« The speech | Main | Bertone Clarifies »
September 16, 2006
More Pontificating
The NYTimes demands an apology:
(underlining and red stuff my emphasis. I'm really offended at outraged that the New York Times has insulted the leader of my religious tradition. I demand an apology! More tomorrow.)
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”
In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” (scare quotes...why???) the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “Show me just what Muhammad 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.”
(So...now we live in a world in which quoting 14th century texts necessitates apologies?)
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism. (And a few Muslims around the world have burned an effigy of the Pope, held angry protests and have said that the Pope's words might inspire violence...which argues against the purported point being made...how?)
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.
In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”
A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
(Please send me links to the NYTimes editorials calling on Muslim leaders to offer deep and persuasive apologies for pervasive, virulent and demonic anti-Semitic speech and action endemic in the Middle East, as well as the persecution of non-Muslims in many Muslim countries. Thanks much. It shouldn't take long.)
The. Gall.
I'll have more to say at some point tomorrow. Meanwhile, you have a go. You'll do better than I at this point, considering my brain just exploded.
(And in case you're slow- that request for links is called "sarcasm")
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I suppose refusing to subscribe to the NY Times wouldn't be enough of a response?
Posted by: T. Chan at Sep 16, 2006 1:35:44 AM
Well, that's the NYT for you -- I could carve a better backbone out of a banana.
Posted by: S.M. Stirling at Sep 16, 2006 1:38:54 AM
If everyone would just actually read the Holy Father's remarks, they would see there is nothing remotely insulting to Islam. And if there was, so what? Where are Islam's apologies for the wrongs it has committed over the centuries against Christianity? Don't hold your breath. As for the NY Times, I spit on it and their filthy editorial board of scum.
Posted by: Marco, Triumphalistic Papist at Sep 16, 2006 1:43:53 AM
Amy,
You ask us to write the Times and link examples of hate speech coming from Muslims, as though turnabout is fair play. I don't think what the Pope said WAS hate speech but a million examples of one kind doesn't legitimize another kind.
My objection to the Times piece is that they are piling on when they know better and attacking and attempting to humiliate and marginalize someone who opposes them in other matters and in the speech itself. Who better than the editors and columnists at the Times epitomize the effort to wipe faith off the stage and give the podium to those who are "reasonable" enough to be atheists or, at least, keep faith in its place out of sight and at home?
Posted by: Jane at Sep 16, 2006 2:18:18 AM
"As for the NY Times, I spit on it and their filthy editorial board of scum."
Well said, my thought's exactly! What an amazing display of hipocrisy, stupidity and misrepresentation of the Holy Father's words. Good for them that us Catholics aren't violent fanatics like the moslems they're trying to appease, or they would be fearing for their lives because of this editorial... or not, since they probably would never publish something like this in the first place. They're truly pathetic, it's all I can say.
Posted by: Veronica at Sep 16, 2006 2:26:33 AM
Somewhere, Walter Duranty is murmuring "Well played, sirs!"
Posted by: Sonetka at Sep 16, 2006 2:45:48 AM
Benedict begins by speaking of the great faculties at that college that approached God in faith through reason because God is reason. He tells the story about the 14th c. debate and notes that Constantinople was under siege [by the Turks] shortly thereafter, perhaps making a point about reason and violence.
The story notes that it was only when Muhammed had achieved great power that he made a change in the Koran, allowing for violent conversions. Perhaps, Benedict was making a point about abuses that can come from mighty temporal power.
He ends by saying "the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf... The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."
To me, he is saying there is no distinction between faith and reason because God - who is love - is also reason. And, through reason, we can convince others.
Posted by: Dudley at Sep 16, 2006 2:55:20 AM
While you wait for the Angelus, pray for our priests preparing to preach on Who do you say that I am? the theme for Catechetical Sunday and the coming year of study. Don't tell the NYTimes, of course, imagine the headlines:
"Adding insult to injury, thousands of Catholic priests foment discord"
"Deliberateand careless preachers spread tragic and dangerous message of catechesis to stem loss of a uniform Catholic identity"
"Declining calls for deep and persuasive apologies, clergy instead quote 2,000-yr-old text - not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue."
Just kidding, of course, they're not that dense are they ... ?
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Sep 16, 2006 3:47:05 AM
B16s reference to the Burning Bush features in the Explanation of the Artwork for the CCD theme designed by Fran Gregory.
The theme ... is taken from Mark 8:27-35. Scripture scholars suggest that this question invites the reader back to Exodus 3 when God revealed himself to Moses through the burning bush. When Moses asks for God’s name, “God replied, ‘I am who am.’/Then he added, ‘This is what you shall tell the Israelites:/I AM sent me to you.’” (Ex. 3:14). For Jesus to use the words “I am” as part of his question indicates that Jesus is linked to God. This passage in Mark is a moment of God’s revelation. The artwork shows the burning bush of Exodus 3. Revealed in the flames of the burning bush are the following symbols that have been used by the Church for thousands of years: Alpha and Omega, Bread and Cup, Bread and Fish, Chi Rho, Cross and White Cloth, Fish/ICTHUS, IHS, Lamb, Wheat.
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Sep 16, 2006 4:01:40 AM
The New York Times has no credibility. If the paper really cared about pain inflicted on religion and religious figures, how about some consideration for the pain this editorial inflicts on Roman Catholics? What are we, chopped liver? And why didn't the editorial staff read the rest of Pope Benedict's lecture? Oh, I know, it would strain their feeble brains too much. Where exactly, by the way, are those "many Muslims" who denounce violent jihad? Not on the streets of Pakistan or on the floor of the Turkish parliament, that's for sure. And apparently the Times has never heard that the Pope is, uh, a CATHOLIC whose job it is to safeguard a uniform Catholic identity. Duh.
The only use for this paper is to wrap fish.
Posted by: rcesq at Sep 16, 2006 4:11:51 AM
I agree with the NYT editorial, and am glad to see at least someone in the Western Press showing some backbone, and calling the Pope to account. Words have power, and for one of the heads of all Christendom to repeat such an inflammatory (and ignorant) statement as that of this Byzantine Emperor is really irresponsible.
I have read the Pope's address in full, and while it has very little to do with Islam or Jihad, the quote's prominent placement at the beginning of his address does warrant the attention it is now receiving.
Forget the jihad part, the inclusion of the “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman," portion comes across as gratuitous insult. You never hear Muslims criticizing Jesus in this manner (since he is regarded as a Prophet after all), but poor ol' Muhammad gets treated like dirt.
No, Benedict is no JP2, thats fer sure, but perhaps the motto of his Papacy from hereonin should be "do no harm".
Posted by: Tom Trevino at Sep 16, 2006 6:06:16 AM
I think it's fair to say we now know how elite opinion in the 1930s would have reacted had the Pope condemned Nazism in the terms the world of 2006 requires. He would have been condemned in turn for being dangerously provocative.
We appease radical Islam today in much the same way we once appeased Nazism. We think now, as we thought then, that it is better not to bait the beast.
The NYT is one of the chief prosecutors in the case against 'Hitler's Pope'. But today, when we have a Pope willing to give a quote, 600 years old, that is sharply critical of those who use violence to spread religion, the NYT goes on the warpath again demanding apologies.
Perhaps we can expect the NYT of 2056, when it has learned that Appeasment 2006 is no more fruitful than Appeasement 1936, to condemn the current Popes for their mealy-mouthedness and for hiding behind criticisms of six centuries vintage.
Posted by: David Quinn at Sep 16, 2006 6:13:12 AM
According to the NYT Catholics are supposed to look dispassionately at a crucifix in a jar of urine and an image of the Blessed Mother in cow dung, but if Pope Benedict points out an obvious fact that religion is being used to justify violence and Muslims might be involved; BXVI must be condemned and hushed up.
Where are the Moslem leaders condemning violence of people blowing themselves up in the name of Islam? Or have we forgotten about the riots caused by the cartoons of Mohammed? No, Moslems can only lash out at the Pope, boy do they have guts!
Posted by: John W. at Sep 16, 2006 6:36:25 AM
The new motto of the NYT: "All the News That's
Fit to Print (as long as it doesn't offend the jihadists)
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Sep 16, 2006 7:00:11 AM
The pope raises an important question, "Can Muslims look beyond that text and truly see the face of God in all people, including those who aren't followers of the Prophet?"
By their constant actions of forcing Christians to convert to Islam at gunpoint, or by burning churches, or by killing priests or by bombing buildings with airplanes or by protesting in the streets making inflamatory remarks like calling the pope Hitler, etc - can we really see the face of God who demands of all people - love and peace?
Posted by: DJP at Sep 16, 2006 7:28:18 AM
I think an earlier commenter stated that there are two points made in the offending paragraph:
1. the Emperor's statement that there is nothing positive in Islam and
2. the pope's claim that it is wrong to force conversions.
There was no need even to quote someone else's statement of #1 in order to make point #2. To quote a statement without denying it is to lend credence to it. Like saying, "so-and-so says your ugly"...
Normally, an apology or clarification would be called for in such a situation. But anything like an apology or clarification should condemn unambiguously the negative elements in the beliefs held by many Muslims: approval of forced conversions and violence for religious ends, the denial of freedom of the will because God pre-ordains both good and evil actions (note how these two go together naturally).
Now that he's gotten everyone's attention he should say courageously what needs to be said. He would do well to criticize evil beliefs that some Muslims (with good historical basis) regard as integral to their faith. He would also do well to find something positive to say as well. But he he shouldn't shrink back from giving a direct challenge.
After all, if you're gonna have enemies, you might as well have them for the right reason.
Well, that's enough of armchair pontificating for today.
Posted by: L White at Sep 16, 2006 7:29:51 AM
The News York Slimes did it again! I'm sure part of their corporate agenda is to look for trouble as defined by their own secular priests, the Board other idealogues at the paper. It's the sleasiest type of journalism -- an biased agenda, poor research, quotes and insinuations purposely taken out of context and, let's be honest about it, a real hatred for what the Church is and what it stands for. Disgusting and sad. This is why when I read stories about the MSM being in trouble, I rejoice!
Cheers from Canada. Tony
Posted by: Tony at Sep 16, 2006 7:55:13 AM
Unbelievable!! And the NYTimes printing of Judith Miller's stovepipe of lies did nothing to foment "muslim rage"??!!?
Posted by: al at Sep 16, 2006 8:21:47 AM
I think it's actually a waste of time to send links to the NYT about Muslim anti-Semitic speech. The NYT has an agenda and it's multiculturalism and anti-faith. They won't care how many links you send. However, if you subscribe to the NYT you might cancel your subscription. OR, and even better, you might contact their advertisers and tell them you won't buy their products as long as they support the NYT.
Now a radio report is saying the Pope is trying: "to make amends" for his speech, when Cardinal Bertone's remarks only said the Pope wished his remarks could be understood in their true intent. You see, there's no such thing as a "rational" report from the MSM and it's really useless to try to deal with them. Just go for their advertisers.
Posted by: Janice at Sep 16, 2006 8:34:55 AM
It helps to read what has been widely quoted out of context (in spite of Pope Benedict's efforts to provide contest in his address) "on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence".
It appears that there isn't much else of the usual fare of cable news going on this weekend. There should be plenty of time for "moderate" Muslims to vociferously denounce jihad, dhimmitude, and other aspects of Muhammad's example, and the Qur’an, that they would moderate. The Gray Lady got off to a rocky start, but Robert Spemcer might yet help her to turn toward the light on the matter of Islam and violence in God's name.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Sep 16, 2006 8:38:01 AM
Three questions for the Times:
1. Has the editorialist actually read the whole speech?
2. If a party believes itself to have been insulted, have they in fact been insulted?
3. Is it now the rule that any discussion of Islam must abjure intellectually provocative statements?
Posted by: james englert at Sep 16, 2006 8:38:22 AM
You never hear Muslims criticizing Jesus in this manner (since he is regarded as a Prophet after all), but poor ol' Muhammad gets treated like dirt.
Muslims claim to recognize Jesus as a small-p prophet, but he is a Jesus of their own making. The Jesus of the Gospels who we follow as our Lord and Savior? He didn't exist and Christians who think he did are deluded fools following false texts and who at best are tolerated and taxed until they see the light and submit to Islam. Personally, I'd call that treating Jesus (and Christians) like dirt. Therefore, I am outraged and at this moment trying to decide exactly whom in that non-heirarchical heresy known as Islam I might burn in effigy.
Posted by: PMC at Sep 16, 2006 8:42:50 AM
Sorry, that should have read "Robert Spencer", who has an interesting blog jihadwatch.org .
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Sep 16, 2006 8:44:12 AM
The NYTimes' chief mistake seems to be that they assume that Muslims are not smart enough to engage in reasonable debate. The Times itself seems to be incapable of engaging in reasonable debate.
I don't put much stock in the Times editorial page, but it has just attained the rank of fish wrapper.
Posted by: Jim at Sep 16, 2006 8:44:27 AM
"1. the Emperor's statement that there is nothing positive in Islam and"
Well, the Pope's speech which quoted the Emperor Michael didn't say this at all, so whoever got this must be one of those of whom the NYT writes "The world listens carefully to the words of any pope." (proved wrong by the NYT editorial, which clearly did not read this text carefully). What it said is that those things that are new in Mohammad's teachings are evil. What would those new things be: war against unbelievers as a command, polygamy and concubinage, the denial of the crucifixion, resurrection and redemption wrought by Jesus, etc. I think those could be labeled evil teachings. The teachings on prayer, fasting, almsgiving were all pretty clearly lifted from the surrounding Jewish and Christian communities with which Mohammed, as a trader, had frequent contact.
While the NYT thinks that referencing a 14th century text is beyond the pale, it fails to realize that the debates of the Middle Ages on the sovreignty of God and the reasonableness of God, on the nature of God in short which were engaged in by the leading minds of the West and Middle East of that time (Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Avicenna and Averroes, et al.) are still debates that have decisive importance for policy and cultural life today.
"You ask us to write the Times and link examples of hate speech coming from Muslims, as though turnabout is fair play. "
No, Amy did not ask this...she asked us to send links to articles in the NYT that denounced Jihadist violence and Moslem anti-Semitism.
Another example of people not reading things closely. As a former English teacher, I know how endemic it is...and that it is not just an academic problem.
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh at Sep 16, 2006 8:47:17 AM
