 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Papal Bull
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on Sept. 18, 2006 For the Standard Today, September 19 issue HO CHI MINH CITY. I was going to either take a break from column-writing, or write about Vietnam, where my son Hochi and I are spending a few days before proceeding to Angkor Wat in Cambodia. But the recent remarks of Pope Benedict XVI on Islam and the firestorm that those remarks ignited in the Muslim world invite serious commentary because of the sensibilities that they reveal. In a speech at the University of Regensburg in his native Germany, Pope Benedict quoted a statement attributed to a 14th century emperor of the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire, Manuel II Paleologus: �Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. ��Violence was incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul�.� I googled Emperor Manuel II and learned that he reigned from 1391 to 1425 and was the second to the last Byzantine emperor as the (Muslim) Ottoman Turks knocked on the gates of Constantinople, now known as Istanbul. Emperor Manuel traveled to the courts of England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and the court of Aragon (Spain was not yet a unified kingdom) to seek Western Europe�s help against the Muslims. But the Ottoman Turks captured the imperial capital in 1453 and went on to expand their empire into the Balkans (Greece and what are now Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Albania, Croatia, Kosovo).. So Emperor Manuel II in his tine was besieged by the Muslims and could not have struck a benign attitude towards them. But Pope Benedict XVI? In his subsequent apology to the infuriated Muslim world, he reiterated that he was only quoting Emperor Manuel and did not necessarily share the monarch�s hostile attitude towards the Muslims. But in the present context, in which the Muslims seem to be preparing to do battle with the rest of the world, especially the nominally Christian West, or, conversely, seem to believe that the rest of the world are ganging up on them, that distinction is difficult to make or accept. His earlier positions are now being resurrected to further embarrass him.. In 2004, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he had opposed membership in the European Union for Turkey (which has just cancelled his scheduled visit in November) on the grounds that that country �always represented another continent throughout its history, in permanent contrast with Europe�� In his first trip as Pope outside Italy, he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne (Germany) and urged Catholics and Muslins to overcome their differences, but also told them they had the responsibility �to teach their children against terrorism� which he called the �darkness of a new barbarism� which may have been a dig at the Muslins� madrassas or religious schools, some of them long accused of teaching children to hate non-Muslims. Pope Benedict may be suffering from poor advice from his lieutenants. Indeed, BBC News Online of Sept. 17 says that he recently removed from the Vatican. and assigned as papal nuncio to Egypt, British-born Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald who, according to Jesuit Thomas Reese, was the �smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with the Muslims. You don�t exile a guy like that. You listen to him.� In an interview with the BBC last April, Fr. Reese said � prophetically, it turned out � that �if the Vatican says something dumb about the Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East. It would be better for Pope Benedict to have Fitzgerald close top him�.� The response from the Muslim press has been predictably scathing. The BBC quotes the London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat: �If the new Pope�s manners remain the same, the Catholic Church will be subject to upheavals that it has never seen before.� This is ominous if one were to recall the prediction of an Irish monk in the 13th century that the present pope will be the second to the last one, and combine that prediction with what is claimed to be the Third Secret revealed in Fatima, namely that the city of Rome will be destroyed. More about that in a future article. Muslims have a long memory about Christian atrocities committed against them, especially during the Crusades, which is why Osama bin Laden scores point with the Muslim Street whenever he rails against �the Crusaders and the Zionists�, meaning George W�s Americans and the Jews. In my articles The Crusades and Islam (May 18 and 25, 2005), I recounted these atrocities as narrated in Will Durant�s 11-volume History of Civilization: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem from the Saracens in July 1099, all 70,000 Muslim survivors of the battle were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child; babies were cut to pieces, prisoners were impaled on spits to roast them as they bled to death; even Jews, innocent bystanders in this religious war between Christians and Muslims, were all herded into a synagogue and burned alive. By contrast, when Saladdin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, the 60,000 Christian survivors of the battle were freed on ransom from the English king; captured Christian defenders were reunited with their wives and daughters; Christian pilgrims were guaranteed safe passage to and from the Holy Land. Muslims feel they do not need any lectures on right conduct and morals from any Christian leader. ***** Reactions ro [email protected]. Other articles since 2001in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �Papal Bull�
You're right on! Jim Boyd, [email protected], Sept. 19, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I find the so-called Muslim outrage against Pope Benedict XVI's speech at the University of Regensburg as nothing but hogwash propaganda fueled by the media's liberal fringe. This is media tyranny at its worst. The Pontiff's commentary was taken out of context and over-inflated to mean as an insult to Islam. In this day and age, the Pope is being vilified precisely because he is the Vicar of Christ, the venerable icon of Christianity. No, the Pope need not grovel to appease the fragile yet arrogant pride of those so-called offended. If there's any personage on this earth who looks after the best interest of Muslims in the context of Christian charity, it would be no other than the Holy Father himself. (I doubt if any Muslim will agree with that last statement, least of all, that they need Christian charity. ACA) And regarding the Crusades, much have been written to dispel the myths being perpetrated even to this day by anti-Catholic bigots. Please check the following links: http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/western_civilization/madden_interview.htm http://catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0118.htm http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0057.html http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0049.html And to add insult to injury, a writer from an opposition paper spews out vitriole in his column (and unwittingly flaunts his deplorable ignorance and shallow understanding of history.) http://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20060919com3.html Jose Maria Alcasid, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Greetings Mr. Abaya. In your column on the Pope�s recent remarks on Islam you write � Muslims feel they do not need any lectures on right conduct and morals from any Christian leader.� When one examines the reaction of many Muslims to his words (as well as their reaction to the recent Cartoons depicting Mohammed) one can only conclude that many Muslims DO INDEED need some guidance on � right conduct �. Many Muslims called for the cartoonist to be �BEHEADED �. What is most amazing about this is the hypocrisy. Muslims expect to practice their religion in freedom in western nations but do not allow westerners to practice their religions freely in many Muslim countries. (This is a valid Christian complaint against Muslims, and unless it is resolved, there will be no possibility of meaningful dialogue, much less rapprochement, between Christianity and Islam. ACA) The world sees how easily and quickly many Muslims call for others to be killed or beheaded. Truly, MANY Muslims need a lecture on right conduct � like overreaction � beheading a cartoonist is UNCIVILIZED. Regards, Tim Rooney, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww What about today? What the Pope quoted was from long ago, but still rings true today. These Muslims do not stand up to the cause of these terrorists. They have no true leader, and it seems the only time they take to the streets to protest, is when a non-Muslim criticizes the terrorists. They are a misguided, ignorant evil religion. People like you keep a one-sided stance, so as not to offend these savages as well. Shame on you. David Martinez, [email protected], Sept. 19, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Unedited) This comments below reflect, my opinions, on your article: Your article, "Papal Bull", unfortunately typifies what is wrong with the media now days. Instead of a careful analysis of what this tempest is really about, it seems to me that you are spousing quasi-apologies for the subjugation of free speech and scholarly discourse. This tempest is mere hatred espoused by zealots and bigots and in my opinion you do diservice to your readers by not baring it as such. True, that the Crusaders committed atrocities at the fall of Jerusalem and at other times, but on the other hand you make no mention of the many Muslim atrocities in the Holy Land, including but not limited to the sieges and falls of Acre and Tripoli; in Asia in the heartless subjugation, destruction and wholesale atrocities committed on the Hindu people; in Africa in engaging in unbridled slave trade; the conquest of lands at the point of the sword, e.g. North Africa, India, the Middle and Far East and in parts of Europe with their repugnant appurtenant atrocities. Acts of atrocities and aggression were not a historical monopoly of the Christians. Moreover, there is no mention by you in your article of the atrocities committed by the Muslims upon the fall of Constantinople and the horrors that came before as Anatolia was being subjugated to the Muslim yoke and the atrocities suffered by the Greek and the Balkans Christians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks for centuries. The only reference you make to the fall of Constantinople is that the Ottoman Turks "knocked on the door" of Constantinople. You will note that Christians in Constantinople Christians were massacred, the nuns, clergy and population abused and the population of Constatinople sold into wholesale slavery. I find it offensive and repulsive that while you so descriptively and vividly describe Christian atrocities at the fall of Jerusalem, you make no mention whatsoever of the many Muslim atrocities and only make reference to that the Ottoman Turks knocked on the door of Constatinople. My friend, they did a lot more than knock on that door and your article lacks balance. A civilized people can never be intimidated from discoursing regarding the past while attempting to arrive at truth and that was what the Pope was obvioulsy doing . The Pope owes no one an apology. I aske you, where is the media and Muslim outrage at the the killing of a nun (believed to have been killed because of this incident, the burning and bombing of churches by Mulim zealots. Let's see your next article cover that issue. You have, in my opinon, not done any justice to history in your article and merely pandered to hatred and violence. I would suggest that you should reflect and in the future write a more informed articles that will present a balanced view of the past. Aristides Hernandez, [email protected], Sept. 19, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Just read your "Papal Bull", another good one. You may have an interest in Amina's column last Sunday in Manila Times. Romy Bernardo, romyber@[email protected], Sept. 19, 2006 Durian By Amina Rasul Pope Benedict: what were you thinking? During the 9/11 commemorative forum organized by the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (Is the World a Safer Place ?); there was consensus on two points: First, NO! The world is not safer. Second, military operations alone will not neutralize terrorism. We need to secure peace by building bridges, thru dialogues and mutual understanding, by lessening discrimination and hatred. Human rights lawyer Nasser Marohomsalic warned that �The more radical the oppression, the more radical the movements for freedom�. While Dr. Michael Clancy of the Philippine Business Leaders Forum talked about how businessmen are more concerned with the global economy rather than terrorism, Lebanon Honorary Consul Joseph Assad shared statements of individuals who were worried about a repeat of 9/11, that the world is now a more dangerous place to live in. The other speakers spoke of how to close the gap and prevent the Clash. Dr Steven Rood of The Asia Foundation said �There should be a �genuine dialogue� amongst Christians and between Muslims and Christians�. Dr. Clarita Carlos focused on the politics of language and meaning in the ongoing war against terror. She stressed the importance of semantics in any diplomatic dialogue. Dr. Carlos said that the US is defining the nature of the war against terror in its own terms (e.g., �You are with us, or against us.�). These pronouncements by the US President tend to be simplistic, and overlook the complexity of the reality of terrorism. Language has implications � �Muslims,� �Moors,� �Muslim World� � and we have to be careful how we use language. For ANC Channel head Maria Ressa, the world is caught in the grips of an ideological battle, with terror groups like the Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiyah successful in using Islam as the rallying point for their recruitment. Thus, she stressed that the moderate majority of the Islamic world ought to be heard more and reclaim the true meaning of Islam away from the violent terrorist groups. Thus, it was with alarm that I read Pope Benedict XVI�s controversial speech on September 12 at Regensburg University in Germany, quoting a14th Century Byzantine Christian Emperor regarding the issue of jihad: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." First, he quoted Emperor Manuel Paleologus II, whose father, Emperor John V, had to deal with a strong Turkish empire which had conquered Thrace and Macedonia , destroyed and conquered the Serbian Empire in 1389. Manuel, towards the end of his reign, was preoccupied dealing with a fragmented Turkish empire which continued to be a danger to the city. Why quote a Christian emperor whose lineage was associated with the Crusades and who was at war with Muslim Turks? Pope Benedict even surmised that �The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion"�. Then, Pope Benedict goes on to say �According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat�. Does the Pope imply that, had the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) been strong at the time, that sura 2:256 would not have been made? Leaders of the church, please explain to us exactly what the Pope was thinking at the time. How could such a sophisticated leader (who has been photographed wearing Prada shoes) make such a statement? And please explain to us why the political/military expansion of the Turkish rulers is any different from the political/military operations of the Crusades. Pope Urban called for the First Crusade in 1095. He urged: �Men of God, men chosen and blessed among all, combine your forces! Take the road to the Holy Sepulcher assured of the imperishable glory that awaits you in God's kingdom. Let each one deny himself and take the Cross!� A red cross was their emblem. Crux is Latin for cross, thus Crusade. (From Anne W. Carroll) Muslim leaders around the world have demanded an apology from Pope Benedict. The Vatican has started damage-control, clarifying that Islam was not the focus of the speech. Coming from the Pope, and not from an obscure Scandinavian newspaper, I worry about the backlash. Pope Benedict�s controversial statement neutralizes the effort of the moderate majority to reclaim Islam from the image portrayed by Al-Qaeda. In today�s world, words are a major weapon. Words can break bones. Perhaps Dr. Clare Carlos and Maria Ressa should have a chat with the Pope. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, thanks for sending that....As usual you help to shed light on the impenetrable darkness of religious belief. Frank Holz, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I don't know if you're anti-pope or otherwise but you seem to overlook a couple of things: 1. The Pope's use of Emperor Paleologus' dialogues was a scholarly argument for continued inter-faith dialogue. That this other religion cannot mix dialogue and faith without violence is hardly the Pope's undoing. Unfortunately much of the media rely on their paychecks on controversy so the more Muslims go berserk the better for their P&L. 2. The historical frameworks surrounding the Crusades were shaped by pre-medieval politics (among them, marked by greed and ignorance among the powers that be during those periods) even among the clergy and had nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine which is surprisingly overlooked by pundits of today. The same set of doctrines were the guide-posts upon which then Cardinal Ratzinger based his positions and pronouncements in facing the issues of a secularized world. Whether or not his decisions got passing marks from pundits is something that needs to be seen as history unfolds. Not now, as of yet. 3. As we sit back and watch the Muslim mobs terrorize the rational world (with a bit of business windfall for some), it becomes easy to pass judgment on the man who will one day change the virtual boundaries of terrorism. The central issue even as you belittle the judgment of the Pope is still: Is violence the way to understand and communicate? Having this issue unexamined while the reactions are sensationalized, is to me, an indictment of those who judge the Pope. 4. Media has always profited by sowing fear in the Western world every time the Muslim belief in violence is challenged. A western paper sums up my thesis: A Wall Street Journal Europe editorial hits the nail on the head regarding the Pope's Regensburg speech, the Muslim reaction, and the implications. It's conclusion: "This is not an invitation to the usual feel-good interfaith round-tables. It is dialogue with one condition -- that everyone at the table reject the irrationality of religiously motivated violence. By their reaction to the Pope's speech, some Muslim leaders showed that they are not ready. The day Muslims condemn Islamic terror with the same vehemence they condemn those who criticize Islam, an attempt at dialogue -- and at improving relations between the Western and Islamic worlds -- can begin." Ike Eslao, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 (The point of �Papal Bull� is that the pot is not credible calling the kettle black, even when he uses someone else�s words to do it. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I ADMIRE THE WAY YOU MIX RESEARCH, DICTION, AND STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS. SAIL ON. Norberto Castillo, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 MY REPLY. Did you mean FICTION? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww This article was emailed to us by [email protected] A Question for the Pope: Was it Muhammad who was flying those Bombers over Beirut? by Michael A. Hoffman II http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page5/page5.html As some of you may have heard or surmised, I am engaged in writing the introduction to one of the rarest books in the world, a volume that has not been printed in English in more than 250 years. It will go to press next week, after which we will offer a pre-publication opportunity for you to reserve a copy. I want to leave no stone unturned, no detail overlooked in my introduction to this magnificent work, and I debated whether it would be worthwhile to pause from my labors to remark upon Pope Benedict XVI's recent utterance on Islam, which has the Catholic and Neocon world ecstatic with glee at the thought that Rome is about to drop the syncretic universalism of Benedict's predecessor and launch a full-scale "crusade" against the "mad mullahs." The gesture by the man said to occupy (usurp might be a more apt word) the "chair of Peter," is too egregious in itself and too symptomatic of the schizophrenia that grips conservative Churchianity in these Kabbalistic "End of Days," when male fish in the Potomac river are discovered to be carrying female eggs, and other portents of a world turned upside down abound, to pass by it in silence. Benedict quoted a medieval Catholic source on the violence of Islam's Muhammad just a couple of weeks after the armies of Judaism bombed Lebanon into the stone age for thirty-three days (a significant number in the Kabbalah). The greatest orgy of violence by the military of any religion since the fruit of Bush's "Third Awakening Christianity" pummeled Iraq and Afghanistan's cities and villages with bombs and bullets, was perpetrated in Lebanon in July and August, with religious injunctions in favor of the mass murder issued by Orthodox Israeli rabbis. But Pope Benedict's stern admonition last week was directed not at them, but only at the "violence of Muhammad." Excuse me, your ass-holiness, but was it Muhammad who was flying those bombers over Beirut? In the eyes of the rabbis, including the crypto-rabbi in the Vatican, the one thousand Lebanese civilians who were murdered, their infrastructure wrecked, their food and medicine obstructed, the sea polluted and the land strewn with cluster bombs in the last days of the onslaught, are not a subject of particular concern. After all, God's holy master race has a 007 license to kill, and if the swarthy sheikhs of sin-strewn Arabia are on the receiving end, so much the better. The killings perpetrated by the Israelis are sanctioned by the Talmud, the holy book of Benedict according to his own writings and the study habits of the cardinals he patronizes. The Koran? Why, that's a venal book of violence! So the old Judaic double-standard raises its ugly head yet again, last week through the mouth of its papal dummy, yesterday out of the orifice of the US President, and tomorrow from the baying hounds of American Churchianity, who confirm Ludwig Fuerbach's observation of more than a century ago, that "Christianity has disappeared. Everywhere it has been substituted by the appearance of Christianity." The wisdom of the old German philosophers is not welcome in post-war Germany, or among Germans like the current Pontiff, who is now being hailed by terminally perverted "traditional" Catholics and pseudo-Protestants as the paladin of western civilization. Let us peer a bit closer at the Renaissance Benedict is said to be rebirthing. In Germany, the suicide rate is intolerable and the birth rate has been below replacement level for thirty years. This is attributed to the consumerist hedonism that also infects Italy, Britain, France and Scandinavia. What is overlooked is the special circumstance, unique to Germany, the self-hatred that has been internalized by three generations bombarded with the guilt-laden mental genocide that is the Auschwitz gas chamber tale, which incessantly repeats that the Germans are collectively a race of hereditary "willing executioners," to quote from the best-selling thesis of Harvard's Daniel Goldhagen. This bigoted toxicity has been pounded into the German psyche in movies, plays, books, TV shows, schoolrooms and synagogues disguised as "Holocaust museums," for decades. Shortly before he burned himself alive in protest, Reinhold Elstner, a WWII German army vet, termed the "Holocaust" agit-prop a "Niagara of lies." For trying to dam the flow of that deadly sewage, historian David Irving is in jail in Austria, and the Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf is in prison in Germany, as is the revisionist writer Ernst Zundel, the latter confined to his cell 22 hours-a-day. It is not the first time that a pope has approved -- by silence or commission -- the presence of writers in dungeons. The rape of the German psyche and the repression against revisionists is old news, and surely some jaded readers will yawn at the tedium of having to encounter it again. Few, if any influential persons in the West believe there is much that can be done about it. In the midst of the heightened concern about preserving western civilization against the colored hordes of crescent moon idolaters, the withered Teutonic branch of that civilization, the one that contributed the Enlightenment philosophy of Fichte and Goethe to Europe, and the moon rockets to NASA, is allowed to wither into virtual extinction, because the vengeance of the blessed rabbis requires it; this stealthy vengeance which is infinitely more subtle and cunning than the candid vengeance openly proclaimed by the hated imams. It is patent that if it were left to what passes today for the flower of western civilization's intelligentsia, the Irvings, Zundels and Rudolfs would rot in their cells, and the Germans would continue to abort and contracept themselves into extinction. Who in our vaunted, cultured, Christian, western ranks, be he pope, prince or president, would dare intervene with the Judaic "fatwa" issued against the German people through the cunning device of perpetual "Holocaust" hype? And yet -- and here is the portent of double-minded insanity again -- if Judaic revenge and psychological warfare has its way, and there is no intervention, Muslim immigrants will fill the shoes of extinct Germans and Turks rather than Teutons will be in charge of the bastion of central Europe. What then will happen to the great crusade? Well, when did submitting to the Talmudically-crazed rabbis ever bring sanity or salvation to the west? For that we must look to a black-bearded Persian, a despised follower of that "evil and inhuman" Muhammad. Rather than repay evil with evil, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has offered good for evil. In a letter this month to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Ahmadinejad spoke of "the persistence of a strong will by certain global powers and special groups to constantly portray Germany as defeated and indebted country of World War II...Sixty years have passed since the end of the war. But, regrettably...extortion and blackmail continue, and people are not allowed to think about or even question the source of this extortion, otherwise they face imprisonment....today the perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying powers and the Zionists...I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them? "Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the people of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress....Without doubt, cooperation of two peace-loving, powerful and cultured nations like Germany and Iran will serve the interests of Europe. Together we must end the present abnormalities in international relations, the type of order and relations that are based on the impositions of the victors of Second World War on the defeated nations." If the German pope had a patriotic bone in his body, or a shred of paternal affection for the welfare of the Germans, he would summon the Iranian President to Rome and give him a medal, and urge Berlin to do the same, as the first step to a reborn Germany, free of the destructive guilt that has sucked the will to live from the marrow of its bones. But no such man occupies the papacy, but rather a gravedigger who swings his mud-encrusted shovel over the barren wombs and seared brains of the Germans, while hurling calculated insults at the religion of decent men like Ahmadinejad, the better to grease the wheels of the Neocons' World War III. And Benedict does so to the wildly enthusiastic applause of Catholics, Protestants and conservatives who mistake this Zionist wraith for the long-awaited crusader-king of Christendom. Male fish in the Potomac carry female eggs. For the occult 33 days was death and terror ushered to Lebanon. A rabbi bears the name of Pope, a Bonesman bears the title of US President, as the double-mind is inducted into the western hall of shame. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Great article! Lydia B. Echauz, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 President, Far Eastern University wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Another reading of the Pope's remarks. Vic Lim, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 Asian Institute of Management Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks By George Friedman On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both." Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that: "In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...' "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'" The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage. The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable. Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally. Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be. A Deliberate Move Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk. It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue. As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement. So, why this, and why now? Political Readings Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics. Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically. One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there. The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position. It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise. This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe. There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears. As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe 's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe 's Muslims about the limits of tolerance It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there. The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason. From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue. The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat. It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I am not a Roman Catholic. I don't think the Pope has any reason to apologize about history. If he blocked Turkey from joining the EU, then that is something he should apologize for. Turkey represents a relatively reasonable branch of the Muslim religion. I am not sure that the rank and file Turk is as reasonable as their country as a whole, but at least they are on a path to being civilized. I think a lot more good could come out of an EU Turkey. Both religions have experienced periods of barbarism, but except for the Balkans, is there any other recent (within the last century) place where Christians have carried out the atrocities that too many Muslims seem to engage in today? In the Christian religion's defense, "Christian' countries such as the US and many European countries actually defended Muslims during this war. I get to go to the Balkans several times a year to see the good results. Those are good people down there. Earthy, civilized people. "Citizen" of the US Larry Tilby hopes they gain their independence and flourish into another European Muslim country that is civilized by modern standards. Muslims in the Middle East do still spread their religion through violence. The original quote the Pope used is still accurate today. Americans in the Middle East are not Crusaders. Period. That is not something that ignorant Muslims can understand, simply because they are ignorant and easily manipulated by their leaders, who are barbarians. Under those conditions, it's easy for them to find misguided recruits to blow themselves up in the midst of easy, soft targets such as "crusaders" or also important target Muslims who are not members of their particular denomination (Sunni, Shiite, etc). Are the majority of mainstream Muslim schools teaching hate? That's a good question that needs answering. It certainly appears so. I don't see any reason to go out of my way to accommodate Muslims just because they are Muslims. In fact, I think we should isolate those Muslim (and Christian) countries who prove themselves to be un-civilized. Then they can get back to the important business of killing each other instead of us. This can only be accomplished by alternate fuel sources and sources of mainstream fuel (oil). J. Larry Tilby, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 US Armed Forces, Germany wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Wow. What an enlightening article, Mr. Abaya. Yes, the Pope angered a lot of people, Muslims and non-Muslims. I find it odd for him to quote Manuel II, and then have nothing to justify why he did so. You don't just quote someone out of the blue. After this article, how I perceive Pope Benedict XVI has changed. Warning bells rang in my head as visions of prophecies flashed across my mind. As Christians, we cannot allow someone like him to sow disunity (or discord, more likely) between the already fragile relationship between Muslims and Christians. We can co-exist. We just need leaders who understand and accept the differences we all have. Freda Veluz, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks for including me in your list. I really enjoy your articles. They�re interesting and informative not only on current events but especially on history which I have no way of accessing. In fact, I�ve been checking my email for your articles in the Standard. It�s a pity it caused the further rift between Muslims and Christian. When will it ever end? Maria P. Almeda, [email protected], Sept. 20, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091506H A Shot Across Many Bows As expected, various and sundry Islamic leaders are criticizing Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech. The LA Times reports: "Pope Benedict XVI flew back to Rome on Thursday to face an international flurry of protest over comments he made critical of historical Islamic violence during a six-day trip to his native Germany . "Muslim clerics and community leaders from Europe to the Middle East and beyond condemned the pope's comments made this week." Both the Times (not surprisingly) and the Muslim leaders, of course, have missed the point. Benedict's remarks (which you can read in full here) must be understood in the context of his theology as a whole. Jesus claimed "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6. As C.S. Lewis put it of this claim: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." In a 2002 interview, then-Cardinal Ratzinger came down clearly and emphatically on the side of the Son of God: "Christ is totally different from all the founders of other religions, and he cannot be reduced to a Buddha, a Socrates or a Confucius. He is really the bridge between heaven and earth, the light of truth who has appeared to us." Also in 2002, when presenting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Declaration "Dominus Iesus": On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church , the then-Cardinal condemned the belief that "all religions are equally valid roads to salvation for their followers." He explained: "This is a widespread conviction today not only in theological environments, but also in ever greater sectors of Catholic and non-Catholic public opinion, especially those most influenced by the cultural orientation that prevails in the West today, which can be defined, without the fear of contradiction, by one word: relativism." In turn, he argued, relativism leads ineluctably to the "refusal to identify the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth with the very reality of God, the living God." Some of Benedict's predecessors -- arguably including his immediate predecessor John Paul II, who is otherwise well-deserving of his fast track to sainthood -- downplayed this aspect of Christian theology in order to promote inter-faith dialogue. In contrast, it is a core part of Benedict's faith and is rapidly becoming a major theme of his pontificate. If Islamic leaders expect Pope Benedict to treat Islam as an "equally valid" "road to salvation," they are thus sure to be disappointed. If rejecting the relativism constitutes a shot across Islam's bow, that shot also crosses any number of other bows. In the Regensburg speech, the Pope staked out a set of claims about the relationship of man and God that stand in opposition not only to the Islam of Ibn Hazn, but also that of the Protestant Reformers, the Jesus of History crowd, and (an area of particular concern for this pope) post-Christian Europe. The Pope renewed the claims of the Church Universal to have a truth that is transcendent, rather than culturally-bound: "True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself." Having said that, of course, I concede that the Pope does seem to have the problem of religiously motivated terror in mind. Even so, Islam was not his only target. He said: "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures." I read that line as a shot across the bow of post-Christian Europe -- a warning that Europe increasingly lacks the tools demanded to meet the threats of the day. Hence, the speech implicitly recalls what may be the ultimate goal of Benedict's pontificate; namely, calling Europe back to Christ. Eugene Earle, [email protected], Sept. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Like the earlier pieces I received, I enjoyed reading this one. I tend to agree with your assessment of the Papal faux pas -- indeed, the result of unimaginable indiscretion and faulty advice. I attach here two pieces -- a short one on population and a longer, more recent paper on the Filipino diaspora and remittances -- that may be of interest. Thanks and more power. Best wishes, Ernesto M. Pernia, [email protected], Sept. 21, 2006 Professor of Economics University of the Philippines MY REPLY. We will include your two pieces in the Reference Material section in www.tapatt.org. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I cannot help commenting on this. I actually do not belong to the Catholic Church, and therefore, feel free to blast the Catholic Pope and blaspheme the Catholic Church, but what the heck? Nope, I am not a Moslem. I am as Christian as the Pope says he is. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the legitimate one that no longer sanctions polygamy with HQ in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Apparently, the Pope is not doing his homework well or he will be more careful with his words not to be "misquoted" as he claims. What everyone seems to forget is that the Christians, Jews and even the Moslems claim to worship the same God that Abraham, who was a native of Ur in present-day Iraq, worshipped. We may just as well heed this message from the Holy Scriptures that Christians, Jews, and definitely even Moslems believe to be the Words of God: "Therefore wait upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather nation, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, THAT THEY MAY ALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD, TO SERVE HIM WITH ONE CONSENT." (Zephaniah 3:8-9) This is actually a prophecy of yet things to come. Yuko Takei, [email protected], Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hello Tony, Pope Benedict XVI should focus on his flock and leave Islam alone. For starters, he should make an apology for all atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism such as those done during the Inquisition and the Dark Ages (Are these two one and the same?), the denigration of Mary Magdalene as a whore, the harassment of Galileo for espousing the correct view of the solar system, the appropriation of lands (i.e. Friar Lands) in our own country for the Catholic Church, to name a few. After reviewing these iniquities, the good Pope may realize that what he said about Mohammed and Islam applies equally well to the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict obviously lacks direct experience with Muslims. We in Cotabato take it as given the respect of other's religions. In fact, I have never heard of anyone in our community vilifying Islam in public the way the good pope did; I am now fifty-one years old and am supposed to have heard it all. Insulting others' religions is simply an invitation for trouble and even an elementary student here knows that instinctively. The pope either should enroll on a crash on inter-religious relationships or shut up. Herminigildo Gutierrez, [email protected], Sept. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (The following article was emailed to us by Jayjay Calero) Pope apologizes: 'Medieval text does not express my personal thought' By John Allen Jr. . As Benedict XVI's apology on Sunday plays to mixed reviews, a consensus seems to be emerging around three conclusions about the firestorm triggered last week when the pope quoted a 14th century text asserting that Mohammed brought "things only evil and inhuman": In his Sept. 12 lecture at the University of Regensburg , Benedict did not intend to take a swipe at Islam. If he intended to criticize anyone, it was Western intellectuals and their tendency to separate reason from religious faith. From a communications point of view, his use of language was at best risky, and arguably ill-advised. This crisis aside, Benedict does have a more hawkish approach to Islam than Pope John Paul II, and that promises further delicate moments ahead. The uproar began last Tuesday during Benedict XVI's visit to Bavaria , when he delivered a 40-minute academic lecture at the University of Regensburg on the relationship between reason and faith. In it, he argued that calls for the "dehellenization" of Christianity, stripping it of its Greco-Roman encrustations and returning it to a state of "pure faith," miss the point. The decision made in favor of the rationality of God under the impact of Greek philosophy was not an accident of history, the pope said, but part of the genetic code of Christianity. The pope went on to insist that religion and reason need one another, and included a plea against religious violence. Prior to the speech, senior Vatican officials were touting it as a "defining" address of Benedict's pontificate in terms of laying out his core concerns. Benedict opened the speech with a reference to a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine emperor Michael II Paleologus and a "learned Persian," in which the emperor criticizes Islam. The quote that caused the furor followed: "He turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,'" the pope said, emphasizing that he was quoting the emperor. Benedict's main interest appeared to be a series of subsequent lines from Paleologous about the importance of reason. That context was largely lost, however, as reports made their way around the world, sparking wide protest and a handful of acts of violence. Seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while massive rallies took place in majority Muslim states such as Indonesia and Iran , where seminaries were closed in protest. On Sunday, an Italian nun was shot to death in Somalia after a senior Somali cleric had denounced the pope's remarks, though it was not immediately clear if the slaying was connected to the controversy. In some cases, according to experts, news agencies in Islamic nations did not indicate that the remarks came not from Benedict but a medieval text that pope had quoted. Descriptions of the lecture also reflected the hasty way the news spread; in one case, an Arabic paper said the pope had been speaking on "technology," apparently confusing the term with "theology." Despite Vatican statements on both Sept. 14 and Sept. 16 attempting to calm the waters, anger continued to build. "He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," said Salih Kapusuz, a top deputy in the governing Islamic party in Turkey . "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades," Kapusuz said, predicting that Benedict would go down in history with leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini. Sensitivities in Turkey were particularly raw in light of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's opposition to Turkey 's entry into the European Union. In heavy rain during his Sunday Angelus address, Benedict apologized for the furor he had caused. "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg , which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he said. "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. . I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect." In an unusual move reflecting the sensitivity of the situation, the Vatican released a translation of just this paragraph of the pope's remarks in both English and French, in addition to the original Italian. While some Muslim leaders called the apology insufficient, others appeared satisfied. Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for calm, saying, "My impression of the pope was rather an educated and patient man." Jesuit Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, regarded as one of Catholicism's leading experts on Islam, called the violent reaction "exaggerated and misplaced." "The pope's thoughts are actually quite close to Muslim criticism of the secularized West," Samir said. "Muslims seem to be saying: 'You have technology, science, everything, except the essential, since you have marginalized spirituality and God. . [The pope] joins Muslims in criticizing the atheist view of reason whilst offering a critique from within in order to broaden it." Other experts, however, said the pope's decision to cite Michael II Paleologus was perhaps not a good idea. Jesuit Fr. Daniel Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome , said the central point of the speech was that "if we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously." But, he said of the quote from the emperor, "You clearly take a risk using an example like that." Speaking on background, a senior Vatican official said the failure to adequately vet the pope's speech may have been due to a vacuum of key personnel. In February, Benedict sent the Vatican 's top expert on Islam, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, to Cairo as his ambassador, meaning he's no longer in Rome to be consulted. The Bavaria trip also fell in a moment of transition between one Secretary of State and another. In the end, most observers cautioned that while the Regensburg comments may have been blown out of context, Benedict's generally more hawkish approach to Islam will almost certainly mean further tension ahead. Desire for a more muscular stance towards Islam has been building in Catholicism for some time. In part, it's driven by anti-Christian persecution in the Islamic world, such as the Feb. 5 slaying of Italian missionary Fr. Andrea Santoro in Trabzon , Turkey . A 16-year-old Turk pumped two bullets into Santoro, shouting Allah akbar, "Allah is great." He later said he had been agitated by Danish newspaper cartoons critical of Islam. In part, the more challenging line is driven by frustrations over reciprocity. To take the most notorious example, while the Saudis contributed $20 million to build Europe 's largest mosque in Rome , Christians cannot build churches in Saudi Arabia . Priests in Saudi Arabia cannot leave oil industry compounds or embassy grounds without fear of the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop of the region recently described the situation as "reminiscent of the catacombs." Benedict was sensitive to these concerns prior to his election. In a 1997 interview, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said of Islam, "One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a democratic society." In the same interview, he accused some Muslims of fomenting a radical "liberation theology," meaning a belief that God approves violence to achieve liberation from Israel . He's taken a similar line as pope. In a session with Muslims last year in Cologne , Germany , Pope Benedict urged efforts to "turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress towards world peace." On March 23, Benedict summoned his 179 cardinals for a closed-doors business session. Much conversation turned on Islam, and there was agreement with a tougher stance on reciprocity. His key advisors also reflect the new climate. Bishop Rino Fisichella, rector of Rome 's Lateran University and a close papal confidante, recently said it's time to "drop the diplomatic silence" about anti-Christian persecution, and called on the United Nations to "remind societies and governments of countries with a Muslim majority of their responsibilities." Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope's vicar for Rome , voiced doubts about calls to teach Islam in Italian schools. "We'd have to ensure [it] would not give way to a socially dangerous kind of indoctrination," Ruini said. When it comes to Islam, observers say, Benedict XVI is in a sense playing with fire. When he visits Turkey in November, the world will get a better sense of how adept he is at keeping it under control. ***** wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I think that when Pope Benedict visits Turkey in November he may be the victim of an assassination attempt by some fanatic. Ernest Loewinsohn, [email protected], Sept. 21, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I really admire your capability to do some incredible research, but it seems things will become even more inevitable the way things are going. I just love reading your articles. Teddyboy Tagle, [email protected], Sept. 22, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Many thanks Tony, As usual, you are spot on in your historical reference. Yes, King Richard the Lion hearted acted worst than a barbarian while he was allegedly representing Christianity. As stated in your last paragraph - by contrast, when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders, 60,000 Christian survivors were given safe passage and reunited with their loved ones. Saladin, as we know, was a great man. However others that followed are not of the same mold. I worked in Alkhobar , Saudi Arabia and the law there is another thing for women and foreigners. It is sad that that to date they do not allow Christian Churches to be built in their land, however in Australia, US, UK, the Philippines,they are allowed to build mosques. In this day and age, reciprocity is what is being asked. Abrazos, Jaime Calero, [email protected], Sydney , Australia , Sept. 22, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww One Christian's opinion about what you call Papal Bull. Only the pope is required to apologize and resign his post. It's OK for the Christian churches, priests, nuns and missionary workers to be burned, killed and desecrated because I believe that's what's in the old text the pope quoted. Humility is the weapon against the devil and that's what the Pope is doing non-stop apology........ Tessie Centeno, [email protected], Sept. 22, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| Re: Papal Bull response
I admired Pope John Paul II for reaching out to other faiths, building bridges and for promoting sort of religious diplomacy. but his effort of humility, asking for forgiveness and reaching out on Islam worked only a little bit. He even entered and prayed at their one of the most sacred Mosques... Fundamentalism spreads like plagues even more. On the other hand, this new Pope is different. I agree with and understand him. HE'S THE MAN!!! He is not a hardcore diplomat but tough and savvy academic genius. Now, I became his new fan! He is too brilliant! Just brilliant! FYI, that's definitely NOT a dumb message (knowing international media is always watching his moves and mouth). In fact, it's a genius message which gives you answers ASAP in real time:) Look at the reaction of the Muslim world? (Reactions of some illiterate, literate, kings, princes, sultans, subjects, clerics or mass, etc) The Pope is making a real point and sad to say, HE IS EXTREMELY CORRECT! And the answer is too quick and you don't even have to go to the library for a research for that! It's the shortest message of a genius mind that delivers a definite and fastest answer without even explaining more words! Look around and see how this religion of peace reacted. What could be better than getting a quote from an ORTHODOX Emperor which represents a One-Christian voice or message? He!he!he! The Pontiff is too brilliant! Just one passage for a "reality" checkmate. Awesome! You don't have to be physically strong to be STRONG! Right? Remember, Dr. Hawkins who is probably the weakest scientist (almost completely paralyzed) but he is the smartest guy alive in the entire planet. We have a wise Pontiff, ladies and gentlemen! Here's Papal's shortest way in proving a religious fact: Passage/message (one-Christian voice) = quick violent reactions of the Muslim world (proving a point:) Violent reactions = Pope asks for forgiveness (Model of Humility in which his religion preaches) for telling Muslims the truth Truth = Hurts (in which "acceptance" isn't always in Islam's vocabulary:) People in the background (like you and me) = Pause and rethink (and mostly admire the Pope for his extremely intellectual capabilities) Again, we have a wise and intellectual Pope! Snap! Snap! Yes, he is awesome! I also agree with Chirac's especially with superwoman Merkel's comments about the Pope. that there should or must be a serious dialog between Faiths. It's a must! "Fundamentalism" grows in magnitude and pops up like popcorn in all corners of the world. Religion tied up with violence is not acceptable! That goes to all Faiths. (opppsss!!! don't burn my effigy because I'm not that popular:) And in this era, you can tell whose religion has a twin brother named "violence". It seems like the revenge from the Crusaders' mistakes is eternal. Christians and Jews of today (and generations to come) are different and we should NOT pay for them. Crusader's and Muslim's armies paid everything with their lives (60-70 thousands of them on both parties) and monies a thousand years ago. When Saladin accepted ransom monies and treasures (money/treasure is too equivalent to human life years ago) for the release of Christian captives was not considered as "good faith" since barter had been done. There's a need for him to accept money and treasure to feed his men as a general (being in a desert and when oil isn't treated as a rock star yet:). If he released all of the captives unconditionally (without accepting in return), then he's definitely a warm-hearted hero. but in his and other conquerors' era (regardless of faith), they are battle-minded and conquest-minded. The sending of his personal physician to the sick rival (without poisoning his rival) was more appealing than the barter. He won a lot of hearts there in both Christians and Muslims, right Robin Hood? (Robin Hood agrees, of course:) But he was trying to send a message to the Europeans that he was a charismatic leader, not barbaric. The message was to respect him as their level. He also wanted to tell them that he was not only a great warrior but a diplomatic genius. In the end, he's a great man! Definitely one of the greatest generals of all time! Did we eternally hate Spaniards, Japanese and Americans for making Filipinos slaves of our own lands years ago? For killing and bullying Filipinos years ago (or even today, you know the "so-called" people powers to change a government that doesn't benefit their interest:) ? The word is FORGIVENESS which is a huge fragment of "LOVE". Does Islam forgives or cut? Does Islam love or hate? Islam forbids liquor and drugs but at Saddam's sons' bedrooms, they found bongs and huge stashes of drugs. Let alone Afghan's Heroin Paradise. See the irony of fundamentalism, drugs and murder? I don't discredit Islam because having more than a billion followers is certainly amazing. The same thing with more than a billion Christians which is also amazing. For the readers.. Give me one head of state or political leader of the Islam world who really organize a huge press conference and angrily criticized the killing or beheading of civilians by the Islamic fundamentalists? Did Moroccan King issue a "persona non grata" (like recalling its Vatican Ambassador) to Osama Bin Laden when Osama repeatedly accepted responsibility of such 9-11 attacks all for the sake of the Faith that Osama and the Moroccan King share? Did the Moroccan King recalled Saudi's, Yemen's, Pakistani's, Indonesia's, Afghan's, Somalia's ambassadors or criticize their governments for harboring or supporting terrorists or extremists? Did the supreme leader of Iran condemned Osama? Did they burn effigies of Osama and his lieutenants? Instead, they printed his face on t-shirts and hailed him as a hero. Yes, violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul (that goes to ALL Faith). How can people justify their teachings in forbidding to mingle with infidels and encouraging them to kill infidels? Who in the right mind (intellectuals or not) accept such practice? A lot of the Islamic world unanimously reacted angrily about the Pope's academic lecture (not HOMILY). But you know what.. TRUTH hurts! If that is NOT the truth, then they have to do something about "fundamentalists, fanatics and extremists" to protect its religion of PEACE. Did you hear any Islamic nation who CONTINUALLY donates AID and support to the third world non-Muslim countries? Brotherhood right? They only support their own world! So, they want a one-Muslim planet. The Pope's repeated apology is Christlike and it promotes HUMILITY and a sense of diplomacy (not war freak). I hope that the world will realize whose religion is violent in nature. If Islam is for Peace and harmony, they have to forbid "fundamentalism" because it will take a negative effect of the Faith they believe. "Fundamentalism" inevitably happens because MOST of its leaders and moneymen let it happen. the laws of "Padreno", you know. Good Muslims should correct, punish (Muslim police and governments) and defy Islamic fundamentalists or extremists to maintain their slogan of peace. Conversion should NOT be imposed by force. If people don't accept any religion, then pray for them and NOT killing them. If Muslims wants to be Christians, don't kill them! Leave them alone! That goes to all Faiths! The irony is. the more they named cities as holy, the more violence or killings occur. What is holy in war? What is holy in crimes? What is holy in hate? What is holy in revenge? What is holy in suicide bombers? If they also preached "forgiveness", then why???? Clerics should stop brainwashing kids of the mistakes a thousand years ago BUT they should teach the kids to move on and face the civilization! Hey, it's not forbidden to use soap in taking a bath. If it is (in religion or holy books) then, use your common sense, it's for sanitary purposes and definitely a must do. We don't have to be an "outer planet" alien to have common sense. For me, the Pope's comment was NOT a mistake. It's a religious-intellectual checkmate. There's a need to say it so the BUSY world will pick it up, rethink and pause for a moment that.. You know what, he's right! We can't let "fundamentalist" cease our freedom including our freedom of what we believe in and what God we worship. The words are: Forgiveness, Peace, Love and Co-existence. PEACE! Thank you! LF, [email protected], Sept 23, 2006 (Next time, please attch your full name to your opinions. Otherwise they will not be published here. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony - How fair and dispassionate was your column on the Papal Bull? And why not be straightforward, not hide in vagueness, by saying only "bull" when it's plain that you mean "bullshit?" You quote stories about the treatment of Muslims by Christians at the time of the Crusades, but your article sounds more like a brief for the Muslims rather than a genuine search for truth, leading to rapprochement of rival faiths. (A papal bull is a statement issued by the pope and sealed with a bulla. Look it up. If I had used �bullshit� it would have been unnecessarily disrespectful. And the double-entendre would have been lost. ACA) One cannot deny that both Muslims and Christians have done awful wrongs to the other camp, in history, but must history set forever the agenda for the future? Can't both sides say, "OK now, let's draw a line somewhere; we're living in a different age; draw a line in history and beyond that, no going into grievances of one party to the other, because if we go down that path, we'll all be hostages to history - to people more ignorant, less civilized than we are, who are better off than they partly because of the lessons we see in the things they have done & borne." It wasn't a good column that you wrote because your prejudice is blared throughout the piece - we do not need one-sided views like that which don't contribute anything to what we ought to achieve in this age, that earlier ages did not aspire for - for either side aspired only for victory. You recount the atrocities committed by the crusaders, but are silent about atrocities committed by the other side and the background of the events, the prevailing moral beliefs that might have led good people to think that in getting rid of the Muslims, they were doing the will of God, laying their lives on line for that, actually, for of course the Muslims fought back and at the opportune time retaliated. (The atrocities committed by Muslims against non-Muslims as well as against their fellow Muslims are recounted almost everyday in western media, and do not need any amplification by me. ACA) You picked up quotations from Will Durant's work. How respected a historian is he? Could not equally appalling things be revealed about the Muslims, when they had the power to wield the sword and shoot the arrows? Today, why resurrect the mistakes of history and make them the justification for acts against innocent people in the present? Shouldn't both sides just say- "Let's admit that evil deeds, horrendous acts, were done by both sides; no need for us to go back and make an accounting of everything, forgetting no item to put on the ledger, and if the balance shows that one party is more aggrieved, then that party will be seen to have the RIGHT today to redress the balance and take vengeance on people today for wrongs committed by ancestors centuries past." If we take that attitude, go down that road, human history will, till the end of time, be a highway of blood, all parties wreaking vengeance against all those they see as having wronged them, even centuries or eons ago. If people will adopt the attitude that you seem to think justifies the present acts of the fanatical Muslims, won't future generations of Japanese or Germans have the right, looking at the history of WWII from CENTURIES hence, to say - "We were not fairly beaten, we have the means now, let's take vengeance on the Russians, the Americans, all of the West." A century from now, if say Israel had become a world power, wd. they be justified in saying: "Look at what the Germans did to our ancestors; let's go out now, kill German children we see, set bombs in German cities to blast at German faces, and have our vengeance at last; exterminate the German nation w/ a fusion bomb?" (Agreed. But many Christians are aware only of the atrocities against Christians, but not of the atrocities committed by Christians against non-Christians. An even-handed view of history is needed to transcend hypocrisy and false claims by any side in the controversy. ACA) Is that the kind of attitude you suggest for mankind? If people will accept that as one of the "great ideas," what future, what progress is there for mankind? We have to be aware that human moral concepts do develop through time, and future generations could be more humane than us - e.g. in the treatment of women, of laborers, of animals etc. - such that they'd truly be appalled that in this 21st century humans acted the way they did. There was a time when slavery, the purchase of human beings like work animals, was countenanced even by good people - they couldn't rise above their legacy and the zeitgeist of their time; even Jefferson, that great proclaimer of "human rights" kept slaves. Perhaps if you had lived in Jefferson's time, you also wd. have acted as that great libertarian did, keeping slaves that you knew were kidnapped somewhere in Africa and sold for their muscle, por kilo or to the highest bigger, at the town plaza. Perhaps I too would have been blind to the wrong, or just say it wasn't my business. Let's progress in moral sensitivities, not continually look at the past as basis for present mayhem. You are better educated, more learned, better read than most of your readers; they deserve better guidance from your intelligence and learning. I wish you all the best as a good and honest man, and hope that we get better served by your gifts in the future - by things better than that column on bull. [email protected], Sept. 21, 2006 (We will also appreciate if you will attach your full name to your opinions. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I believe you wrote: "By contrast, when Saladdin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, the 60,000 Christian survivors of the battle were freed on ransom from the English king; captured Christian defenders were reunited with their wives and daughters; Christian pilgrims were guaranteed safe passage to and from the Holy Land . Muslims feel they do not need any lectures on right conduct and morals from any Christian leader." How very true. Christians must learn from the magnanimity of true Muslims and learn to distinguish them from Islamic fundamentalists. for was it not from the basic theses of St. Thomas Aquinas that "generalizations" have been taught to be approached with keen discernment and caution? When Jibril al Tarique from whom "Gribraltar" was named after, crossed the seas from North Africa and invaded the Iberian peninsula , the otherwise barbaric Iberians benefited greatly from the tolerant Muslim rule for centuries. In fact the Castilians, the Aragonese, the Catalans, the Portuguese etc. experienced unprecedented cultural, trade, educational golden years with the Iberians - the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims living under a progressive regime of co-existence. One only has to go to a tour of Spain to understand that most of its rich traditions, institutions and structures, came from the Muslims. This ended of course when Queen Isabella married the king of Aragon and eventually consolidated power to impose subsequent years of inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews and then the Muslims from Spain . That provoked the closure of incoming trade from Africa and the Middle East leading to the virtual collapse of the Spanish economy. This pushed the Spanish Crown to source the needs of its markets from overseas, thus sending Magellan to our shores. Christians, especially we Catholics who got our religion as a result of Castilian divisiveness, must outgrow the historical evil of the inquisition and learn from the teachings of Christ himself who was not Spanish but a Jew. This is to say that even if he did not share the views of someone he quoted, the pope should have known better not to quote him at all. Why? Because he is a pope. Moreover, he is the pope who succeeds one whom the Muslims respected endlessly. John Paul the Great was definitely controversial because he broke barriers between peoples and nations. but I cannot recall an incident where he could have been perceived as a bigot. Adolfo Paglinawan, [email protected], Sept 24, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi! Tony, Among others, perhaps Pope Benedict XVI could pay some attention to what's going on in the Catholic Church in the Philippines. It is the only country in Asia which is predominantly Catholic. Yet, it has managed to become the 2nd most corrupt country in the region and the 9th in the world. How can the Vatican be concerned about other things when its showcase in Asia is a complete failure? Moreover, I have yet to hear the leaders of the Catholic Church in the Philippines say something about their own irrelevance in this country. You're right, no one needs any lecture on right conduct and good morals from the Catholic Church. Regards, Gico Dayanghirang, [email protected], Davao City, Oct. 09, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |