|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Pope Danish?
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Posted by Barnabas62: quote:
Maybe I underestimate just how much background in ideas you need to have to understand his address? It really didn't strike me as at all hard.
Barnabas. Firstly no offence taken. Secondly, yes I think you're right: I think that we (fairly well educated and well read Christians) are actually capable of understanding Benedict's speech without a great deal of difficulty. However, I think that if you gave that speech to your average british secular broadsheet journalist they wouldn't understand it. Now make the leap to a poorly educated, angry Muslim teenager and what to do get? Sadly it seems that you get septigenarian Nuns being murdered in the street.
[ 17. September 2006, 22:35: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
m.t-tomb
Thanks for your kindness. I appreciate your point better now I see it in isolation. To misquote cometchaser from the Hell thread, I'm having a mindnight moment (a mistyped "midnight" has produced a great new word) and can't quite join up the dots of my thinking. Dumbing down is scarier than I'd allowed for. Particularly when associated with a complete absence of any sort of goodwill - or even a willingness to pause for thought. Maybe more later - there may be another thread here.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
One point I haven't seen mentioned so far I heard in a comment on, I think, BBC Radio 4:
As Cardinal Ratzinger, B16 has led a rather secluded and sheltered life in the Vatican; he is a brilliant academic, yet very much a theorist when it comes to applying some of his views to the real world.
The Beeb seems to have lost touch with the real world altogether, Cardinal Ratty the Grand Inquisitor continued to propound the hard line in hard copy while allowing JPII to waffle on the world stage. His views have been in practical evidence since he first became head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1981.
Whichever encyclical or document you read during his tenure you'll find complete fidelity to Rome's claims for itself and its doctrines which are now whatever the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith says they are - the magisterium now carries the stamp of infallibility on matters doctrinal and moral, demanding submission of intellect and will, but not faith, to all its pronouncements, even when they contradict each other. John Paul relied on him completely.
Examples abound, found this page looking for an critique of the apologies given to Jews and all; JPII wanted drama, Ratty didn't want to apologise: http://www.angelfire.com/ma/romewatch/latenew1.html
Myrrh
[ 17. September 2006, 23:29: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Let me go all the way with you, just for the sake of argument. Let me concede, just for the sake of argument, that the catholic church has never up to now really done "Logos" in the terms you require. And so now BXVI says this very reasonable thing. Two positions are possible.
1. God is doing a new thing
2. A leopard doesn't change its spots.
I don't mind which of those you believe. I'm a hopeful person - so I'm going for 1.
According to reports, the Pope has apologised personally for the offence caused and clarified that he does not agree with the offensive parts of the emperor's observations. So it looks as though we have the Pope meeting precisely the concerns of, for example the Muslim Council of Britain. These things also strike me as firsts. Tell you what, if that Turkish political leader withdraws his hideously OTT insults, we might have some signs of an outbreak of peace. And I don't blame the Pope for any of this. Loads of folks stropped, got out of their pram, rather than ask a simple question to test the Pope's goodwill. A lot of that has been, frankly, bloody childish and irresponsible behaviour, and some of it by leaders who ought to know better. Everything gets turned into a pissing contest these days.
But of course, if you reckon that leopards don't change their spots, none of this will strike you as significant. That's entirely up to you. I try to be a reasonable man.
I hope that is sufficiently non-vague and non-obfuscatory for you.
If you're defending B16 on the grounds that this piece shows a new way of thinking for the RCC I can't see it.
As above, he equates rational faith, as Greeks (Orthodox*)have it, with the RCC before the Reformation which doesn't compute since both are Augustine and he it was who introduced violence against heretics as doctrine, and the RCC has run with this ever since. And Augustine it was who put revelation above Christ's words whenever push came to shove, there's nothing rational about RCC doctrine - it puts revelation about itself above all reason.
So, what's new if 1? Well, I think this reference to Greek rationality, remember he's talking to fellow RC theologians, together with the quote from the Orthodox understanding of it in the words of the very Greek Orthodox emperor, could be a continuation of the recent integration of Orthodox concepts into the Catechism (Since Paul VI and the Melkites), and surely all there weren't the least bit ignorant of Rome's doctrines being exactly that of Islam in its use of violence in forced conversion and so on, so is he giving them a new direction to go in re-formulating RCC doctrine for the next generation of priests?
Perhaps, but what on the surface appears to be the RCC failing to admit its past and which some might think 'a past best forgotten as we step into the brave new world of Christ's morals', hasn't actually been left behind as those same theologians know only too well. The doctrines justifying the use of violence and murder are still in place, infallibly so, there are too many centuries of its teaching and practice to pretend otherwise. And the similarity with Islam also can't be avoided in seeing this as a tactic useful in times of weakness, keeping one's head down talking of peace and rational Christian morality as a feint, a distraction, like claiming Islam means peace - how awful those detractors who malign such good and moral teachers by denigrating their motives. But the very orthodox, rational Christ, teaches discernment - not the words, but the fruit.
And the tree bearing the fruit of Islamic doctrine is like the tree bearing the fruit of RCC doctrine, both have infallible teaching on their divine right to use violence. While we can see Islamic tactics in action now wherever they have the means or numbers to express their doctrines fully, we have no reason to believe that the RCC won't claim its divine right to control the worldly sword should it find itself in a similar position of strength in the future, or any reason to believe it isn't exercising those rights in less obvious ways now.
I would have found it significant if he'd mentioned Unam Sanctam, for example. But as it stands it's just an interesting piece to mull over in the knowledge of RCC beliefs about itself, its claim to be the universal Church and its popes the visible Christ for this.
Myrrh
(*Since Charlemagne the Latins have called the Romans in the East, the Greeks - see Unam Sanctam for RCC doctrine about the Greeks.)
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Perhaps, but what on the surface appears to be the RCC failing to admit its past and which some might think 'a past best forgotten as we step into the brave new world of Christ's morals', hasn't actually been left behind as those same theologians know only too well. The doctrines justifying the use of violence and murder are still in place, infallibly so, there are too many centuries of its teaching and practice to pretend otherwise. ...<snip>.
I would have found it significant if he'd mentioned Unam Sanctam, for example. But as it stands it's just an interesting piece to mull over in the knowledge of RCC beliefs about itself, its claim to be the universal Church and its popes the visible Christ for this.
Myrrh
(*Since Charlemagne the Latins have called the Romans in the East, the Greeks - see Unam Sanctam for RCC doctrine about the Greeks.)
Feel free to take these tangents to another thread Myrrh. Don't forget to point out where you found these beliefs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you do so.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Repentance 9:5)
and quote:
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
"find them, sieze them ... "thoroughly subdue" ... "bind a bond firmly on them" ... "when you meet the unbelievers".
Leo, please would you explain just how this relates to self defence? On the plain words it appears to be more a case of "go out and get them".
It must additionally be noted how successful Muslim self defence has been. It took them all the way from the Pyranees to the Indus.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
To Duo
I am adding one comment because I think it relevant to the OP. I am very happy with your ruling about the need for a different thread.
Myrrh
In speaking out when I thought BXVI had been unfairy judged for speaking in the way he did, I have not defended Catholicism or indeed everything the Pope believes. In different circumstances I would do precisely the same for you. I am defending a liberty. If what the Pope did is added to the list of things one cannot do for fear of provoking an angry response, the descent of silence for the sake of "peace in our time" will have taken another step forward. And the need to talk robustly and respectfully, both about cultural co-existence and about the horrors of violence (particularly when done in the name of God) will be frustrated.
Do not assume that I accept the argument of your previous post. I showed a consequence if one did accept it. This thread has been about whether the Pope was provocative, (that's the "Danish" in the OP), not whether the doctrines of the catholic church are in some way "anti-Logos". In speaking this way, I also defend my freedom to argue that I find any of them "anti-Logos" if that is the way they seem to me. Or point to a central flaw if that is the way it seems to me. And similarly the doctrines of Islam as interpreted by certain schools, and the consequential behaviour of some Muslims. And my belief that it is still possible to do these things robustly, and with respect. "If possible, in so far as it lies with me, I seek to live at peace with all men." I'm sure you recognise the ancient source for that core value, which is dear to me.
Pardon me, I mean no disrespect to you, but your less-than-perfect inferences drawn from my comments suggest to me that your stereotypes are showing. I am afraid you have pre-judged me. Got me wrong.
[ 18. September 2006, 06:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
hatless
Just a quick follow up to your "creative moment" comment. Have you seen this quote attributed to the Muslim Council of Britain? From this news report.
quote:
The Muslim Council of Britain said the Pope's expression of regret was "exactly the reassurance many Muslims were looking for" while the Council of Muslims in Germany said it was an "important step" towards calming the unrest of recent days.
And we also have this one.
quote:
But there have been further protests in Iran and Indonesia while influential Qatari Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, called for a day of anger against the Pope on Friday.
Apparently, he's regarded as a moderate.
On the whole I'd be pleased if there is some genuine debate within Islam, even if still affected by anger, about the possibility of dialogue with this Pope. If that is rejected, it will be a real turn for the worse.
So this is a creative moment but still, clearly, on a knife edge. A matter for prayer, I reckon.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Perhaps, but what on the surface appears to be the RCC failing to admit its past and which some might think 'a past best forgotten as we step into the brave new world of Christ's morals', hasn't actually been left behind as those same theologians know only too well. The doctrines justifying the use of violence and murder are still in place, infallibly so, there are too many centuries of its teaching and practice to pretend otherwise. ...<snip>.
I would have found it significant if he'd mentioned Unam Sanctam, for example. But as it stands it's just an interesting piece to mull over in the knowledge of RCC beliefs about itself, its claim to be the universal Church and its popes the visible Christ for this.
Myrrh
(*Since Charlemagne the Latins have called the Romans in the East, the Greeks - see Unam Sanctam for RCC doctrine about the Greeks.)
Feel free to take these tangents to another thread Myrrh. Don't forget to point out where you found these beliefs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you do so.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
They're not tangent to the original OP and perhaps worth a thread of its own, but I'm not interested in starting one. The CCC is an example of what has to be taken into consideration here if we're wondering what the Pope meant by this speech.
As I said, Orthodox, i.e. the 'Greek' influence has been brought into the Catechism and where it contradicts classic RCC doctrine you'll find the 'infallible teaching of centuries' not expunged, but relegated to the footnotes. The Original Sin doctrine of Augustine is not at all obvious anymore, but the CCC begins by confirming that all the councils where dogma was established such as Orange and Trent, are still counted true councils to reference true RC doctrine. Pope John Paul stated clearly that the RCC is faithful to Augustine's teaching and he continued to expound this, but the CCC has now incorporated Orthodox concepts which are incompatible with this. There are young Catholics and converts since VatII who argue that Augustine's Original Sin doctrine was never taught by the RCC! It's when they argue against Catholics who were brought up before all these changes that it becomes obvious, and hurtful.
I've read such arguments where older and elderly Catholics brought up with the sure and certain knowledge that their unbaptised children retaining the stain of Original Sin were condemned to eternal separation from God can't get to grips with the youngsters telling them this isn't RC doctrine still. But it is, the RCC hasn't jettisoned Augustine merely hidden him to make its doctrines appear more 'reasonable', for various purposes. In effect, the change is that Rome no longer bothers with doctrines as its defining motif except for one, CCC 882 and 883.
But, as this relates to his speech, I've no more to say on it than I've already done - that B16 continues in this 'deception' by associating itself, pre-Reformation, with Orthodox thinking, Manuel II, and in this denies its Augustine heritage of unreason which began the doctrines justifying violence in the interests of 'the Christian Church'.
As I said, this was mentioned by one Muslim interviewed and isn't lost on other Muslim scholars who know RCC history as well as their own. So, if some argue B16's motive as greater openess in discussing the idea that violence in promoting God contradicts God there's nothing in the speech that indicates it since it excludes RCC history and doctrine.
Is all I'm saying here. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It might help if you did what you were told before all the waffle, myrhh - or don't you think that Host's words apply to you?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
It is worth pointing out that there is not a 'Catholic view' on every issue. Many (most?) questions are open. On other things the Church has teaching, of varying levels of authority. The Church has certainly never taught de fide that the unbaptised go to 'Limbo'.
[ETA : in reply to M.]
[ 18. September 2006, 09:07: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It is worth pointing out that there is not a 'Catholic view' on every issue. Many (most?) questions are open. On other things the Church has teaching, of varying levels of authority. The Church has certainly never taught de fide that the unbaptised go to 'Limbo'.
[ETA : in reply to M.]
You've just proved my point.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It is worth pointing out that there is not a 'Catholic view' on every issue. Many (most?) questions are open. On other things the Church has teaching, of varying levels of authority. The Church has certainly never taught de fide that the unbaptised go to 'Limbo'.
[ETA : in reply to M.]
You've just proved my point.
Myrrh
HOSTING
Myrrh - I can assure you that any Host's words most definitely apply to you.
I have already told you to take these tangents about general Catholic beliefs to another thread. In reply you have simply introduced yet another tangent about Orthodox teaching in Catholic belief and teachings of the Catholic Church. Stick to the point and stop derailing this thread.
This position is completely consistent with the position we have taken earlier with respect to the attempts by andreas1984 to turn this thread into yet another thread about Orthodoxy.
And if you want to discuss any Host's ruling then the place to do so is in the Styx, not on the thread.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
[ 18. September 2006, 09:39: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Jumping right back to the OP:
It’s ironic that Pope Benedict implies in his speech that Islam promotes violence and the Muslim response (predictably) includes violence. As time goes by I imagine conservative commentators will have to spend less and less time combating the notion Islam is a religion of peace because Muslim actions such as bombings, wars and suicide attacks will be evidence enough.
[rant] While it is easy to poke fun at the lack of Islamic tolerance (Muhammad Cartoons Controversy) my real worry is for the Christians who have to live under the yoke of Islamic authority. Christians in Muslim majority countries face persecution and sometimes death for being Christians. I hope and pray that one day all muslims including the terrorists will renounce Islam and become Christians! [/rant]
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
quote:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Repentance 9:5)
and quote:
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
"find them, sieze them ... "thoroughly subdue" ... "bind a bond firmly on them" ... "when you meet the unbelievers".
Leo, please would you explain just how this relates to self defence? On the plain words it appears to be more a case of "go out and get them".
It must additionally be noted how successful Muslim self defence has been. It took them all the way from the Pyranees to the Indus.
To repeat what I posted - from Penguin Classic version of the Qur'an: p. 343 where Muslims are bidden to ‘fight against those who fight you’ – i.e. self-defence. Then on p. 346 self-defence is the only reason given for fighting – this time the context is unbelievers fighting Muslims with the intention of trying to make them give up Islam.
The Repentance sura is a continuation of the same context.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To repeat what I posted - from Penguin Classic version of the Qur'an: p. 343 where Muslims are bidden to ‘fight against those who fight you’ – i.e. self-defence. Then on p. 346 self-defence is the only reason given for fighting – this time the context is unbelievers fighting Muslims with the intention of trying to make them give up Islam.
The Repentance sura is a continuation of the same context.
The trouble with arguing with you, Leo, on this subject is that you seem to be insisting that there is only one Islamic teaching on violence - or at least only one that can claim to be correct. Certainly it is true that many Muslim scholars claim that jihad is essentially defensive. Many have argued both in the past and present, that Jihad is both defensive and offensive. In fact some very influential Islamist thinkers - I have in mind Mawdudi and Qutb - have an exceedingly belligerent view.
I hope the self-defensive and spiritual view of jihad eventually wins the day. But this is by no means a foregone conclusion because it requires either, a retreat from literalism and a rejection of violent episodes in Islam's past (much as Christians have widely done); or alternatively an extraordinarily selective reading of the Koran and a fantastically revisionist view of history.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think I would feel more reassured about those intepretations were there balancing passages - the bible has it's fair share of bloodthirsty accounts, and warlike language. However, there are also extraordinary injunctions towards peacefull living.
I listened to this service this morning.
The following example was given by a muslim as an example of Islamic teaching on peace;
quote:
The prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, was told in a dream to perform what is called the lesser pilgrimage..... Stopping at a place called Hudaybiya he encountered members of the tribe of the Quraysh who did not want to give him access to Mecca. Potential conflict.... was averted by the Prophet's dialogue with the representatives of the Quraysh, and the treaty which emerged from these conversations, the terms of which allowed him to make a pilgrimage to Mecca the following year without risk of attack, the Quraysh agreeing to clear the city of its inhabitants for three days. It also stipulated that there would be no fighting between Muslims and the Quraysh for ten years.... This would avoid bloodshed and lead to a lasting peace, the kind of peace which injunction after injunction in the Qu'ran calls Muslims to promote.
It struck me as a rather anaemic example of committment to peace. Mohammed decides not to slaughter a group of people who are uneasy about allowing him and his followers onto their land. (I understand he later subdued them by force of arms, in any case.).
Are there better examples anywhere in the Quran or the Hadiths?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RCD
Shipmate
# 11440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Posted by Barnabas62: quote:
Maybe I underestimate just how much background in ideas you need to have to understand his address? It really didn't strike me as at all hard.
Barnabas. Firstly no offence taken. Secondly, yes I think you're right: I think that we (fairly well educated and well read Christians) are actually capable of understanding Benedict's speech without a great deal of difficulty. However, I think that if you gave that speech to your average british secular broadsheet journalist they wouldn't understand it. Now make the leap to a poorly educated, angry Muslim teenager and what to do get? Sadly it seems that you get septigenarian Nuns being murdered in the street.
In my personal opinion, the text itself has not been read at all because everyone happens to read the newpaper for information. I asked one of my friends about the issue and he told me:
"The Pope called the prophet Mohammad salla allahu aleyhi wasalaam an evil man and said President Bush and the Jews were correct in fighting Muslims"
which of course, he must have got from reading the learned articles in the Arabic daily. The English dailies have been a little more moderate, though some have spared no effort to point out the horrible savagery of Christians through the centuries compared with the pure, untainted (and peaceful) message of Islam.
Again, only my opinion, but the really sad thing is that it seems to have reached the point where practically every Muslim majority country leader was compelled to criticize the Pope because everyone else was doing it; in order not to be seen as less than enthusiastic Muslims.
[ 18. September 2006, 16:10: Message edited by: RCD ]
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
The Pope's full address is fascinating, and Muslims have little excuse for protesting against it because upon reading it as a whole it becomes fairly damn obvious that it's not really about Islam, but about the place of reason and philosophy in Christian, here specifically Roman Catholic, theology.
On p. 2 of the address, Benedict XVI says:
'The emperor must have known that sura 2: 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It 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 recorder in the Koran, concerning holy war.'
So what he is exposing here, the only part of his address where he mentions Islam (and he mentions it rather than discussing it in detail), is the problem of internal contradiction within a religion. Or in different terms, he is posing the question of whether or not God operates above morality.
It looks like he is using the example of the discussion of the Koran by the Byzantine emperor as a foil for his own vision of how Roman Catholic theology should operate.
In this respect it's not that dissimilar formally to how Karl Barth used occasional and very brief references to Islam as anti-trinitarian and Mohammed as a warmonger as a foil for his own vision of modern reformed protestant theology in an internal battle against liberalism in the German Church struggle. (Apart from that there are lots of significant differences between Barth's treatment of the German Christians and Islam, and Benedict XIV's address).
I don't think it's reasonable to accuse the Pope of 'sophistry' given that he was giving a lecture at a university. Bending over backwards to assuage Muslim sensibilities here would leave the door open to attacking all critical study of theology and religion, which very much lie at the heart of the western university system from the medieval period onwards. The Pope should never therefore issue the kind of apology that many Muslims are still looking for.
I'll also stick my neck out and say just how fed up to the back teeth I am with so-called 'global Muslim outrage' every time someone makes a slightly less than flattering statement about Islam. It's obviously emotional manipulation on a grand scale. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[ 18. September 2006, 16:32: Message edited by: The Lady of the Lake ]
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Barnabas62's post referencing pronouncements of a London and a German Islamic council regarding the Pope's apology are curious. It struck me that we haven't heard such concerted Muslim pronouncements heretofore when there has been plenty of Muslim violence that could be condemned.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Yes that's right. On reflection it is rather curious that so many of the Muslim protests about the Crusades are obsessed about historical events from centuries ago that simply can't be undone. Living in the past is not a good sign for any sort of community.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Barnabas62's post referencing pronouncements of a London and a German Islamic council regarding the Pope's apology are curious. It struck me that we haven't heard such concerted Muslim pronouncements heretofore when there has been plenty of Muslim violence that could be condemned.
"We" have heard such things befiore, for a different version of "we". Maybe the US TV news is differently selective than the British.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Jumping right back to the OP:
It’s ironic that Pope Benedict implies in his speech that Islam promotes violence and the Muslim response (predictably) includes violence. As time goes by I imagine conservative commentators will have to spend less and less time combating the notion Islam is a religion of peace because Muslim actions such as bombings, wars and suicide attacks will be evidence enough.
[rant] While it is easy to poke fun at the lack of Islamic tolerance (Muhammad Cartoons Controversy) my real worry is for the Christians who have to live under the yoke of Islamic authority. Christians in Muslim majority countries face persecution and sometimes death for being Christians. I hope and pray that one day all muslims including the terrorists will renounce Islam and become Christians! [/rant]
or Taoists
[fixed quote UBB]
[ 19. September 2006, 01:33: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759
|
Posted
With Chinese whispers like the following:
quote:
In my personal opinion, the text itself has not been read at all because everyone happens to read the newpaper for information. I asked one of my friends about the issue and he told me:
"The Pope called the prophet Mohammad salla allahu aleyhi wasalaam an evil man and said President Bush and the Jews were correct in fighting Muslims"
No wonder Muslims were burning effigy's of the Pope!
Thanks
Centurion
[ 18. September 2006, 18:55: Message edited by: centurion ]
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
I think a lot of the problem is that some Muslim leaders are not so much malicious as plain stupid.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Warm Regards,
Feroze H. Mithiborwala (Social Activist)
Syed Iftikhar Ahmed (Editor, Weekly Shodhan, Mumbai)
Sarfaraz Arzu (Editor, Daily Hindustan, Mumbai)
Meraj Siddiqui (Social Activist)
Hanif Lakdawala (Academic)
Muhammad Anis (Social Activist)
Hardly muslim leaders. If they're muslim leaders, let's hear Melanie Phillips' insight.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Warm Regards,
Feroze H. Mithiborwala (Social Activist)
Syed Iftikhar Ahmed (Editor, Weekly Shodhan, Mumbai)
Sarfaraz Arzu (Editor, Daily Hindustan, Mumbai)
Meraj Siddiqui (Social Activist)
Hanif Lakdawala (Academic)
Muhammad Anis (Social Activist)
Hardly muslim leaders. If they're muslim leaders, let's hear Melanie Phillips' insight.
Whatever. They are still thick.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
the Muslim response (
So, in spite of there being millions of Muslims worldwide, we are to believe there is only one 'Muslim response''?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It struck me as a rather anaemic example of committment to peace. Mohammed decides not to slaughter a group of people who are uneasy about allowing him and his followers onto their land. (I understand he later subdued them by force of arms, in any case.).
Didn't last very long according to this page, four years.
quote:
· Treaty of Hudaibiya (626 AD) was signed with the pagans of Mecca ensuring ten years of peace. Mohammad was allowed to visit Kaba along with his followers during the pilgrimage season.
......
Phase 4: Offensive war or open declaration of attack to spread Islam
This phase is the stage of open offensive war against all the unbelievers. This phase started in 630 AD after Mohammad re-entered Mecca and captured Kaba from the pagans.
http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/blog/2006/03/13/the-two-faces-of-the-quran/
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
That looks like a fine unbiased source, Myrrh.
No, wait. It doesn't.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Why do I suspect that a website with the URL 'tellthechildrenthetruth.com' might not be the most balanced source of information?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
the Muslim response (
So, in spite of there being millions of Muslims worldwide, we are to believe there is only one 'Muslim response''?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of variety in the response, except in the level of violence. Have you heard one prominent Muslim say "Well, if you actually read the whole of th Pope's lecture, you will see that there is nothing to get upset about", or "Who gives a shit what the Pope thinks, anyway?". Come to think of it, I haven't heard a prominent Muslim condemn any of the recent violence or obnoxious threats made by other Muslims. But that is usual.
[ 18. September 2006, 22:02: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Most Muslims I know are too busy working, bringing up children and otherwise getting on with tediously normal lives to comment on, or possibly even have an opinion on, current affairs.
How would you feel if large numbers of people were criticising 'Christians' in general for not being vociferous enough in their criticism of, say, Fred Phelps?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Why do I suspect that a website with the URL 'tellthechildrenthetruth.com' might not be the most balanced source of information?
Then do your own research. And while you're doing it see if you can find teaching from Islam that stress equality of all regardless of beliefs.
The page I quoted from is the classic explanation of how to read the Koran, in chronological order not in the mixed order it appears and with the understanding that later verses overrule previous ones. Mohammed built up his doctrines on the fly, in response to the situations as he dealt with the problems which arose.
The above is a good example. And from this time Mohammed went on the offensive and this is still the current position.
quote:
Phase 4: Offensive war or open declaration of attack to spread Islam
This phase is the stage of open offensive war against all the unbelievers. This phase started in 630 AD after Mohammad re-entered Mecca and captured Kaba from the pagans. This is the phase, which is currently valid for all Muslims.
Highlights
· Permission was granted by God to declare offensive war against all non-Muslims.
· Kill the pagans and humble the Jews and the Christians through Jizya tax.
· Tabuk expedition (late 630 AD) is the first war against the Christians.
· The world is divided into two houses, viz. House of Islam (Darul Islam) and the House of war (Darul Harb).
· All Muslims must fight to convert the Darul Harb into Darul Islam.
· This is the final teaching of Qur’an and so it is valid today and for future (that is, for eternity).
· Christians are included in the list of enemies (that is, the list now grows to four).
· Verse 9:5 (also called the verse of the sword) replaces all verses showing mercy, love, tolerance and forgiveness to all non-Muslims.
Myrrh
[ 18. September 2006, 22:09: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Then do your own research.
Will I buggery. You're the one trying to prove a case. And until you do so by reference to websites which do not scream 'far Right screed' I am not even going to take you seriously enough to get annoyed at you.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The old chestnut that there's plenty of violence in the Bible as well and that Christian history is full of violence holds no water in my view. Though both are true we must remember that Christians follow a founder who told his followers to turn the other cheek and who meekly gave his life as a ransom for many. If his followers have brutally treated others, they have done so against the teachings of the Lord.
Islam is different. Its founder was a violent warlord. The faith was spread about at the point of a sword with numerous forced conversions. Its whole ethos is to destroy the infidel who can't be conveted. Its true that Christians have done the same, but that isn't the message of Christianity which teaches love and forgiveness. So the two cultures are not equal in their espousal of violence.
I heard a Muslim protester outside Westminster Cathedral on the news. He said that anyone who insults the prophet or Islam can expect a death sentence. Apart from the fact that this man should have been arrested under the new religious hatred laws, he had the temerity to spout this vile shit on the streets of my City. Even though it goes against what Jesus said, if these people want a fight we are going to have to give them one.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Come to think of it, I haven't heard a prominent Muslim condemn any of the recent violence or obnoxious threats made by other Muslims. But that is usual.
I haven't heard a prominent Muslim do so, but I've read two or three of the people that the Guardian considers prominent Muslims do just that.
(And so has Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, of course.)
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Apart from the fact that this man should have been arrested under the new religious hatred laws
Incitement to murder was a criminal offence for some time before Mr Blair's latest incursion on our historic liberties.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And while you're doing it see if you can find teaching from Islam that stress equality of all regardless of beliefs.
Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
]Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?
No, but I might crash an aeroplane into your house because of your sig.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?
No, but I might crash an aeroplane into your house because of your sig.
Fiddleback, I went around the houses with coiled spring over my sig not so long ago. Leave it out. Please.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RCD:
Again, only my opinion, but the really sad thing is that it seems to have reached the point where practically every Muslim majority country leader was compelled to criticize the Pope because everyone else was doing it; in order not to be seen as less than enthusiastic Muslims.
You voice a concern of mine. Extremist suicide bombers have a frightening power - so do mobs. It may require more courage than we allow for to swim against this particular tide. Particularly if you are a Muslim. BTW did you notice IngoB's post a couple of pages back? Here's the link.
It is wrong to underestimate the risks a Muslim may incur as a result of voicing an opinion like that. There are many people in the world now who are not in the least interested in peaceful co-existence. Here's another quote from the IngoB link.
quote:
Why is it that Muslims, especially the so-called moderates, never stand up with similar and as much enthusiasm against the true and perpetual profaners of Islam, the Islamic terrorists who massacre Muslims themselves in the name of the same God , the Islamic extremists who legitimize the destruction of Israel and inculcate faith in the so-called Islamic “martyrdom”, while in the meantime they feel themselves dutybound to promote a sort of Islamic “holy war” against the head of the Catholic Church who legitimately expresses his evaluations concerning Islam, with respect but with just as much clarity about the diversity that naturally exists between the two religions?
<emboldening by B62>
Why indeed? Well, you don't have to be that smart to figure out an answer or two to that originally rhetorical question.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
How would you feel if large numbers of people were criticising 'Christians' in general for not being vociferous enough in their criticism of, say, Fred Phelps?
But that's just it, if Christians are criticised they will argue with words, instead of burning effigies, fire bombing buildings or issuing fatwas. Fred Phelps and his small gang of cronies hardly represents even a minority view of Christianity. By contrast there seem to be plenty of Muslims who are happy with the violent responses of other Muslims to direct or indirect criticisms of Islam. Where are the Muslim leaders from Tehran , Cairo and Mecca calling for restraint and dialogue with Christianity and condemning any violent response?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by myself:
I heard a Muslim protester outside Westminster Cathedral on the news. He said that anyone who insults the prophet or Islam can expect a death sentence.
To briefly expand on this point: The man said that he was making a peaceful protest but that there may be other Muslims who would take it much further. To me this is tantamount to saying that the Pope is under a fatwa. The Vatican switchboard has received numerous death threats to the Pope since this story broke. The amount of taxpayers money which went into protecting Salman Rushdie from a fatwa would be a pittance compared to protecting the Pope.
The Pope is well protected, the more so after the shooting of his predecessor, but an organisation determined enough to carry it out could be hard to stop. It would be sensible for him to shelve his planned trip to Turkey.
[code]
[ 19. September 2006, 01:04: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And while you're doing it see if you can find teaching from Islam that stress equality of all regardless of beliefs.
Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?
T.
All of Christ's teaching is to become perfect as God is perfect, to love all regardless of who or what they are or if they are friends or enemies.
And that didn't change over time as did Mohammed's teaching. Christ, Father forgive them for they know not what they do, while Mohammed finished up with four enemies on his list because his ego got hurt in the process of putting himself forward as special.
Which began at Medina when he got a band of fellow brigands together and started attacking caravans. He turned into a thief and thug and only nice to those who agreed with him, yer typically bully on a winning streak.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I respect a certain amount of circumspection and skepticism with respect to one's own heritage, rather than swallowing it whole. But ultimately one must stand for something. What might begin as sensitivity and perceptiveness can end as rudderlessness. One risks digging one's own grave and those of many others as well.
If the condescending attitude to the pope and his statement implicit in the "liberal" western media I follow is typical, then I must, however reluctantly, take another look at neo-conservatism, perhaps as articulated by Douglas Murray. It's scary when he's the only type who can "look at the world through classically liberal eyes, but wear good glasses. A neocon is a realist with morals, or a moralist with good eyesight."
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
]Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?
No, but I might crash an aeroplane into your house because of your sig.
Take that to Hell Fiddleback. Getting rather vilely personal aren't we?
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Now make the leap to a poorly educated, angry Muslim teenager and what to do get? Sadly it seems that you get septigenarian Nuns being murdered in the street.
This is pure crap! The pope is in no way whatever responsible for some evil Muslim fuckwit shooting that Italian nun in Somalia in the back. If you must seek guilt other than in precisely that evil Muslim fuckwit, then seek it in the Western media (BBC front and center) which has nothing better to do than to reduce the pope's fine speech into offensive soundbites and push those soundbites across the globe. Or seek it in the religious and political "leaders" of the Muslim world who spoonfeed hate-filled drivel to their uneducated poor. Or seek it in those uneducated poor, who let themselves be manipulated with ridiculous ease into violent riots. But to restrict one's thoughts and speech in order to avoid the reaction of the "axis of evil stupidity" (Western main stream media - radical Muslim "leaders" - gullible Muslim rioters) simply means that they have won. The pope by virtue of his office has to exercise a certain prudence, but if he can't say anymore what he said in an university setting, then the end of our Western civilization truly is near. Maybe it is time to stand up and fight the powers and principalities...
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Pope is well protected, the more so after the shooting of his predecessor, but an organisation determined enough to carry it out could be hard to stop. It would be sensible for him to shelve his planned trip to Turkey.
I don't know about that one. Turkey is the exemplary case of a "modern Muslim democracy", it's very important for Europe and the European RCC to get Turkey right. And Turkey is in a unique situation since they do wish so much to join the EU, i.e., they can be pressured. Finally, Turkey is a former heartland of Christianity and while it would be mostly on behalf of Orthodox rather than RC communities, there's still considerable duty of care for the Christian heritage and remaining Christian population. I would not be surprised if Benedict XVI risked the somewhat increased chance of martyrdom and visited anyway...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Adding to my post, it appears the pope is on for Turkey:
quote:
Asia News:
And this morning, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Turkey, as planned, met in Istanbul to discuss details of the trip’s itinerary. They were joined by Mgr Piero Marini, head of the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations. They share the view that at this point, there is no reason to call off the visit and in fact, after reading together the statement of clarification by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the bishops turned their attention to details of the trip set to take place as scheduled from 28 November to 1 December.
He has my prayers for a safe trip. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Asia News also carries a reasonable comment by the former Iranian President Khatami:
quote:
Asia News:
Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said the full text of the Pope speech in Regensburg should be read before making any comments on its contents.
“I hope that the reports in this regard are misinterpreted as such remarks [as reported in the press] are usually made by uninformed and fanatic people but my impression of the pope was rather an educated and patient man,” Khatami said after his return to Tehran from a two-week visit to the United States.
Here's an excellent interview with Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Catholic Church's ecumenical representative:
quote:
Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: Do you think a dialogue on equal footing is possible?
Kasper: One cannot be naïve when engaging in this dialogue. Islam undoubtedly deserves respect. It has some things in common with Christianity, such as Abraham as a common progenitor, and the belief in only one God. But Islam developed in opposition to orthodox Christianity from the very start, and it considers itself superior to Christianity. So far, it has only been tolerant in places where it is in the minority. Where it is the majority religion, Islam does not recognize religious freedom, at least not as we understand it. Islam is a different culture. This doesn't mean that it's an inferior culture, but it is a culture that has yet to connect with the positive sides of our modern Western culture: religious freedom, human rights and equal rights for women. These shortcomings are one reason so many Muslims feel such frustration that often turns into hatred and violence against the West, which is despised as being godless and decadent. Suicide attacks are the actions of losers who have nothing left to lose. In this case, Islam serves as a mask, a cover for desperation and nihilism, but not for religion.
Is it just me, or has Cardinal Kasper been talking more and more sense as of late? As a reminder here's the pope 2005 speech to the Muslims in Cologne:
quote:
Vatican:
Past experience teaches us that, unfortunately, relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding. How many pages of history record battles and wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing, the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.
The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity. The defence of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization.
And finally, somebody else has expressed some of my own vague thoughts about "why this quote" more clearly:
quote:
Christopher Orlet:
At the time of his reign (1391-1425) the Muslim Turks had their sights set on the empire's capital of Constantinople. In 1399, Manuel traveled to England, France, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and Aragon seeking assistance from the various monarchs and courts. His visit was a complete bust. The split between the Greek Orthodox and Roman churches proved too wide. Unless the Greeks agreed to join the Roman Church there would be no troops, no assistance, and the Greeks were not about to surrender their autonomy to Rome, not even to save the empire, their religion and their lives.
The result: Within a few years the Turks would take Constantinople, rename it Istanbul, and the Roman-Byzantine Empire would disappear forever from the earth. (In an ironic aside, Manuel's son Constantine, the last Byzantine-Roman emperor, was killed in battle defending the capital. Legend has it that he discarded his purple cloak and charged into the fray taking so many cuts and blows that his corpse was unrecognizable. Thus, the last Roman emperor was laid to rest in a mass grave.)
I suspect that the Pope was hoping to make the point that unless the West comes together, heals its divisions, and faces the threat of radical Islam together, it may face a similar fate as the Roman-Byzantine Empire. Naturally Benedict couldn't come right and make such a bald statement -- just as Benedict's predecessor Pope Pius XII had to be similarly circumspect during Nazi rule -- so he couched his remark in an obscure reference by a forgotten historical figure. The pope knew that he would have to apologize later for his statement, still he believed it important enough to risk it.
That is still for me the million dollar question - was the quote on purpose, or an absent minded gaffe of an elderly academic who is not used to world attention? It's much more interesting if it was on purpose.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
<snip>
That is still for me the million dollar question - was the quote on purpose, or an absent minded gaffe of an elderly academic who is not used to world attention? It's much more interesting if it was on purpose.
And also more morally ambiguous, IngoB. If I give you an analogy from scripture, when Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, it was undoubtedly a righteous act but it was one which he knew would lead to violence and retribution. Which fell on him.
In this world, some Muslims, when provoked do indeed visit violence on any related target. These are acts of great evil. They are foreseeable. So an act which provokes may put at risk the innocent. So the dilemma is, how does one engage the Muslim community in recognising the wrongness of these irrational and vicious explosions? Is the fear of provocation and its consequences such that in order to be prudent one must always be bland in public? In principle, my gorge rises at this sort of silencing.
What has happened, I believe, is that this basically nonsensical reaction to a quotation from a medieval text has demonstrated with great power and force a deep malaise within present day Islam. What I also believe is that if the Pope was to draft the speech to Regensberg today, he would probably include the phrase. "Of course these views do not represent my own personal opinion and my reason for quoting from this text is ......". Without any loss of force of argument. There would have been nothing like this reaction, I believe, (though I'm pretty sure there would have been some.)
I think hatless is right in believing we have a creative moment here. I've been praying for some positive responses from within Islam. The quote from Mohammad Khatami is very helpful. And, as I said earlier, those who express more moderate opinions within Islam also run significant risks these days.
If i can characterise it this way, I still believe that robust and constructive dialogue is possible and better than a despairing out-and-out confrontation. This brouhaha may have increase the possibility of both, but we should go for dialogue. Not as an act of appeasement but because, hopefully, there is now some mutual recognition about how dangerously out-of-control things have got.
One of my favourite commentators from the radical wing of evangelicalism is Jim Wallis. He characterises politicians as folks whose behaviour is far too often characterised by them licking their fingers, sticking them in the air, and test which way the wind is blowing. So they can follow it.
He contrasts such behaviour with people who make a difference (Tutu, Mandela, Ghandi, King, Theresa of Calcutta, JPII), who he describes as "wind-changers". I very much like a great deal of what I have seen and read from this Pope since he took on this office. I believe, and am hoping, that BXVI is a "wind-changer". I think God is very much in this moment. Turkey looks like being an excellent test of the possibility of new beginnings.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
