Vatican officials had earlier sought to placate spreading Muslim anger by saying Benedict held Islam in high esteem and stressed that the central thrust of his speech was to condemn the use of any religious motivation for violence, whatever the religion. ~The Guardian
Actually, I had thought the central thrust of the speech was that God is rational by nature and nothing irrational pleases Him. This is why most Christians have entirely put away the bloody and irrational sacrifices of old for the rational sacrifice of the Eucharist. This is why I never cease to find it difficult to understand why someone who believes this would hold in high esteem a religion that denies the divinity of Christ, Who was Reason Incarnate, when such a denial is not only what the early and medieval Fathers would have regarded as a mark of insanity (the proverbial “madness of Areios”) but is itself a denial of the personal union of humanity in the Person of the Logos Himself. Denying Christ’s divinity is, from a Christian perspective, denying the substantial joining of humanity to Reason and denying the possibility of the perfection of our own reason. Presumably Pope Benedict does not hold Arianism in high esteem, so what can it mean to say that he holds Islam in “high esteem”? Did Elijah hold the prophets of Baal in high esteem?
These sorts of statements remind me why I am always so skeptical of ecumenism–to carry on a “dialogue,” you are compelled for the sake of dialogue to say things you cannot possibly believe and make statements praising other religions that you cannot really mean, which in turn does violence to the truth and reduces said dialogue to something of a sham. Such a “dialogue” cannot produce anything except pro forma expressions of goodwill, which are ultimately empty and amount to saying nothing more than, “I am going to show the world what a reasonable, tolerant fellow I am–why, look, I have even said something nice about the Hindus!” There are two kinds of ecumenists: those who really think that there are many equally valid paths to truth (these people typically are not terribly keen on taking any of the paths very far, since deep down they can sense that there is no point) and those who think that giving the appearance of ecumenical goodwill helps with public relations. In other words, I don’t think there are really any good reasons to be an ecumenist. If there are sincere ecumenists who nonetheless believe that their religion alone possesses the fullness of truth, I would very much like to know how they reconcile the two ideas. It is, of course, possible to have a conversation with people who hold radically different religious beliefs, but it will usually be a short conversation, especially when each time you draw attention to what you consider the flaws in their religion they believe themselves justified in threatening you with death. Most Christian ecumenist dialogue does not draw attention to the flaws, intellectual and moral, of other religions, presumably because all historical religions have some sort of flaws on account of the flawed people involved, which is why Pope Benedict’s speech seemed promising as a starting point for , among other things, discussing seriously the role of reason in Islam and the place of violent jihad in Islamic theology and history. His speech did not really make any concessions, or at least it was not obvious to me that it did, but now it would seem that the Vatican has made the biggest concession of them all: Islam is worthy of high esteem. Manuel II and, for that matter, St. John of Damascus would not have understood why.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
brendon
The Guardian is either being dishonest or doesn’t know how to read. The Pope’s actual words were: “At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.” He is not sorry for what he said, but is sorry that they took it the wrong way.
Similarly, yesterday’s press release from the Vatican said that the the Pope holds the people who hold to Muhammad’s religion in high esteem, not the religion itself.
On that I would only say two things:
First, the use of the word “esteem” is related to the use of that word in the English translation of the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, a word choice that I would argue is less accurate than it could be when compared with the normative Latin text. “Value” is probably a better word, at least according to the number of Latin dictionaries that I’ve consulted.
Second, what that document holds in esteem is not the religion professed, but the followers, who are human persons loved by God, and certain principles that they profess about God which are true: that He is one, that He is merciful, that He is omnipotent, &c. This stems, as you have noted in a more recent post, from the Catholic position to hold that all true things in other religions must ultimately come from God, Who is the source of truth.
I believe the press release and the non-apology apology were prudent acts, since it seems that many followers of Muhammad would rather murder Christians in response to the Pope’s words than try to refute him.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
tedschan
I wonder if these officials are relaying the pope’s attitude correctly. From his writings it would seem correct to say that he holds Muslims in esteem. I wonder if he would go so far as to say he holds Islam in esteem. I think he is sufficiently nuanced to realize the difference between those two attitudes and statements.
After doing a quick search, I think it’s probably just bad journalism. In the statement by Cardinal Bertone (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94991), the cardinal cites Nostra Aetate: “The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.”
One should also point out that all of these truths are not “new,” originating with Islam, but “old,” deriving from what God has revealed through the true prophets and Christ…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Daniel Larison
Thanks for your comments and the clarification. I should have done some more digging on this one myself, since it seemed simply baffling that the Vatican would make such a statement. Valuing Muslim people themselves for those aspects of their religion that Christians could acknowledge as part of the truth, if not the whole of it, is entirely sensible and appropriate. If that is what was meant, there certainly is some very poor journalism here, which does not really surprise me.