October 11, 2006
The Pope's line in the sand: epilogue
When first put online, the Vatican's text of Benedict's Regensburg address came with a note promising endnotes. Those endnotes have now been added (English here, original German here), but the text has been changed slightly as well. Where Benedict originally prefixed his citation of Manuel II Palaeologos by noting its "startling brusqueness" ("erstaunlich schroffer"), the parenthetical clause, "a brusqueness we find unacceptable" ("für uns unannehmbar schroffer"), has now been inserted immediately following. This insertion is not explicitly noted in the text, though the Vatican has certainly made no secret of the change -- or of the addition of endnote 3, which reads (citations omitted):
In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.Again, diplomatic words, but no apology or retreat. Benedict affirms his respect for the Koran and calls Islam a "great religion" -- which as a strictly historical observation is incontrovertibly true. Yet in reaffirming his agreement with Manuel's view of faith and reason, religion and compulsion, he also reaffirms his criticism of certain aspects of how Islam is practiced. And if there is any further doubt about what the Pope is up to, this Reuters article should make things clear indeed:
Pope Benedict said on Wednesday Christians could not allow their beliefs and identity to be diluted for the sake of dialogue with other religions.The dilemma for Catholics isn't really dialogue, of course -- Catholic Christianity has no prohibitions against talking to those of other faiths -- but rather religious relativism."We have to remember that this identity of ours calls for strength, clarity, and courage in the world in which we live," he told pilgrims and tourists at his weekly general audience. . .
Some Catholics feel they have compromised too much of their Christian identity in the four decades since the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council called for increased dialogue with Muslims, Jews and members of other religions.
The Pope said the dialogue started after the Council "must continue"."But this path of dialogue that is so necessary must not lead us to forget the duty to firmly underscore the tenets and identity of our Christian faith that cannot be renounced."
Posted by David on October 11, 2006 12:11 PM
"But this path of dialogue that is so necessary must not lead us to forget the duty to firmly underscore the tenets and identity of our Christian faith that cannot be renounced."
Oh crikey, here we go again...
If the Pope is not going to take the other party's words into consideration, then there is by definition no "dialogue". How is he going to get the Muslims to swear off jihad, suras 8-9, and so forth if he's not going to allow that the Muslims might be right about Jesus not being a divine being?
Mr Ratzinger would be better off proposing a new Crusade.
Posted by: David Ross on October 14, 2006 11:50 PM
There's a big difference between taking the other party's words into consideration and accepting those words as truth, especially when they contradict the core tenets of one's own faith.
Put slightly differently, dialogue does not necessarily equal agreement. And when it comes to dialogue between Islam and Catholicism, there are certain areas where the two faiths will have to agree to disagree. Defining those areas is in itself an essential step towards better mutual understanding -- and quite the opposite of a "new Crusade".
Posted by: David on October 15, 2006 10:47 PM