"Faith, Reason & The University": Pope Benedict's Speech At The University of Regensburg

The Pope gave a remarkable speech at the University of Regensburg yesterday, where he used to be a professor. In it, he discusses the relationship between faith and reason, and as we've come to expect from his homilies, speeches and messages, this speech vivdly illsutrates how powerfully the professor resides in this Pope.

The speech touches on violence and Islam as the Pope moves into deeper discourse on unity of faith and reason. This, of course, is what the media will focus on, as this hysterical New York Times article by one Ian Fisher shows:

Pope Benedict, in inflamatory speech, assails all: secularism, Jihad, Islam and the Prophet Muhamad

Pope Benedict XVI weighed in Tuesday on the delicate issue of rapport between Islam and the West: He said that violence, embodied in the Muslim idea of jihad, or holy war, is contrary to reason and God’s plan, while the West was so beholden to reason that Islam could not understand it.

Did Mr. Fisher read the same speech I did? Or is his mind so saturated by politically correct blinders that he cannot recognized an clear, erudite discussion of faith and reason?

Zenit has what they term a "provisional" translation on their website. The Vatican website hasn't posted the English translation yet. If past patterns hold, that should happen tomorow.

Following is the Zenit translation:

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties.

Once a semester there was a "dies academicus," when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of "universitas": The reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason -- this reality became a lived experience.

The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the "universitas scientiarum," even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos.'"

This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word -- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.

The vision of St. Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) -- this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am."

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Psalm 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria -- the Septuagint -- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: It is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of Revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's "voluntas ordinata." Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.

This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Ephesians 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is "logic latreía" -- worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Romans 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history -- it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a de-Hellenization of Christianity -- a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of de-Hellenization: Although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

De-Hellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.

The principle of "sola scriptura," on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of de-Hellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of de-Hellenization. Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of Hellenization: This simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message.

The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: Theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university.

Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques," but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology.

On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: This basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity.

A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: It is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective.

The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of de-Hellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures.

The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed.

True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: We are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them.

We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.

A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.

Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being -- but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss."

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur -- this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.

"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Comments

[Kevin in Dallas]

The New York Times considers anything that comes out of the Pope's mouth as inflamatory speech; especially if it might upset the "Religion of Peace."

[Bill Wanke]

I agree with the Pope about Secularism.
But why did he not Denounce our Pre emptive war on Iraq, based on lies? No weapons of mass destruciton, based on conclusionary report by chief weapons inspectore Duelfer and reported in the USA today. No connection to Saddam and the terrorists or 9/11. 200,000 lives are lost, mostly innocents.
All of our Generals favored containment, not preemptive strikes, the Presidential Neocon staff of Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrahms, Feith, Kristol, Libby, all promoted this war-as there are 20 Billion in oil exports and a quick defeat was certain! Interestingly enough, most off these cats were demoted or fired during other Presidential administrations, but "George W"- I cant close a border Bush, insists on promoting them.
Easier to just blame Islam I gues. The Pope must watch Fox News?

[Maximus]

Bill:

Sounds like you won't be satisfied until the Pope joins MoveOn.org and starts aping left-wing "it's all Bush's fault" talking points.

Since the Pope is a man of extraordinary intellect, erudition and faith, that will never happen.

Your "easier to just blame Islam" comment shows you either didn't read the speech or completely misunderstood it. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could read the Holy Father's Regensburg speech and honestly reduce it to "its a blame Islam speech."

Unless one is a New York Times reporter, of course.

[Fran]

The pope's magnificent challenge to Muslims was amazing. Tell us what Mohammad brought to the world that was good. His message has been challenged for centuries, so let's have an honest discussion about reason, religion and Islam. Will some Muslim of note accept the invitation to debate?

[Bill Wanke]

Pope John Paul 2nd was known as a man of great compassion and did much to improve relations in a strained environment where hate is accepted. I remember him even kissing a koran. This alone upset many Catholics-I dont include myself in that group however.
Ratzinger a recent new elect, has already isolated many in that part of the world, that hate US Foreign Policy, are cycnical and skeptical(and for good reason I might add) about "Western Leaders", be they religious or political. He might've just signed the death warrant of those Christian inhabitants.
Why did te Pope not address Israel in this? For provoking a war & destroying a country, after invading Lebanon and its southern boundary, having 2 soldiers captured and then bargained for imprisioned women, Children and male Palestinian Prisoners by Hezbullah? They violate the Cease fire continuously and have killed 95 thus fire, post cease fire, including 24 children. What am I missing? God Bless.

[Bill Wanke]

Maximus,
I wont be happy until George W is in an orange jumpsuit and imprisoned for sanctioning hundreds of thousnds of deaths. I am a career Republican and gave money to his compaign of "Compassionate conservatism"

Fran,
Perhaps you can decipher for me why the Talmud, the Jewish Holy Book which precedes the Old Testament, outlines that Jesus is "In Hell" and was "a sorcerer", that Mary was a harlot ie Whore, daughter of princes and had s_x with many men. (Sanhedrin 106a)
Why it is ok to cheat a gentile? (Mezia 24a)
Why its ok to rob a gentile? (sanhedrin 57a)
why its ok to kill to a gentile(sanhedrin 57a)
Why a gentile is a yiddish Goy=cattle
Why ... I can go on.. would you rather I stop?
Go to your friendly book store and buy a translated copy. Great stuff.
Meanwhile in the Koran, Mary is spoken of with Respect, as is Jesus. Be happy to post.

[Dude]

Maximus, nice posting. Bill, you're at the bottom.
I have always been a big fan of the Greeks, and have always found the Protestant complaint of Catholicism being tainted by Hellenism to be something they would wish to retract, had they known what they were complaining of. It is quite apparent from logic, hisotry both joined with a reading of scripture, that our Jewish fathers (the writers of the New Testament) were steeped within, and operated with a hellenistic mind, coupled with the Jewish religion. In fact, I'll continue to be quite happy of the fact that Catholicism does have the positive aspects of hellenism woven into it's fabric, as this was the way it always was. And yes, to agree with the Pope, there are parts that were unessential, but by and large, the good has been retained, as it contains universal truths.

Bill, are we fighting them over here?
Are we fighting them there? Now add 2 plus 2.
Is it a coincdence that the day after we pulled Sadaam out of his spider-hole, and gave him the public dental exam, that Khadafi gave up his Nuclear weapons program we did not know he had? Did he see the writing on the wall? I would guess seeing Sadaam humiliated is the only reason Khadafi did what he did.

Is Iran in more of a position of power within the middle East? - yes, and probably temporarily (next 2-5 years).

P.S. Your statement that all generals wanted containment is utterly bogus. Also, evidence still points to the fact that Al-Qaida was trained in Northern Iraq. FYI, USA today is not exactly on the level. Duelfer was one of many other inspectors. Iraqi ex-pats and all intelligence, including the same intelligence your liberal friends had when they beat the drum, was the exact same the President had.
Bill, perhaps the Pope knows that confrontation with Islam is inevitable. We should pray and hope for peace, but don't be a fool in the process.

[Dude]

P.S. And whatever did the posted article about the Pope and the 3 stages of de-hellenization of Christianity ever have to do with the war in Iraq?

Moveon.org or DailyKos are still rolling for the night...

[Brendan]

Isreal provoked a war by having the audacity to exist which then forced the Hezbollah to violate the sanctity of Israel's border, commit an act of war attacking Israel's soldiers, and then holding soldier hostage.

Man I wish Israel would use their mind control rays to just make Hezbollah convert instead of having them attack. I guess Israel gains so much by fighting Hezbollah and taking no territory that they use the mind control ways as they see fit.

I know - I should not feed the trolls: this speech was not about US foreign policy - it was about the relationship of faith and reason historically and the evolution from the enlightenment through modern times of science in this relationship. And finally what the Pope sees as a deficiency in the current status quo - which prohibits a true and honest discourse with Islam.

[ReadSura9]

Bill-

When I see the statement "the Talmud, the Jewish Holy Book which precedes the Old Testament," I stop reading because I automatically know that the person making that remark knows nothing about the subject they are discussing. My conclusion is then confirmed with by the act of selectively quoting from the Talmud. Are you even aware that there are two works of Talmud?

Regarding the Koran, I wonder if you know anything about the Islamic doctrine of abrogation? I suggest you read up on the subject yourself, and then read Sura 9, the Sura of the Sword, and ask yourself the following question: "I wonder how many of my Muslim friends accept the concept of abrogation?" You may be unpleasantly surprised.

Chris

[Alan]

Bill said "What am I missing?"

Simple: The ability to recognize the truth because you are blinded by hate.

Benedict continues to impress me.

[Bill Wanke]

PJP2 spoke of the evils of war. I feel as if I must give sight ot the blind here.
Dude: General Zinni is the biggest critic of this war, strongly favored containment-I will post his speech at Central Command. He is currently 1 of 6 Generals Demanding Rumsfelds Resignation. Schwartzkoff and Powell are also known as "Doves", as
military they know the horrors of war
try to turn off FOX news and educate yourself.
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/zinni-iraq-conditions-pr.cfm

The conclusionary report says NO Weapons Of Mass Destruction. We have given up trying to find them because there are NONE. Saddam had remnants since 1991 and hadnt procured anything new. I have lots of info on this, must I do your homework for you? Be happy to.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

Brnadan, Israel provoked a WAR by invading the southern border of Lebanon, engaging in a firefight. 2 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and offered as a prisoner exchange. Thei invaded a country, used cluster bombs-illegal according to the Geneva convention in civilian areas-still have 800 live ones on the ground killing innocents-and have continually broken the cease fire. Is it possible that Hezbullah is more civil at war than Israel? Looks that way.
Chris, Ive glanced at the Koran and know the texts you queston. Infidels are made mention. My understanding is that that this doesnt apply to Christians, we are treated with respect in their texts. Mary is given the utmost respect. Jesus is regarded very highly as a prophet, in contrast to the Talmud who claims he is "In Hell" and a "Sorcerer".
Alan, I hate no one. I want the truth to be established and I want fairness and justice. For some reason lately, this doesnt apply to Arabs sadly and the Israelis are given a free pass. Read Christopher Hedges "Gaza Diary", he is a distinguished NY TImes photojournalist given many awards. He had a conversion in Palestine after witnessing the horrors committed in a genocide being pactived and a West that is blinded by spoon fed media talking head that would rather report on Paris Hiltons DUI, Britney Spears posing pregnant, P diddys illegimate Birth annoncement and the like. And so wonder wondering why Rome fell. It rotted from within, as we are doing. Dont believe me, just review the Talmud, preached by the Rabbis. Might explain why they treat some peole ie Christians and muslims alike so poorly and subhuman. JP2 denounced War, certainly this War, so far all I see implied is that. Bush, Bush, Bush, War, War, War. Back to Fox News.

[Dude]

Bill, you may want to add 1 of 6 (mostly retired) generals. You stated all generals favored containment. B.S.

Second, I don't watch Fox news, as I don't watch television. When I do, though, I watch Fox news perhaps 1 hour per 2 months.

I'll say to you, close up the NY Times, and USA today.

As far as educating myself, aside from my family, and jobs, educating myself is all I do. Perhaps you should take your own advice, friend.

Again, I'll ask, whatever did the post have to do with your problem with G.W. Bush?

You seem to be unreasonable, and off the hook. Getting unhinged about Bush and Iraq in an article which addresses relativism and Europe points to other problems.

[Kevin in Dallas]

KORAN:

"And (they) impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. Glorified be He and high exalted above (all) that they ascribe (unto Him). The Originator of the heavens and the Earth! How can He have a child when there is no consort for Him, when He created all things and is Aware of all things? Such is God, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh care of all things." 6:100-102

You ask ANY Muslim if Jesus was the Son of God and the answer will be "NO."

[Maximus]

Bill Wanke:

I'm sorry to be uncharitable, but your are self-evidently an idiot. Your MoveOn.org sensibility is bad enough -- but everyone is entitled to an opinion, even simplistic, wrong-headed ones.

But this is a Catholic blog, and I've had it with your defamation of the Blessed Virgin.

I'm deleting your offensive comments and banning you from commenting.

[Jeremiah Reedy]

Please put me on your mailing list.

Check out this Website by a Lebanese Christian. http://www.americancongressfortruth.com

Look on the left-hand side of the page and click on "Watch the Christian Persecution video in the Middle East".

[Kevin in Dallas]

Another great website to find out what the religious leaders of the Muslim world say to their own people is www.memri.org

One can find quotes to fit their arguments in any of the "Holy Books." I like to look and listen to the words and actions of the people today. The Koran may be full of peace-loving statements and ideas, but the only people who strap bombs on themselves or hijack planes in order to kill innocents in the name of God are Muslims.

[Dave]

Gentlemen:

This Pope never ceases to impress me, and I'm an agnostic. I wish I were smarter and better studied. This is truly food for thought and puts religion in a new light for me. What a great representative for a logical religion.

Now:

I read Bill Wanker's comments and was a bit perplexed. I had thought that the Talud really doesn't deal much with Jesus and found this very nice outline of common slurs on the Talumd.

From:

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html

From one of the Verses that Bill states is an indication of Jewish discrimation towards Christians (or some such nonsense). The Talumdic verse is quoted and then explained thusly:

"Summary
What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic. His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada. His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah. Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born.

Proof
Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.

Problems
1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser.
2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.
3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father."

I have to admit, I think it is a very exciting time to be Catholic.

[Joe]

So I guess the Christian Bishop of Jerusalem thought the Pals pissing in the church of the nativity showed respect?

[Loyolalaw98]

Maximus,

Thank you for exiling Mr. Wanke.

He had fallen into a common modern fallacy, that of viewing all religions as equal. Because of this false view, the Pope cannot "critique" Islam ithout "denouncing" it. For Wanke this turned into a polemic of why the Pope didn't denounce those things which he (Wanke) finds objectionable.

He also fell into a second modern fallacy, that of seeing an equality between the end(s) of religion (the salvation of souls) and the end(s) of state craft (security, peace, prosperity, etc...)

Enough of the crackpot and on to BXVI!

What I find most IMPRESSIVE about the Holy Father's comments is his ability to defend the true Roman Catholic (and Thomistic) view of human free will by quoting a Byzantine (and Orthodox) emperor!

One of my favorite books on Thomistic philosophy is entitled "Nature, Knowledge and God" by Brother Benignus, FSC, published in 1947. He taught at Manhattan College when it was still controlled by the Christian Brothers and before it became "an independent catholic institution in the LaSallian tradition." (whatever the heck that means.).

Here is his synposis of the Thomistic definition of Free Will:

"St. Thomas (Aquinas) never subscribed to the view of free will which looks upon it as a spontaneous, uncaused, non-rational choice. Our will, for him, always follows our reason; we act freely only when we consciously determine ourselves to a choice based upon known reasons....To seek to free the will from reason is to seek to destroy the freedom of man."

Because Islam seeks to divorce the will of man from his reason, from his ability to say "yes" or "no," we can rightly say that Islam seeks to destroy the freedom of man (in it's true sense - as conceived in the Judeo-Christian and Greek/Roman worlds for the last 2000+ years.

I hope the Holy Father continues to be such a beacon of truth.

Loyolalaw98

[Mike]

I wished this challenge will not be wasted on the Moslem leadership. I hope the Moslem elite will provide answers that will help the world appreciate why the situation is the way it is today, so that clarity can lead to win-win solutions, if there is such a thing.

[dmm]

From a conservative Baptist in the US:
Great speech. If the RCC had had popes throughout history like the last two it's had, we'd probably all still be RC. :-) It nicely contrasts the fullness of rational Christianity with the emptiness and irrationality of both European materialism and Islam.
But, without for a moment giving ground to the Enemy on the reasonableness of our Faith, let us not forget 1 Corinthians 1:17-23 (quoted below). In case your NT knowledge is a bit rusty, I remind you that the Apostle Paul is the writer. He is continuing from earlier statements, where he is condemning factionalism based on personality "cults." He expresses relief that he did not personally baptize many of them, so they couldn't claim to be "of Paul." He continues as follows:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

[Michael Psar]

The Pope was only revealing certain truths that have otherwise been forgotten becasue of Muslim propoganda. We must understand that at the time of Manuel 11 the Ottomans killed The majority of Orthodox Christians, with the same mentality as excersised today by extremest groups such as Alcaeda. Its funny when someone mentions a truth how rapidly the other (Muslim world) reacts. This ofcourse only demonstrates the proof that these events by such people did take place and continue to exist. Lets not forget the Armenian and Asia Minor Genocide by the Ottoman Turks in the first part of the 20th century which claimed the lives of nearly 1.6 million people. Lets not forget the myriad attempts by the Ottoman Turks to overtake Greece and Serbia and other Countries by force. Lets also not forget Turkey's inhumane illegal occupation of Cyprus. I can't see why Muslims world wide cannot see the Pope's point. He said nothing personal and simply quoted an emperor of 14th century who kingdom was deteriating due to violent molestation and murder on the Ottoman Turks behalf. This treatment of the Orthodox Christian East led to 400 years of inhumane Occupation by the Ottomans. Unfortunately it appears that the Muslim Christian Situation is a bit like the German - Jewish Holocaust. Just as we "can't mention the war in Germany" so also we can't mention the wrongdoings of SOME Muslims who have killed so many millions of people, especially those of Christian Background. I emphasise the word SOME above because just as not all German's should pay for one man's madness (Hitler) so also the Muslims should not pay for some peoples' extremism (Extremist Groups of today which include a very muslim Country ending in a Y.) Therefore i do not believe the Pope was branding all Muslims as those who institute their beliefs with violence but he is certaintly alluding to those extremist groups that do in order to show how wrong they are because they are not acting with reason.

This is all coming from An Orthodox Christian'S point of view, who can see past the catholic crusade mistermeaners against Greece becuase the Catholics have apologised (John Paul IV apologised to The Archbishop of Greece), but who cannot accept the treatment dished out by SOME Muslims who will never say sorry to the Christian East because unfortunately their "integrity" and way of thinking does not allow for any apology.