Benedict Exegetes
In today’s Audience, Pope Benedict reviews his recent trip to Bavaria. When he speaks of his Regensburg University address, he once again distances himself from the negative tenor of Manuel II’s observation regarding what was “new” in Mohammed’s message. His concern, rather, was to underscore Manuel’s insistence on the reasonableness of religious faith as a point of departure for his main theme: the positive relationship between faith and reason. As of now the complete text is only available in Italian. Here is an excerpt:
Per il
lettore attento del mio testo, però, risulta chiaro che non volevo in nessun
modo far mie le parole negative pronunciate dall’imperatore medievale in questo
dialogo e che il loro contenuto polemico non esprime la mia convinzione
personale. La mia intenzione era ben diversa: partendo da ciò che Manuele II
successivamente dice in modo positivo, con una parola molto bella, circa la
ragionevolezza che deve guidare nella trasmissione della fede, volevo spiegare
che non religione e violenza, ma religione e ragione vanno insieme. Il tema
della mia conferenza – rispondendo alla missione dell’Università – fu quindi la
relazione tra fede e ragione: volevo invitare al dialogo della fede cristiana
col mondo moderno ed al dialogo di tutte le culture e religioni
Perhaps the most regrettable fact with reference to this imbroglio, which is becoming usque ad nauseum, is that as Catholics many of us feel obliged to defend the pope’s words because he is the pope.
It is like we have to divide along partisan lines. As we know partisanship part from reason (pun intended).
Benedict can put this behind us if he insists that no religion can call for violence and praise Muslims who are lovers of peace.
Or maybe it is too late.
He has explained this over and over again. The lecture was on Faith and Reason he said no religion can be forced on people with violence or at the end of the sword. What more do you want, I think that maybe some will never like what the Holy Father has to say or do and will just complain about him! Do you really believe in the Roman Catholic Church or are you just here to be here? The best any one can do is pray daily the Rosary and Divine Mercy!
Mr. Mazella,
Just once I’d like to see YOU defend something that was Catholic. All you seem to do is act the perpetual “dissident.” As I recall, one of your campaigns was to save the reputation of Rembert Weakland and his male lover. Yet never once to you rise to defend Catholic orthodoxy.
Much of the commentary I’ve read here praises Benedict, is surprised by his injudiciousness in this matter and the issue at stake is hardly a matter of orthodoixy.
It seems as if some posts want every papal utterance to be above critique and that is arrant nonsense.
It is reminiscent of that drift to 1950′s catholicism where we childishly “defended” all things Catholic.
It seems to me there is overwhelmong support for the papcy of Benedict thus far as he himself has tended to not be reactive in this way but to be engaging.
It’s clear, on the other hand, that he views the Muslims as among the least of the non-Christain brethren; this will indeed make a dialogue about reason and peace harder to enter into.
Robert I believe you wrong about the Pope. He does not think of the Muslims to be the least among the non-Christian brethren. I am a convert so I tend to keep up on these things because of this being the Church that Jesus started. You need to stand back and look at this situation unbiased. I’m sorry but I will tell the truth in faith and reason matters as does the Pope and many others. I will not bend with the wind to make some one feel good but this does need to be done in charity. Check out what G. K. Chesterton says about this subject, remember he always believed in common sense!
English translation here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQ3MzcwODFiMmEyNTlhNzk0ZmE1YjU5YjIwZDlkMDU=
A particularly beautiful experience for me was to give a lecture that day before a large audience of professors and students at the University of Regensburg, where I taught as a professor for many years. With joy I was able once again to come into contact with the university world, which for a long period of my life was my spiritual homeland. As my theme I chose the question of the relationship between faith and reason. To introduce the audience to the dramatic nature and timeliness of the topic, I cited some words of a Christian-Islamic dialogue of the 14th century, in which the Christian interlocutor –the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus – in a manner that for us is incomprehensibly blunt – presented to his Islamic interlocutor the problem of the relationship between religion and violence. This citation, alas, was such as to lend itself to be misunderstood. For the attentive reader of my text, however, it is clear that I did not wish in any way to make my own the negative words spoken by the medieval emperor in this dialogue and that their polemical content does not express my personal conviction. My intention was quite different: starting from what Manuel II subsequently said in a positive manner, with very beautiful words, about the reasonableness which must be the guide in the transmission of the faith, I wanted to explain that not religion and violence, but rather religion and reason go together. The theme of my conference – corresponding to the mission of the University – was thus the relationship between faith and reason: I wanted to extend an invitation to a dialogue of Christian faith with the modern world and to a dialogue of all cultures and religions. I hope that on different occasions during my visit – for instance, in Munich when I stressed how important it is to respect that which is sacred to others – my profound respect for the great religions, and in particular for the Moslems, who “adore the one God” and with whom we are engaged in “defending and promoting together, for all men, social justice, moral values, peace and freedom” (Nostra Aetate, 3) was clearly apparent. I therefore trust that, after the reactions of the first moment, my words at the University of Regensburg can constitute an impulse and an encouragement for a positive, even self-critical, dialogue, both between the various religions and between modern reason and the faith of Christians.
Mr. Buck,
for providing the English translation:
Grazie!
I am inclined, as courtesy seems to require, toaccept Benedict’s account of his intentions,
but I would also say that the text carries them out ineptly and, doubtless unintentionally, invites a rather different interpretation from those who harbor sucpicions that seem to go back to the–dare I say it–crusades.
Mrs Kraus,
I praised Caritas Dei and Benedict’s overtures to the Orthodox. I praised his censure of Maciel.
But my first loyalty is to God through Jesus Christ, as I presume yours is also.
Today’s NYTimes has an editorial called “The Pope’s Act of Contrition”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/opinion/20wed3.html
It rivals in its sneering condescension toward Pope Benedict many of the posts on this forum. As I recall, dotCommonweal began with a discussion of why Commonweal Catholics are a dying breed. I think it’s obvious: If you share the outlook and values of anti-Christian secularists, why not just admit you are one?
From the Vatican Information Service:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/e1_en.htmOh,
And Ron: do not troll on dotCommonweal. This is your one and only warning.
“And Ron: do not troll on dotCommonweal. This is your one and only warning.”
Grant, your link to the Vatican does not go anywhere. Not a troll, just an observation.
BTW, I don’t think trolls generally offer real name, e-mail, address and website. I’m not a troll, just a Catholic long associated with liberal groups who is deeply concerned that in contemporary Catholic intellectual circles, we seem to have only two viewpoints: the ones espoused in First Things and the ones espoused in the NYTimes. That is a real shame, and I think it goes far to explain why Commonweal Catholics are a vanishing breed.
That’s all. I promise not to post anymore.
You’re welcome to post, so long as you don’t needlessly provoke a fight. I share your concern about the points of view expressed in Catholic circles, which is why I’m puzzled by your provocative statements about the magazine (especially this one: “I’ve been waiting with interest to see what sort of response Commonweal would make to the controversy over the pope’s remarks. It is a response which would do the NyTimes proud”).
Here’s the correct link: http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/e1_en.htm
In case anyone cares to know, I have a low opinion of the New York Times. They had every right to point to the Pope’s faux pas, but their initial story clearly showed the intellectual limits of the correspondent and actually contained a misquote that was corrected the next day. It is a great mistake to suppose that those who call them as they see them are secular whatevers masquerading as Catholics. Those who bend over backwards to prove that every statement from the Pope is the very word of God do the church no service. God does know best, ma il papa non sempre… (Fr. Imbelli is invited to critique my dubious Italian).
One of the least-informed, bigoted responses to the Pope’s comments came from Sam Harris, author of “The End of Faith.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/
A small point. Reference to the Crusades makes Christianity’s sinful behavior toward Islam seem remote; something that reasonable Muslims should have moved past long ago. But if we recall the more recent sins of Western imperialism with respect to Muslim populations, for example, the behavior of the French toward Arabs in North Africa, the remembering seems less intemperate.
>>But my first loyalty is to God through Jesus Christ, as I presume yours is also.<<
I have questions about this statement of yours. At other times on this blog you (a former priest?) have conspicuously declined to assert a belief in the full divinity of Jesus Christ after having been pointedly asked on the matter. So, I reasonably conclude you are an Arian. So help me parse the statement above. Or set me straight.
I’m sorry, my last comment was aimed at Bill Mazella, if that wasn’t clear.
I’m sorry, my last comment was aimed at Bill Mazella, if that wasn’t clear.
Mlj,
Have you stopped beating your husband? I would be glad to give an answer from someone of good will who would give her/his real name. If you don’t know who you are how can you expect others to “set you straight.”
Who am I to set straight?
I think you just answered my question. Thanks.
While enough has been said re: Islam in this speech, I wonder what those who bemoan the ‘modern’ influence on Catholicism think of Benedict’s praise of the ‘marvelous possibilities’ opened by modernity. It certainly sounds like Benedict would not agree with Alisdair MacIntyre’s account of modernity…
Quite amazing that the pope is seeking dialogue with modernity.
We should know that there are different definitions for the word, modernity. When the pope speaks of it he certainly will speak of its limits while secularists talk of pure objectivity which they really do not have.
Is there a balance. In my view people of faith need to stay with the presence of God in all things while being careful about following an apparition mentality. Modern scholars have to study this practice of presence to people of faith and not dismiss it summarily.
E. Gonzalez,
The “marvelous possibilities’ opened by modernity” Modernity covers a multitude of things, good and bad. That Benedict can appoint all the bishops in the world is a consequence, albeit indirect, of modernity. Until I have a list of what he accounts good and what bad, I would hesitate.
This regrettable and preventable event reminds me of JPII asking non-Catholic Christians how the papacy could be more helpful in promoting Christian unity, etc. At the time, I could have sworn I saw words added to the pope’s invitation: “…on my terms.” Had I been one of his addressees, I might likely have replied, “Thanks, but no thanks.” :)
I marvel at the number of people in the blogosphere and elsewhere who confidently assert that Pope Benedict, one of the most brilliant men on the planet, had no idea what he was doing when he said what he said. It is a relief to know these people are comfortable telling his dolt of a pope what to do and how to do it.