The Pope's line in the sand, continued

The newswires are reporting that Pope Benedict has now offered a personal apology (BBC lede: "Pope Benedict XVI has apologised in person for causing offence to Muslims in a speech in Bavaria last week."), though it would be more accurate to say that he expressed regret that offense was taken (full text here) -- quite another matter, and in no way a retraction. Benedict's line in the sand remains.

An interesting take here:

As a sharp scholar and theologian, it is not possible to think that the Holy Father did not take into account that his choice of quote would not provoke an uproar in a world like ours, in this very global village, where every little word, especially by a prominent leader, is scrutinised, its resonance amplified, its meaning extrapolated and distorted by the mass media.

For the aforementioned anonymous Turkish public figure, the Pope’s choice of quote was a deliberate litmus test ahead of his crucial trip to Turkey, the first Muslim (and secular) state he is scheduled (perhaps) to visit. And the Turkish government fell for it by siding with the defenders of the Islamist camp and its profound religious identity.

Turkey threw itself head first in the media war; Turkish politicians didn’t pull any punches. In so doing though they lost a golden opportunity to demonstrate that their country was “truly” committed to the separation of state and religion, to democracy and against ideological fanaticism and political radicalism.

Certainly Benedict's skepticism about Turkey has been no secret, as he was quite vocal in opposing Turkish acceptance into the EU, citing cultural incompatibility. Nor would I blithely assume that Benedict "spoke like a professor and forgot that he had since become Pope" (per the Swiss Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin, in Benedict's defense). As already noted, even without the flashpoint "Schlechtes und Inhumanes" quote, Benedict's address draws lines, not blurs them. It is an unapologetic defense of the western Judaeo-Christian tradition, and to the Muslim world an open challenge.

This has led many to pine for the days of John Paul II. One might as well pine for the days before 9/11. To build bridges, one had better have a clear understanding of the divides they are to span.

ADDENDUM: Perhaps we need more leaders to speak like professors, especially since academics are not exactly in the best position to resist violent intimidation. Professor Adel Theodor Khoury, the editor of the edition of Manuel II Palaeologos cited by Benedict, has recently been quoted as wishing the Pope had done a bit more in his address to clarify the difference between Manuel's opinions and his own. But would this really have changed the Muslim reaction? As Khoury also notes about Manuel, "Er redet so, wie alle Menschen im Mittelalter geredet haben" ("that was the way he spoke, as everyone in the Middle Ages spoke").

Given that it is also the way many Muslim teachers still speak about Christians and Jews, maybe Benedict felt a bit of balance was in order. Americans often find fault with their fellow citizens for lack of historical perspective, but what happens when two groups face off, both acutely aware of their respective pasts? For anyone sharing that awareness -- alas, not including most journalists or their editors -- Benedict's barb was only tit for tat of the most restrained kind. And though most commentators have focused on Benedict's condemnation of conversion by force as a condemnation of violent jihad, he surely must equally have been thinking of the recent forced conversion of the Fox News reporters taken hostage -- and the subsequent failure of Muslim leaders to condemn or disavow the act.

Posted by David on September 17, 2006 7:56 PM