Benedict’s effort to reach Arab world
One difference between Pope John Paul II’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 2000 and Pope Benedict’s visit over the past week is that Benedict’s homilies and speeches are translated into Arabic on the Vatican Web site. In retrospect, it seems obvious, since that’s the language of the local Christian community. But it wasn’t done in 2000.
Benedict made a strong effort to speak to the Arab world on this trip. I haven’t made a line-for-line comparison of their remarks, but my sense is that Benedict was more pointed than John Paul was in his defense of the Palestinian people. Linda Sheahen of Catholic Relief Service noted on the Caritas blog that the pope surprised many by bringing up the issue of Palestinian statehood immediately after arriving in Tel Aviv. When he visited the Aida Palestinian refugee camp, he referred specifically to May 1948, when the Palestinians were driven from their villages, “and the years of conflict, as yet unresolved, that followed from those events.” He also decried the Israeli-built security wall. And, as Reuters religion editor Tom Heneghan notes, the pope has shown that “he is slowly learning how to dialogue with Muslims,” recognizing the “common word” the two faiths share.
This may turn out to be the most significant aspect of the trip – more so than the debate on whether the pope should have spoken more personally about the Holocaust. One must suspect that at least some of the negative reaction in Israel was driven by the pope’s take on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Or, as an editorial in the Jerusalem Post put it, “The past week showed that on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Pope Benedict XVI just doesn’t get it. ” But maybe he does.
After a somewhat shaky start, BXVI’s clear call for a two state solution shows he”gets it.”
Unfortunately, after the Metanyaheu meeting, all the Israeli PM spoke of was Iran.
Still, the Church leadership is right on record for the path to peace.
Twill be interesting when the PM comes to the State, if the (expected) further racheting up of PR pressure and moral susion will make a dent in Israeli policy.
As much as I dislike this pope and many of his actions and statements to date, I do appreciate his vocal support for the Palestinian people and the two-state solution. I agree with Mr. Nunz: Benedict does, indeed, “get it.” But tell that to orthodox Israelis!
As much as I sometimes disagree with the orthodoxy of Benedict, I think on this trip you have to give him an A plus on his talk on the necessity of a two state solution, and his call for the end of blood shed between the two groups, and condemning the Gaza Wall. He was a man caught between a “rock and a hard spot” on this trip, and came out as best as one could.
What Rome has never gotten is how such a large portion of Christianity went over to Islam. That still is not clear to most Catholics/Christians that that whole region was solidly Christian. It was just not guns.
Unfortunately, Benedict’s cozying up to the Muslims contrasts too much with his slights of Israel. One has to deal with the fact of his nationality also. We do like his words on Palestine but should remember how he slammed Islam not to long ago.
He does seem a little cagey. He certainly has been that way within in the church. Wait and see, I suggest is in order.
“What Rome has never gotten is how such a large portion of Christianity went over to Islam.”
I don’t get it either. Please elaborate.
Michael:
“The Lost History of Christianity: the Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Afric and Asia … and How it Died” is a good treatment of how Islam triumphed in most of the earliest seats of Christianity.
Here is a review of the book by J. Peter Phan:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/april-29-2009/christianitys-lost-history/2834/
A snippet:
“The lesson Jenkins draws here—although some might well be discomfited by the terms with which he articulates it—is that ‘for churches as for businesses, failure often results from a lack of diversification, from attaching one’s fortunes too closely to one particular set of circumstances, political or social.’ ”