« iPostcard from Africa | Main | Finally!!!! »
September 14, 2006
Bainbridge on Benedict
The Professor on the Pope's Regensburg lecture:
Yet, to see this speech solely in terms of a clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam would be error. Instead, the Pope is staking out a set of claims about the relationshiop 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 is also renewing the claims of the Church Universal to have a truth that is transcendent, rather than culturally-bound:
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
How coincidental - I just finished reading the pope's address over lunch a few minutes ago.
It's one of the best things I've read on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason in a long time. In fact, it's simply one of the best intellectual reflections I've read. Stop and take time to read it if you have not already.
I have often wondered why the essential confluence of the voluntarism of Late Medieval Nominalism and the more radical Reformers with that of Islam hasn't been developed more often.
Posted by: Richard at Sep 14, 2006 3:00:34 PM
And by the way, I fully agree with Professor Bainbridge's take on the lecture as well.
Posted by: Richard at Sep 14, 2006 3:03:22 PM
I read the lecture several days ago. At first it seemed to be a series of declarative sentences in typical lecture format. But further consideration suggests it is a series of questions intermingled with hints towards further research into systemization. I think the clue was the remark some time ago that the Resurrection is the high point of evolution
Posted by: gia at Sep 14, 2006 3:54:50 PM
Benedict is trying to 1) re-claim the former respect for discourse based on reason re: topics that cannot be proved by mathematics or experiment. He gets a subtle dig in at history, anthropology, etc. which consider themselves sciences, but are not consonant with the scientific method. If these subjects are considered OK for university level study and argument, then theology should have its place, too. If not, then everything outside of mathematics and reproducible scientific experiment are fluid and up for grabs.
2) If respected theological/metaphysical discussion is again legitimate, then it may be possible for the West to have useful discussions with non-Western cultures who are aghast at the West's denigration of what is most important in life. This is the source of fury over cartoons. Contemporary Europeans consider religion laughable and not worth respect.
3) And he is pointing out that Islam cannot enter a fruitful discussion with the West until it recognizes that it stands on shifting sands and needs to delineate exactly what Islam is that can be understood from reason. What it has now is unintelligible to the West, either scientifically or metaphysically. On the other hand,the contemporary West cannot have this conversation with Islam either unless it restores a respect for metaphysical discourse based on reason and logic as in #1 & #2 above.
This may be the major point and project of his papacy. Not an overturning of the Enlightenment, but a contextualing of it that leaves out the contempt for religion and makes possible a reprochement with Islam and the end of the bleakness of European civilization.
He's a genius and has been laying the groundwork. The encyclical on Love was to soften up the cynics in order to get their ears.
Posted by: Julia at Sep 14, 2006 3:56:14 PM
A friend thinks Benedict is the greatest Pope since St Peter. He may turn out to be that if he convinces a cold world of the value of rational contemplation and discussion of non-material things and values. Already his presentation is getting serious attention from lots of secular sources - Time, BBC. I'm surprised they are actually trying to understand what he is saying. Maybe his brilliance is shaming them into paying attention. News programs and newspapers excepted, of course. The academic response that will be slower will be interesting. Let's hope they don't just ignore his challenge.
It's so exciting to have Benedict as Pope. People I know who don't even go to Church are reading everything he writes and all his speeches as they come on-line.
God keep him in His care while in Turkey. Besides the quotes, Benedict's references to a Byzantine Emperor is a not-too-subtle reminder that the Muslim Turks were the aggressors against Christendom not the other way around. And the addition of a visit to Hagia Sophia, a very visible reminder that Christianity was there since the time of Constantine and Justinian, is brilliant.
He is certainly making the most use of the time he has left on earth and maybe that helps him to be brave and concise and pointed in what he says and does.
Posted by: Julia at Sep 14, 2006 4:03:48 PM
God Bless Benedict!
I have to agree with Julia. I have more than a suspicion that the man is a genius of high magnitude both in the sense that his intellect is incredible and also that he has a gift for translating his thinking to the popular level.
John Paul, God rest his saintly soul and brilliant and talented mind, unfortunatly lacked the latter to some degree.
But not everyone is perfect, right? Even those who are almost perfect are not immune. Am I right? :-)
The more I know of Benedict, the more I like him and love him. I may feel that the issues between my church and yours go unresolved but nonetheless, I truly and sincerely believe that God has put the right man in the job of Pope at the right time.
Too bad there are those out there who want to ignore the context and the totality of his thinking for the cheap and sensational headline. Its even worse that this good, possibly great, Pope is going to be vilified by Muslims for being at all critical of islam and for actually beliving in his own religion.
No, I'm afraid that the muslims are just getting heated up. They have already latched on the the criticism. Context be damned. The Pope Jihad, like the cartoon Jihad, is only getting started. Any subtleties of the argument will be lost in the rampage and hysteria and those frightened by that will stop listening even to someone who attempts a fair, subtle, academic and rational critique of that faith.
Its sad really. I'm praying that it wont turn out that way but I just cant see how it wont.
Posted by: AnglicanPeggy at Sep 14, 2006 4:30:08 PM
Get this. On CBS News (web site) we have a quote from some official in Turkey employing the muslim "guilt trip" tactic. He says that Muslims would never even think of disrespecting Jesus and the Holy Bible...
And these are the same folks whose whole faith is based on the idea that the Bible is hopelessly corrupted and that Christians devolved into idolators and polytheists hence necessitating the correction of islam??
They have a funny definition of respect.
Posted by: AnglicanPeggy at Sep 14, 2006 4:36:23 PM
If I may be so bold, recalling Fr Schall's closing thought in his critique of the Administrations's choice of the term Islamofascism to describe our foe
"... the first question has to be,
"Why in the first place do they still want
to threaten and, yes, conquer us?"
I suspect we cannot answer this latter question primarily for reasons within our own political philosophy."
perhaps we need to replace the partisan "Europe" with a more inclusive "the West" as in
"a shot across the bow of post-Christian West - a warning that West increasingly lacks the tools demanded to meet the threats of the day."
The Pope is not admonishing Islam, he admonishes us!
If we neglect the gifts of wisdom enunciated by the Greeks without the help of Divine Revelation simply with their natural God-given faculties (see Dr. Jose Yulo's comments on Plato in Sudan),
"As in the case of Gyges, when a government like Sudan’s cloaks itself with the invisibility of other nations’ apathy, wanton atrocity is not far off. Given the freedom to exterminate its minority groups, and the power such actions beget, the Sudanese government conducts itself like the despots of the east so reviled by the Greek political thinkers. These rulers, such as Persia’s Xerxes the Great, appeared to the world as kings of all they surveyed–yet were at their core slaves to their own appetites."
we permit the values of materialistic secularism to define us. If we abandon the philosophical underpinnings needed to diagnose the malaise that has resulted, as Fr. Schall points out, we are politically bankrupt - we have no terms by which to repel "might makes right," and must face our fate ...
Why rest at lecturing higher-education students? Hellenistic thought can be taught at middle and high school if we can mobilize the will to act in defense of Western Culture. Who are the academics who would develop such a syllabus? Can today's Catholic Universities meet the challenge? Will the heirarchy abandon them if they fail us? Are our clerics aware of the needs of the faithful for instruction? Do we have the courage to love - the work of mercy of fraternal correction articulated by B16 - in the face of scorn and ridicule, at home and abroad? This is the dialog the Pope hopes to stimulate ...
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Sep 14, 2006 4:42:10 PM
Interesting points here. I am not religious myself, but I have a visceral reaction to Pope Benedict. That man may well be a genius, I feel. It is fascinating to me to see others reacting the same way I did.
This is what caught my attention. First, I read about him saying in a synagogue in Colgne that Nazism was "born of neo-paganism". That is a whole lot different than the standard line that links Nazism to traditional European anti-Semitism. It will spawn many Ph.D's, for it is an intriguing hypothesis. His idea struck a real chord within me based on my own reading of Nazi history. Then I read about him denying the widespread Western party line about the "clash of civilizations", i.e., the West and the Muslim world. That idea always struck me as too pat, too much a readymade propaganda weapon to help the disastrous foreign policy of Israel. Now there is this new speech that is pretty damn exciting.
Interesting man. Very appealing to intellectuals, I should think.
Posted by: Bob M at Sep 14, 2006 5:07:43 PM
Bob M, A careful reading of the Regensberg U lecture would no doubt help you see that being an "intellectual" isn't in opposition to being a "religious man". That the two go hand-in-hand was a major thesis of his brilliant lecture. Peace.
Posted by: fausmaxII at Sep 14, 2006 5:18:37 PM
Though Benedict's comments were not addressed to Islamic terrorists, there are some applications to that issue, it seems to me. It's popular nowadays to say that the war on terrorism is a contest of ideologies. What does that mean? The Pope's address provides some clues.
Posted by: Mike at Sep 14, 2006 5:20:59 PM
The speech is a development of lines of argument laid out in Ratzinger's "Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions" (first published in German in 2003)
Posted by: Francesca at Sep 14, 2006 5:31:28 PM
fausmaxII, I agree that being an intellectual definitely does not mean any opposition to being religious as well. I hasten to correct any misunderstanding that I may have suggested. But being an intellectual often means, alas, not being a religious man. You have to go where you see truth leading you. And those intellectuals, the non-religious ones, may find Pope Benedict appealing. That is all I meant.
His expression of ideas has put him, whether he wanted or not, in the thick of things. I personally think he is assuming a leadership position that will go beyond Catholicism per se, but time will tell.
Posted by: Bob M at Sep 14, 2006 5:45:43 PM
Looks to me like he's just trying to tell the truth, and provide the West with a moral compass - something that's quite in tune with the actions of his recent predecessors.
Posted by: Doug Barber at Sep 14, 2006 7:08:34 PM
If we are to ignore the unfortunate allusions to Islam, why did Benedict talk about it in the first place? It is there and an unnecessary inflammation instead of wise ecumenism.
Secondly, there is so much written on Muslims and the crusade but we understand so little about it. http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/022406/022406a.php
Benedict is smart but I disagree that there was any brilliance in this talk. Obviously, it takes a lot of apriori baggage to see this as a great lecture. Perhaps we can reflect on that: what kind of baggage do I take with me in every encountering of thought.
Posted by: Bill at Sep 14, 2006 10:55:01 PM
The Pope knew what he was saying, how it would be received, and said it anyway. Our view of reason is a threat not only to secularists, but to Islam. He was speaking on multiple levels to various audiences. John Paul the Great was the subject of terrorist threats several times despite not speaking in this fashion. In their hearts they know that Catholicism simply by being what it is, is a threat.
Bill, everytime I hear a Muslim complain about the crusades I immediately remind myself of how the Holy Land became Muslim in the first place. Crocodile tears as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Fr. J at Sep 14, 2006 11:18:29 PM
Count me as another who had just finished reading it when the 'controversy' broke.
Maybe the Turks are just peeved because BXVI mentioned the Greeks in such positive terms.
This whole thing is frustratingly ludicrous so far as I understand it. Don't anybody bother reading the dang thing before getting offended. Arg.
Posted by: Jules at Sep 15, 2006 4:27:16 AM
I think it's important to point out that B16's language in the original German text is far more critical of the Byzantine emperor's language and argumentation than you would suppose from the English translation at vatican.va. In German, he speaks of the emperor's "astonishing brusqueness, a brusqueness surprising to us (uns ueberraschend)". Also he says the emperor "lashed/slammed" (zugeschlagen). Compare the relevant passage in the English translation, you'll see it reads somewhat less critical.
Posted by: bobo at Sep 15, 2006 6:14:05 AM
