Pope: Francis’s `dialogue’ with Muslims should inspire us
Francis and the Sultan, by Arnoldo Zocchi, 1909.
Back in September, Commonweal carried an article [registration required] I wrote about the encounter in 1219 between Francis of Assisi and Egypt’s Sultan Malik al-Kamil during the Fifth Crusade. (It was adapted from my book The Saint and the Sultan.) Pope Benedict XVI addressed the same historical event during his audience on Wednesday in a nuanced talk about St. Francis, and had some interesting things to say. Zenit provided a translation from the Italian original:
In 1219 Francis obtained permission to go to speak with the Muslim Sultan Melek-el-Kamel in Egypt, and also to preach the Gospel of Jesus there. I want to underline this episode of the life of St. Francis, which is very timely. At a time in which there was under way a clash between Christianity and Islam, Francis, armed deliberately only with his faith and his personal meekness, pursued with efficacy the way of dialogue. The chronicles tell us of a benevolent and cordial reception by the Muslim Sultan. It is a model that also today should inspire relations between Christians and Muslims: to promote a dialogue in truth, in reciprocal respect and in mutual understanding (cf. “Nostra Aetate,” 3).
What struck me is that the pope’s view of this encounter is similar to that taken by the Franciscan order, which sees the meeting between Francis and the sultan as source and inspiration to its emphasis on inter-religious dialogue. Benedict even uses that sometimes controversial word “dialogue.” That isn’t what I would have expected from someone who was put off by John Paul II’s Franciscan-influenced “spirit of Assisi” approach.
To say that Francis was pursing a “way of dialogue” means Benedict would necessarily have to reject the historical accuracy of what had long been the defining account of Francis’s encounter with Sultan al-Kamil: St. Bonaventure’s life of Francis, completed in 1263 and source of much medieval art. It claims Francis challenged the sultan’s religious advisors to an ordeal by fire, hardly an attempt at dialogue. There are some conservative Catholics who have been trying to use Bonaventure’s account to justify a harder-edged, anti-dialogue approach to relations with Muslims today. Perhaps Benedict’s remarks will lead them to reconsider.
Benedict brings expertise to this subject from his days as a doctoral candidate, when he wrote a thesis on Bonaventure’s theology of history. He recognized back then that Bonaventure may well have been presenting a Francis of theology, not history.
Want to know more about the Saint and the Sultan, read Paul Mose’s book. And on February 17 come to Fordham Lincoln Center for a session on what went on between Francis and the Sultan of Egypt.
Here are the details
When the Saint Met the Sultan: A Medieval ‘Summit’ with 21st-Century Lessons?
Wednesday, February 17, 6-8 PM
Fordham University, Lincoln Center Campus
12th Floor Lounge, 113 West 60th Street
Free and Open to the Public
RSVP: CRCevent@fordham.edu, 212.636.7347
In 1219, in the middle of the Fifth Crusade, Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines and met the sultan of Egypt in search of peace. {That’s a fact}
What really happened in this meeting? What does it teach us about the encounter between Christianity and Islam? What does it tell us about the use and abuse of history? {That’s a debate}
Four authors, four contrasting views:
Paul Moses, Brooklyn College, journalist and author, The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam, and Francis of Assisi’s Mission of Peace.
John Tolan, University of Nantes, historian and author, Saint Francis and the Sultan: The Curious History of a Christian-Muslim Encounter.
Kathleen Warren, OSF, filmmaker and author, Daring to Cross the Threshold: Francis of Assisi Encounters Sultan Malek al-Kamil.
Adnan Husain Queen’s University Canada, historian and author, Identity Polemics: Encounters with Islam in the Medieval Mediterranean World (1150-1300).
We are living in the best age in that we know more about Christian history and because of Protestant scholars what we know is more accurate. Here is a case where the absence of a condemnatory magisterium allows true education to flourish. A theology of history might be okay. But it should be identified as such. Perhaps we should not necessarily get on Catholic historians since secular writers still can’t figure out who Shakespeare was and what was his occupation.
With every religious order, corruption followed soon after the founder’s death and sometimes in his lifetime. Francis lamented some of the adulterations as he was dying. One of the most intriguing rules made by Francis, and not altered, is the prohibition against the Friars riding on horseback. There has never been such a dancing around a rule. The Friars did find ways to ride on horseback after that and Bonaventure certainly had no problem since he felt it within his status. Nowadays, Each Friar has a car, the equivalent of a horse. And poverty is certainly in the mind of the beholder.
Religious founders worked through Rome since Rome also had a legal apparatus as well as spiritual. For the most part the popes looked at the political benefit such holy people could give to a tainted papacy. Even today that happens. John Paul II singlehandedly destroyed the Charismatic movement. It remains a skelton of what it was in the glory days of Vatican II. The Neo-catechumenate Way, the Legionnaires, both favorites of John Paul II, are now in disarray.
My vote is that Francis made no such challenge. It is totally out of character and the Sultan would have thrown him out. His mission did not succeed because the Sultan, though he saw the goodness of Francis, knew he would have to trust the likes of Innocent III a very political, corrupt pope. As far as Bonaventure is concerned, don’t be fooled by all those spiritual writings.
At any rate, I would glady change my opinion in all this if someone could provide evidence to the contrary
“Benedict brings expertise to this subject from his days as a doctoral candidate, when he wrote a thesis on Bonaventure’s theology of history. He recognized back then that Bonaventure may well have been presenting a Francis of theology, not history.”
Does this mean that Bonaventure, or his source, invented the story of the challenge to an ordeal by fire? It seems to me that the only Francis is the historical Francis. A “Francis of theology” as conceptualized here looks like a Francis of pious fiction.
I just saw an article by Tolan (in the latest Dante Studies) which examines images (as important as texts) in Tuscany and Umbria which served as sources for popularizing the story of the meeting with the Sultan. The discussion should be interesting – I hope there are slides or illustrations.
However, given recent concerns expressed on this website, a warning to the audience may be in order, along these lines:
Danger — Exposure to the example of St. Francis may lead to the adoption of unhealthy ascetic practices. If one begins to fear the world, the flesh and the devil, immediately consult an up-to-date spiritual healer.
Just now I see that the next forum at Fordham is “Religion and Madness, Spirituality and Pathology.” Apparently another case where appropriate warnings should be printed in bold type.
http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/center_on_religion_a/fordham_center_on_re_21832.asp
In Ratzinger’s dissertation, “The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure,” he says, “It may well be that all the various ‘Legenda’ of St. Francis depict a theologically interpreted ‘Francis of faith’ instead of the simple ‘Francis of history.’” Ratzinger sets out in some detail, Bonaventure’s theological understanding of Francis and his significance for a salvation-history nearing its end. (By the way, I believe that this is the work in which Ratzinger made his most significant scholarly contribution, particularly by establishing the influence of Joachim of Fiore on Bonaventure.)
The Pope’s catechesis seems to be more along the lines of the “simple Francis of history.”
Paul,
thanks for providing a link to the Pope’s lovely meditation on Francis. It certainly deserves careful and comprehensive reading. Two points, however:
1. The translation should be used with some caution. For example, it quotes Dante as saying of Francis: “A son is born to the world;” whereas Dante (and the Pope) says: “a sun …”
2. Benedict often speaks of “dialogue in truth” which, of course, was the theme of his “Regensburg Address” calling for dialogue among religions according to “Logos.” I find no contradiction in espousing this and not advocating common prayer, as distinguished from prayer in common.
Thanks for the comments. Father Komonchak, I recall an interesting Commonweal article in which you fit the “Theology of History” into the larger framework of the pope’s theology.
Fr. Imbelli –
What do you see as the difference between “common prayer” and “prayer in common”?
Ann,
my attempt here was to distinguish between a (probably generic) common prayer in which all participate, and people praying in their own tradition to which others listen respectfully and silently. The latter I refer to as prayer in common that acknowledges the differences in traditions. In interreligious gatherings I think that meditative silence is often most eloquent.
One of the greatest explanations for the prolifertion of languages is the subsequent conflict among people of the human race. Significantly, at Pentecost all heard the Apostles in their own language because of the Spirit of God. When we let the Spirit guide us we are not as concerned about doctrinal differences or subtleties but are pressed to end the strife by seeing different language as the loving unity of all of us.
Thanks, Fr. Imbelli. I see your point. However, even when we pray with those of our own faith we don’t always mean the same thing by the words, but that doesn’t stop us. I’m thinking, for instance of our joint recitation of the Creeds. Isn’t it enough to share the words and hope we are all intending God’s own meanings, even when we’re not sure just what His meanings are?
It seems to me that as long as there is some commonality of meaning it makes sense to pray together.
I admit I would have problems praying with the sorts of Buddhists who say there is no God in the Western sense. Or would it be enough if we, those Buddhists and I, both accept that there is an absolute, transcendent reality beyond us for which we all have the greatest respect? Hmmm.
Just want to take a moment to compliment Paul Moses on his Commonweal article on tihs subject. (That I’ve read it within the past month indicates how far behind I’ve fallen in my Commonweal reading!)