Allen and Weigel
In preparation for the Pope’s visit to the United Nations and the United States, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life sponsored an event with presentations by John Allen and George Weigel, followed by their responses to questions from reporters. I give one excerpt from a long and, to my mind, exemplary exchange.
BARBARA BRADLEY-HAGERTY, NPR: You made a perfect transition to my next question although I’d like to actually stay on Regensburg. I have a mini-question and then I’m going to attach my real one. Do you think Pope John Paul II would have made that kind of statement that Benedict made in Regensburg? Wasn’t that kind of a gaff that is so deep – that reflects his thinking and how different it is from Pope John Paul II.
Before you answer that, I want to ask you, the day before this pope was elected pope, he gave a talk about, a homily about the dictatorship of relativism. I’m wondering if that continues to be his kind of early legacy in much the same way that the fall of communism or attack on communism was Pope John Paul II’s. And, if so, that’s a pretty amorphous goal, so what are the concrete steps or actions that we see him taking to attack the dictatorship of relativism?
WEIGEL: Very briefly, John Paul II was the master of not only the public gesture, but the personal gesture. So when he goes to the mosque in Damascus in 2000 or 2001 –
ALLEN: May 2001.
WEIGEL: – and kisses the Koran, he’s not making a statement about the religious authority of the Koran. He’s expressing his personal esteem for the piety of Muslims. By the same token, if you read Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II’s most personal statement, he says things about his theological reading of Islam there – that the anthropology and theology of Islam are very distant from us – that are far more critical than anything Benedict XVI said at Regensburg. So, again, I think there’s a communications issue here at work.
ALLEN: Yeah, quickly, Barbara, on that, I think he would have said, and in fact did say on many different occasions, the substance of the Regensburg address. John Paul met with Muslims more than 60 times. We don’t have to speculate about what his message would have been. All of his addresses to Muslims have actually been published, and so on. And he said the substance of this idea of the relationship between reason and faith, but I think he would have found a more artful way of trying to shoot the message out there and, again, it’s a communications problem.
Look, the dictatorship of relativism – you’re right, it’s amorphous; it’s hard to understand, hard to get your teeth into. But in a just quick bite about the pope’s legacy there, I think affirmative orthodoxy is his legacy. I think rather than worrying about approaching this in a kind of disciplinary fashion – that is, beating people around the head and shoulders for their failures to be orthodox – I think he is clearly calling Catholics to a stronger sense of what makes them Catholic, but understood and phrased in a relentlessly positive fashion to try to present the Christian message as the key that unlocks the mysteries of the human heart and, again, thinking against a long arc of time. I think he believes that over time that will create a culture, first inside the church and then in the broader world, that will somehow change history.
And don’t miss the full transcript here.
The more that Catholics and all Christians can acknowledge the many positive commonalities in the Islamic and Christian traditions, the greater our contribution to ameliorating the “clash of cultures” mentality promoted by Bin Laden – and, frankly, falling right into his hands, our own GWB. To say the least, he hasn’t helped with his strutting, cowboy, good guy vs. bad guy mentality and special doctrines such as “preemptive war” and “torture’s OK so long as the good guys do it.” Nor has he been shy to state his belief that God put him in office or to present himself as a great Christian Leader and Man of Faith.
In fact, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are historically one chain of development. I like how Islam views members of all three faiths as “people of the book.” Just as the Old Testament is viewed as scripture by Christians, Muslims view the OT and NT and scriptural, as well as the Koran.
Paul – Original Faith
The assumption that the quote at Regensburg was a “gaff” shows how much the US (including, often, the US Church) is overly concerned with keeping peace in a PR culture.
Personally I favor an interpretation that is more like one of P. Steinfels’ suggestions:
Was it an opening bid in bargaining for more religious liberty in Islamic countries?
I think it’s entirely possible that the Holy Father was addressing the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are moderate, and making clear to them that a violent minority has usurped their reputation in the world.
I think a lot of people want the Pope to be a kindly old man who sits on the porch playing checkers. Wouldn’t that play nicely in the news.
But the Pope plays chess.
Paul:
If we define Jesus as the “Founder” of Christianity, and Muhammad as the “Founder” of Islam, we see in stark terms that Islam’s Founder spread his religion by the sword, while Christianity’s Founder spread His religion by means of healing and miracles. (notwithstanding Christianity’s being spread by the sword in later history).
I believe that this reality explains much about Islamic culture and theology; perhaps the Regensburg statement had something to do with the residue of Islam’s founding and spread.
The entire conversation, including the Q and A with the press from which the cite here is taken,\is certainly worth a rewad!
The issue of BXVI’s address to the entire community will undoubtedly be positive and reaffirming of values of peace. Their impact within the UN and with GWB will be interesting to note.
As to the Catholic community, I’ve noted in another post that buried in the discussion is the idea that Benedict has “given up on reform of the curia.” The problem of this with his visit is particularly evident in his (Possible?) meeting with victims. If Allen and wEigel are right, the message is, “let’s move on.” That will not fare well with victims and those who support them,who continue to be deeply troubled by lack of hierarchical accountability -even the image of Bernard Law living it up in Rome rankles. Supporters of victims are tremendously upset by the recent comments on this by Cardinal Bertone (the curial connection.)
I fear institutional protection is the message folk will hear as the prioirity and will weaken the message Benedict will bring to his folk.
Surely, as the thread above notes, there’s going to be lots more instaanalysis from both the apologists and critics of Benedict.
What matters is how well his message rings true to the varied listeners he proposes to reach and that means more than just his words but also deeds – including how well he will iisten (if at all.)
I think Weigel is right about how the Koran-kissing incident should be interpreted. The rad trads really went bonkers over that one, though I can see how they wrongly drew the conclusions that they did.
Bob, regarding abuse victims: I thought Weigel’s observation about litigation was pretty astute. In this litigious environment, no public words or acts of forgiveness or reconciliation or solidarity – or reform – are possible.
Istm that those advising the Holy Father gave sound advice: to not visit Boston, and to not meet with abuse victims. That doesn’t necessarily mean “we’re moving on”. It may mean, “we see little or no upside, and tremendous downside, to picking at this wound.”
Jim, in Allen’s column of a week ago that links to the Pew conversation, Archnishop sSambi, in speaking about BXVI and the sex abuse crisis says Benedict’s mesage is to move on (in service). Forget about bishop accountability, Bernard Law etc.
The issue is hardly picking at a wound bu ta matter of justice and accountability – a matter that still is reverberating through the American Church.
“Jim, in Allen’s column of a week ago that links to the Pew conversation, Archnishop sSambi, in speaking about BXVI and the sex abuse crisis says Benedict’s mesage is to move on (in service). Forget about bishop accountability, Bernard Law etc.”
Bob, thanks for the reference, I had somehow missed that week’s column. For others who are interested, it is here:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1713
Kind of interesting that, although I hadn’t seen the column when I posted here previously, I lit upon the same metaphor of picking at wounds.
FWIW, Archbishop Sambi doesn’t use the phrase “let’s move on”. He says ” we have to move forward from this situation”. If you re-read that section of the inteview, you’ll see that the difference is substantial. He also states that the Holy Father won’t avoid the difficulty, and hints that there might be a private, unofficial meeting with victims.
Really, if victims and/or their advocates truly wish to meet with the Holy Father, that seems positive and hopeful.
Jim, I think BXVI is both well intentioned and desirous of positively moving towards victims.
The question is how insightful he is of the problem.Recent comments by Cardinal Bertone and Hummes (see the April 8 Baltimore Sun article on the meeting make this a real question.)
Victim advocates pervceive the Vatican stance as being the problem is over, let’s move ahead and from now on let’s practice what we preach.
There are still enormous questions of justice in terms of full disclosure, SOL legislation and bishop accountability.
How well Benedict hears these and acts, not just what he says wil indicate whether the meeting had the positive inmpact intended.
Update: NPR reported this morning that BXVI will not meet with victims. Of course, Sr. Walsh at USCCB tells us that the Pope is deeply moved at their suffering bu tactions have been taken and now we have to move ahead.
Ask victims what they think of that!