbook editor. Although she is a devoted Roman Catholic, she says she doesn’t “believe it’s the one true path and anything else is flirting with the devil.”

How, exactly, are the following "pretty much the same thing"?

• Belief in a personal God who is One in nature, God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• Belief that the question of whether or not there is a God or gods is irrelevant.
• Belief in multiple gods (polytheism).
• Belief that everything is God (pantheism).

I suspect that if Ms. Bowman were asked how she might reconcile the four specific beliefs above, she would likely say, "Well, those are just different ways to get at the same thing." What, then, is this "same thing"? If there is no "one true path," what is the goal, the point, the reason for meditation, prayer, and chasing "a connection" with "God"?

Yet the primary and pressing issue here is not about a particular understanding of God, but about a particular approach to truth. The 1996 document, "Christianity and the World Religions," produced by the International Theological Commission, put it is this way: "The problem of the truth of religions underlies this whole discussion. Today one can see a tendency to relegate it to a secondary level, separating it from reflection on the salvific value of religions. The question of truth gives rise to to serious problems of a theoretical and practical order, since in the past it had negative consequences in interreligious encounters. Hence the tendency to ease or privatize this problem with the assertion that criteria of truth are only valid for each individual religion."

One of the finest books in recent years on this matter of truth and religious relativism is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions (Ignatius Press, 2004). Ratzinger is well aware of the approach taken by Bowman and so many others—"most people," he says:

The dominant impression of most people today is that all religions, with a varied multiplicity of forms and manifestations, in the end are and mean one and the same thing; which is something everyone can see, except for them. The man of today will for the most part scarcely respond with an abrupt No to a particular religion’s claim to be true; he will simply relativize that claim by saying "There are many religions." And behind his response will probably be the opinion, in some form or other, that beneath varying forms they are in essence all the same; each person has his own.

And:

To lay claim to truth for one's religion's particular expression of faith appears today, not merely presumptuous, but an indication of insufficient enlightenment. ... Culture is set against truth. This relativism, which is nowadays to found, as a basic attitude of enlightened people, penetrating far into the realm of theology, is the most profound difficulty of our age. This is also the reason why practice is now substituted for truth and why the whole axis of religions is thereby displaced: we do not know what is true, but we do know what we should do: raise up and introduce a better society, the "kingdom", as people like to say, using a term taken from the Bible and applied to the profane and utopian sphere.

There is much, much more from Ratzinger, but the point that interests me here is captured in the statement: "we do not know what is true, but we do know what we should do..." Bowman, for example, doesn't believe there is one true path, but she is apparently convinced of the necessity of prayer and meditation. Again, why? Based on what, exactly? How is saying, "There is not a single, true path," any less of an objective claim to truth than saying," There is a single, true path"? Both require the same amount of certainty and confidence, do they not?

Ratzinger points out that one problem is that "in the consciousness of mankind today, freedom is largely regarded as the greatest good there is, after which all other good things have to take their place. ... In the scale of values with which man is concerned, to live a life worthy of humanity, freedom seems to be the truly fundamental value to be the really basic human right of them all. The concept of truth, on the other hand, we greet rather with some suspicion: we recall how many opinions and systems have already laid claim to the concept of truth; how often the claim to truth in that way has been the means of limiting freedom."

The religious relativist inhabits a most uneasy land; in fact, he stands in metaphysical quicksand. To his credit, he might well reject the claustrophobic fatalism of scientism, which asserts—once you cut to the cold chase—that man is a material accident driven by complex but impersonal, evolutionary forces. So he fights for freedom and free will: "I will meditate; I will pray; I will try to seek transcendence!" But, having admitted, at least implicitly, his desire for the Other, he refuses to accept that the Other—whatever he, she, or it might be—can really be known or distinguished or defined to any real degree. Why? Because, as Ratzinger suggests, as soon as you acknowledge or accept specific characteristics of God—He is Creator; He is personal; He is omnipotent; He is holy—you begin to realize that freedom has a source and a goal beyond yourself. The hip spirituality of our day is loath to get into specifics; they are anathema to the "open minded" seeker. But, said Chesterton, "An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut."

Which means, taken further, that freedom, which is a great good and gift, is oriented toward an ultimate Good. Freedom cannot exist for its own sake; by its very nature it testifies to a greater good. "Freedom without truth," Ratzinger states, "is no freedom." And yet so many people, including many Catholics, continue to believe that freedom is the goal, and freedom can only be found by rejecting—either openly or otherwise—the existence of truth.

• Cardinal Ratzinger Considers Whether Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Are Compatible | Ignatius Insight
• The Better We Reason, the Nearer We Come to Truth | The Introduction to Reason to Believe: Why Faith Makes Sense | Richard Purtill
• Relativism 101: A Brief, Objective Guide | Carl E. Olson

Rabbi Neusner: Benedict XVI told me he's written his last book

Rabbi Jacob Neusner, who revealed last week that Pope Benedict had told him that he was finished with the second volume of his work on Jesus (which I mistakenly thought would be a trilogy), drops this surprising bit of news:

Waiting outside the papal office, my wife and I wondered what the pope would want to discuss. We need not have worried. The pope and I have in common and talked about what professors always discuss: What are you working on, and what will you do next?

So when my wife and I spent our 25 minutes by ourselves with Benedict, I asked him how he was progressing with volume two of “Jesus of Nazareth,” and he asked me whether I’m still publishing a book a month. He told me that the second volume would come out soon and that it would be the last book he would write. But, he explained, he has other work that will keep him busy. That’s the price exacted from a major scholar who is elected pope.

And that was before we even sat down. The news that he was writing his last book struck me as sad. I said so, and he reminded me that he is older than me — as it happens, by five years. That his book-writing days are coming to an end precluded any discussion of the book I had hoped to someday convince him to write with me — a dialogue on the apostle Paul’s theology of Israel in Romans — and I didn’t bring it up.

He asked me what I’m working on, and I started to explain: “Form analysis of the rabbinic canon…” His eyes seemed to glaze over, so I broke off that line of discussion and took the occasion to give him a copy of my new book introducing the Talmud, published just now in Italian, and the German translation of my “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus.” He appreciated receiving the book in his native German and said he was thankful that the Talmud book was not too long for the time he had for reading. He told my wife that reading “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus” gave him comfort when his sister died.

I left with a vivid picture of a humble and good-natured man wholly devoted to the service of God. He is generous in his appreciation of others and does not take for granted others’ appreciation.

Read the entire piece in today's edition of The Jewish Daily Forward. The "other word," I'm guessing (and hoping), might well include another encyclical or three.

• Rabbi: Pope's second book on Jesus now finished (January 19, 2010)