"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 ReflectionsDistinguished 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.
Seems to me that the Pope is expressing the need for the Western world to integrate theology with science and ethics. Once we are able to do this, we will be able to hold a more fruitful dialogue with religious nations. With some nations, religion is built-in to their laws and their way of life. In America and Europe, it seems we are constantly trying to separate religion from science and ethics. It is like we are trying to replace the Christian influences America and Europe was built upon with philosophy, psychology and sociology. But these are not good substitutes.....according to the Pope.
I'm confused though. If America and Europe incorporated religion more fully into their ethics, science and politics, would the Muslim world then take us seriously and talk to us? Would we then win the hearts and minds of their people if we were more religious? Would they then put down their swords when faced with the power of "reason?'
Posted by:Theresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Benedict XVI is absolutely brilliant! Who says that being erudite AND easily understandable can't be done at the same time? Much as I loved JPII, trying to wade through his writings was often tortuous and frustrating. The "old professor" in Benedict lives on!
Posted by:MM from Brooklyn | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Also, I realize the Pope was speaking at a univerisity, but I think the speech suffers from being overly intellectual......which makes this transcript less likely to be read in its entirety.......and people NEED to read the whole thing. The press, however, has no excuse for NOT reading it. They are responsible for putting this stuff into layman's terms.....that's their job. It's like the NY Times just took one quote from the speech and ran with it. It is a shame that the general public will read the article, and not the WHOLE speech.
Posted by:Theresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Listen to Pope Ratzingers Speech (2.6 MB Mp3):
Popes Speech
Posted by:John | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 05:43 AM
If only I knew German.....
Posted by:Theresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Long Live His Holiness Benedict XVI!! He spoke the "TRUTH" and yes sometimes the "TRUTH" is painful. He owes no man an apology--most especially those of this world that consider all non-Muslims as infidels. Simply look at the Koran--read it and read the addtional text the Hadith and you will see the vengence that the Islamic faith proposes. By the way his Holiness John Paul II made public the sins of the Catholic church of the past and ask for forgiveness. Have we heard the same from the Iamams if Islam?
Posted by:Sam Garner | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 10:56 AM
I finally had a chance to read the Pope's speech in which he made references to Islam and the prophet Muhammad quoting a Byzantine emperor. As a muslim, my problem with the reference is that the Pope used a quote in which the prophet of Islam is cast in a negative light by this emperor, as an illustrtation of how the spread of religion through war is contrary to God, logos. In using this unfortunate reference, the Pope did not state in his own words that he disagreed with this assessment of the prophet. He simply left the quote dangling while he moved on to address the thesis of his speech. My impression is that the Pope used the example to illustrate how religion and violence are incompatible by using Islam as an example.
One wonders why the Pope did not use the example of the crusades where his predecessors launched holy war to recapture the holy land as an example of how violence is incompatible with spreadingreligion and how such behavior existed in the history of the Catholic church rather than using an obscure example that would nearly offend every devout muslim man and woman.
Posted by:Marwan Alnima | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 12:49 PM
I would just like to thank you for putting up a translated version of the speech. I have been reading and watching the news all day. The press has quoted the Vatican's remarks that the entire speech should be read to understand the context of the Pope's remarks, but not one news organization offers the speech. They just phrase their story as "Pope refuses to apologize", which is inaccurate in and of itself. So I am grateful that at least someone has bothered to offer the world the Pope's speech, because the news certainly hasn't.
I am not particularly religious. In fact, I am not at all religious. However, even I can find great meaning in the Pope's words. I do not see any intended offense to Islam. However, I will say this: if Muslims are angry because they think the Pope called their religion violent, maybe the best response isn't to throw molotov cocktails into three Christian churchs. The same can be said about the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons. If Muslims are angry that their prophet was depicted wearing a bomb as a turbon, maybe the best response wasn't to burn down several buildings, start riots for several weeks, and trample a person to death.
As the Pope says, reason needs to prevail, and reason doesn't include violence.
Posted by:Teresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 01:22 PM
Chris said: "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."
I am not sure I follow:
1) Sura 9 is Repentance or Immunity - there is no "Sura of The Sword".
2) "Abrogation" is a standard, albeit advanced, topic in Qur`anic exegesis - it is accepted by all Muslims.
Posted by:Veritas | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 04:01 PM
I sincerely fail to see how the pope's speech was an "affront" to the prophet mohammed or could be interpreted as linking islam with violence. There are two things that are universal, hydrogen and stupidity. Only a person generousely blessed with the latter can interpret the speech as inflamatory after having read it. The pope quoted an emperor's words to set the stage for a discourse on reason and faith, thus demonstrating that such an argument had been on for centuries. He never stated his support for emperor Manuel's view and even acknowleged that the recording editor gave greater credence to the emperor's opinions than his persian interlocutor. I have for years listened to muslims expressing outrage at every slight, real or imagined and watched them take to the streets in "peaceful" protests often involving the burning of effigies, pointing accusing fingers at the "evil West". I am sick of the hypocrisy that demands an apology for every imagined slight aginst islam while these same people persistently fail to address the albeit minority clique of extremism that appears to find fertile soil in islam. It also reveals an unwillingness or inability to engage in debate. How many christians have taken to the streets to protest the mockery of their faith? I'm willing to bet most of the fools out there protesting have not read the speech. Ian Fisher on the other hand must either be blessed with more than his own fair share of ignorance or is stupid enough to be willing to do anything to sell papers. Given that the man makes his living from words,I have to believe the latter. The pope's speech is a call to reasoned debate. It contains nothing which warrants an apology. Only "peace at all costs" political-correctness-apoplogists could have made such a hue and cry about the speech. I come from Nigeria, a country with 55% of the population being muslim. Time and again I have witnessed violent muslim outrage at imagined slights that left several christians dead and churches burnt. Yet these same muslims do not hesistate to mock christianity. Why must the civilized world live in fear of muslims' interpretation of words and issues? I have several muslim friends and hold nothing against the religion. However, too many of its leaders and followers find it easy to resort to violence. Christianity had its bloody era but has since progressed, muslims must move on as well.
Posted by:Dapo, London | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 04:43 PM
Kevin in Dallas quotes the Qur`an (6:100-102) and concludes: "You ask ANY Muslim if Jesus was the Son of God and the answer will be "NO."
True; but where do we go from here? In his 1975 book "Does God Exist?" Hans Kung wrote [p. 618]:
"Faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is common to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Instead of the scandalous struggle with one another, which hitherto has characterised their common history, today precisely in the light of their common faith, cooperation is imperative."
This seems to be a more promising line of argument to build a coalition of those who seek salvation (who are threatened by those who don't) rather than dividing those who believe in God by an Inquisition on dogma. Don't you agree?
Posted by:Veritas | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 04:48 PM
Dear Dapo,
It is not very conductive to constructive dialogue to use words such as stupidity to characterize another person's point of view. That is exactly the kind of talk that causes dialogue to stray from reasonableness to a mere exchange of insults.
I agree that the violence that has already taken place in the Muslim world as a result of the Pope's speech is wrong. It is unfortunate that many people express their views through emotional acts that can be violent.
As to Muslims mocking Christians, I would have to say that this is a universal trait that people from different faiths have. It is not only Muslims that do this by any means. I am sure there are Christians who mock Muslims as well. On the other hand, I cannot remember as a Muslim hearing any member of my family or acquaintances mock or speak ill of Jesus the Messiah who is as revered as the prophet Muhammad and all the other prophets of God. To speak ill of Jesus is against the teachings of Islam.
In order to foster positive dialogue, we must be very careful with what we say. Words can hurt as much as actions. It is unfortunate that the speech of the Pope contained the example that it did. I am willing to accept the Pope's statement of regret even though he did not make it personally. To me, the future actions and spoken words of the Pope and the Vatican will tell me if this regret is sincere.
Posted by:Marwan Alnima | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 05:37 PM
I think the Pope was merely making an academic reference to a historical account of a interfaith dialogue between the emperor Manuel II and a Persian....that was in a book he recently read. I don't think he meant to offend anyone.
Posted by:Theresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 07:46 PM
Granted yes, we exercise some amount of sensitivity when talking about religious issues---but we also must take into account well-meaning intentions and unintended interpretations.
Posted by:Theresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Marwan--thanks for coming onto the site and sharing your viewpoint. I hope that more people will read it and respond. I wish you well.
Posted by:Theresa | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Dear Theresa,
Thank you for the welcome. I appreciate your words of support. I look forward to having constructive interfaith dialogue with all bloggers on this site.
Posted by:Marwan Alnima | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 08:56 PM
If one follows Pope Benedict's logic, doesn't it follow that American Christian fundamentalists are not really Christians? According to the Pope, a Christian accesses both God and the world through reason. Science is the systematic application of reason. (This is the case even if one agrees with the Pope, as I do, that modern Western society has gone too far in reducing the scope of reason.) Fundamentalits explicitly reject science, in favor of what they consider to be revelation. But to reject science is to reject reason and hence, following the Pope, to reject Christianity and, in fact, God. Therefore, Christian fundamentalists are ungodly and not Christian.
I believe this argument is correct. One way in which the Pope might have spared himself from giving some the impression that he has an unreasonable antipathy to Islam is if he had made clear that if there is no common ground between Christians and Muslims, then there is no common ground between mainline Christians and Christian fundamentalists.
In other words, when it comes to substance and not form, Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muslims than they do with true Christians.
Pope Benedict is worried that in Europe, Christian faith is waining whereas Muslim faith is strong. This produces a threat to European culture as we know it. The corresponding threat in the U.S. is produced not by Muslims, but by Christian fundamentalists.
Posted by:Alexander | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 08:59 PM
I posted my comment under the wrong posting, so here it is under the correct story . . .
Marwan,
First I want to say I’m pleased to read your posts and see that dialogue can be achieved.
I read the text of the Pope’s speech and a lot of it was over my head so I’m hesitant to try to explain it or reinterpret it for you to make any clarifications. But from what I understand, the Pope was talking in terms of Faith and Reason and this is a major theological difference between Islam and Christianity. In Islam, faith and reason can be and are, separated – this is simply stating what Islam teaches on the matter and is an attempt to be descriptive, it is not an attempt to slander or be a put-down to Islam.
“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.”
For Christianity, and Catholicism in particular this is a very contrary idea. For us, and I quote the Catechism, “God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.” Part of being infinitely perfect means that He cannot contradict Himself – so the idea of him willing anyone to practice idolatry is contrary to our teachings. It’s like the question, “Can God make a rock he can’t lift?” For a Catholic, the answer is, “no because that would be contrary to his infinite perfection to contradict himself.” Also, we do not see reason as something that is of man. Reason is of God and is something we must struggle against our own inborn ignorance to learn. For Catholics, God is perfectly good, knows all things, can do all things and is the author of reason it’s self. So, perhaps you can understand to hear, “God can’t be bound by any of our categories, even that of rationality,” doesn’t make sense if you believe that God is the author of reason and it does not belong to man, we must learn it.
As far as the context of his comments on Jihad, I can only guess. The concept of a war being holy is very contrary to Catholic thinking. War can be justified in certain circumstances, and Catholicism’s most brilliant theologians took centuries to come up with “The Just War Theory” so I won’t even begin to attempt to explain it here, but to us ‘war’ and ‘holy’ are opposites. For Catholics, “Evil can never be done so that good may come of it.” It is outside of our reason to wage war in an attempt to be holy. (This is why many Catholics are morally opposed to some of the current conflicts including JP2 – they do not feel that the current conflicts met the criteria of the “Just War Theory.”)
I hope this helps.
Posted by:carolg | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 09:30 PM
Dear Carol,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your effort at explaining the point of view the Pope is trying to present in his speech. I admit as well that I am not qualified to discuss the subject the nature of God as viewed by Catholicism vs. Islam. However, one thing that I can say for sure is that I know enought about the basic tenents of Christian beliefs vs. Islamic beliefs to know that the view that we have of God and the world is fundamentally different.
One thing I also would like to comment on is that even in Islamic thought, the conception of God may vary from one Muslim Group to another. For example, some Sufis (an ascetic group within Islam) have a view of the world and God that contains philosophical/mystical elements that are rejected by mainstream Sunni Islam since they cannot be found in the Koran or the sayings of the prophet. I say this to explain that the views of certain Muslim scholars that are quoted may not necessarily reflect the view of the majority of Muslims. For example, I have not heard of Ibn Hazn before today even though I am quite familiar with the names of the most prominent Islamic scholars since the birth of Islam.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to exchange Ideas with all bloggers on this website. Peace be with you.
Posted by:Marwan Alnima | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 10:09 PM
Choosing a poignant dialogue from the book by Professor Koury as an introductory reference to the subject "Faith, Reason and the University" is, to me, quite reasonable.
If anyone should be taken to task, it is, logically, Professor Koury. Now, I want to read HIS book!
As an aside, I've enjoyed everyone's comments, especially after Mr. Wanke(r) was banned.
Great BLOG! Thanks, Maximus.
John the Hussar
Posted by:John | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 11:23 PM
Marwan,
I can assure you that the explanation I've given about the Catholic theology about the nature of God is spot on.
I also understand that there are different Muslim groups, perhaps the same way there are multiple protestant groups, and there is no equivalent 'Pope' the way there is in Catholicism to speak for the faith as a whole.
But from what I understand few or none of the major Muslim thinkers/theologians assert that faith and reason must be compatible the way it is asserted in Catholic thinking or in Judaism.
So I would only hope that when people hear what the Pope was saying they could put it into the context of the larger theological issue. And given that he was simply pointing out basic differences between Islam and Christianity - that you don't dispute - in an academic setting, and pointing out the history of this debate, he did nothing wrong and has nothing to apologize for.
What the Pope is saying is very relevant today. The Islamic idea of jihad or holy war is, for Catholicism, unreasonable since God is perfect holiness and war is death and destruction. I understand there are different groups of Muslims but too many of them use the idea of Jihad with tragic outcomes today, and this has been a sad part of Islam’s history.
It is unfortunate that so many people are offended by stating these theological differences. I hope that people can learn to think more, as we attempt to here, and react less.
God Bless
Posted by:carolg | Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Dear Carol,
I think your arguement, if considered accurate, shows that the Pope truly believes in the quote that he referenced. A person would not use an example unless you believed the example in some way to be valid. In other words, if I am trying to prove a point, then I am going to use something to support my point of view. The remark came very early in the speech in order to establish the thesis of the paper which simply stated is: God equals logos. I understand the point that the example is used to illustrate the difficulty of have interfaith dialogue between two diamterically opposed religions in their world view. But does it honestly make sense to you if you wish to initiate interfaith dialogue to use an example where the prophet of a religion is accused of bringing evil and inhumanity to the world. It is an unfortunate and I must say poor choice of words for someone who wishes to initiate interfaith dialogue between Catholics and Muslims. I would compare it to the use terms like "Crusade" and Islamic Fascists by George W. Bush in describing the so called war on terror. Words must be chosen carefully.
The other thing that I wish to say is what is wrong with apologizing if someone is offended by your words and actions. It happens all the time in every day life. I may say something that is misinterpreted by a colleague at work, in order to insure harmony and a comfortable work environment I will apologize to that person and let them know that I did not intend to hurt their feelings. It does not mean that I am wrong because I apologized, it only means that I took action that was necessary to insure harmony.
As to the unfortunate history of Islam using holy war to achieve its aims, I ask you which Arab Muslim nation in the 20th century has used Jihad to achieve any political or military advantage? Which Arab Muslim country has occupied any western land or had expansionist aims at the Christian West in the past century. Is it not true that Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco were occupied by Catholic France for a century and a half. Is it not true that Catholic Italy occupied Libya? Is it not true that Syria and Lebanon were under French control for many years. My point is that if we look at recent history, Arab Muslim countries have not been belligerent to Christian Europe, on the contrary, it is Christian Europe that has been belligerent against Arab Muslim Nations. If we go further back in history, one can argue that the history of the Church has most certainly not been compatible with its teachings (i.e. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversion of Native Americans, etc...)
Please understand that I am not trying to offend anyone here. I just find it difficult to understand how so many westerners critize Islam and consider it to be a violent religion when the history of the Christian West in the recent past and today is full of so much violence itself (i.e. World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, the Vietnam War.) The violence continues to be perpetrated today in the unjust war against Iraq (which by the way the Pope has condemned as an unjust war.) Nevertheless, Catholic countries like Italy and Spain participated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Is that not against Catholic teaching and dogma? To me, the criticism leveled against Islam is a double standard. It is nice and fine to believe that war is incompatible with God, but as they say, action speaks louder than words. A religious tenet has no value if only lip service is given to it.
Again, I hope my words do not cause offense. I tend to be a very non judgmental person because I recognize that I have many, many faults as a human being; that is why I am reluctant to critize people. I hope to be able to continue this discussion with you and other bloggers soon. Peace be with you.
Posted by:Marwan Alnima | Sunday, September 17, 2006 at 01:11 AM
Marwan:
Yes the "Christian" West has been very violent in recent history. But you must understand that in the West there is a separation between Church and State. The Pope can talk until he is blue in the face about the evils of war, but it is the State that declares war. The Crusades were in reaction to the terrible treament that Christians were receiving in the Holy Land. The Spanish Inquisition was a institution of the Kingdom of Spain, not the Holy See. The poor treatment of Native Americans was again carried out by the Spanish government and other Western government, not the Catholic Church. Again, in the West there is a separation between Chruch and State. From what I can see in the Middle East, there is very little separation between Mosque and State (except maybe in Egypt or Syria).
You ask why so many westerners criticize Islam and consider it violent. In the last 30 years, religious leaders of Islam have issued fatwas calling for the death of those who "insult" Islam - remember Salman Rushdie? Terrorists kill civilians in the name of Islam. How many beheadings have we seen done in the name of Islam and broadcast over the internet these past 5 years? (How many Chritian Arabs have strapped bombs to themselves to kill Jews?) In any war with Israel, Allah is always invoked by the Arab. Any percieved or imagined insult to Islam or its prophet, and Muslims worldwide take to the streets threatening people. Look what has happened today - Churches in the Gaza Strip have been fired upon or damaged by fires. Do you think that these people actually read what the Pope said? Or is it more likely that they were told during Friday prayers? Look at all the protests and lives lost over the false story of Korans being flushed down the toilet at GITMO. Look at the protests over the Danish cartoons.
Then let's look at the punishments that are carried out under Sharia Law in Muslim countries: Execution if you are gay. Execution if you are an unmarried woman who is a victim of rape or incest. Execution if you are a woman who kills a would be rapist in self-defense. Many times the execution is done by stoning.
Then take a look at how Islam spread from its earliest beginnings. The choice was either believe that Mohammed is the messenger of God or die by the sword. Ask any Iranian how Iran became Muslim - not one of them will say that it was a willing conversion.
As you mentioned - actions speak louder then words. I see and read a lot of Islamic appologist claiming that "Islam is Peace." But when I see that actions of its members committing violent acts in the name of their religion, I have to think otherwise.
Posted by:Kevin in Dallas | Sunday, September 17, 2006 at 02:20 AM
Dear Kevin,
What is the value of religion if its tenents cannot be applied to everyday life including the political actions and decisions by its adherents. This Idea of separating the Church from the state is most definitely a western idea that is rejected by Islam. If the moral lessons of Christianity cannot be applied to the policy of nations that are predominantly Christian, then what is the value of the religion. All that means is that lip service is given to religion while immoral actions can be taken by governments in the name of necessity/national security and the separation of Church and State. If the Pope can talk until he is blue in the face and no catholic leader would listen to him, then what is pray his value? What is the value of initiating a dialogue with an institution (the Catholic Church) that cannot exert moral influence on its adherents to act in accordance with its religious tenents. I see that value as zero. Islam is more realistic in the sense that it recongnizes that all decisions (including political, economic, social, military) must be made in accordance with religious law. This does not mean that Islam is not tolerant of other religions or other religious groups that live within Islam's borders and beyond.
You speak of the Crusades as an attempt to liberate mistreated christians who have lived in the holy land. Is that why when Jerusalem fell in 1099, all Muslims and Jews were slaughtered in the city, including man, woman and child. Did the Jews also mistreat the Christians in the Holy Land?
When Granada fell in 1492, Jews were given six months to either convert or leave the city, or face death. Most Jews went to modern day Morocco. Until the creation of Israel, a quarter of a million Jews lived until the middle of the 20th century in Morocco, something that cannot be said to have been the case in Christian spain. The Spanish Inquisition was most definitely sanctioned by the Catholic Church in Spain (it may not have been the Pope, but it was still the Catholic church.)
You talk about Muslims being intolerant of the slightest insults to them or to their prophet, I really can understand your mystification and disapproval of Muslims' passion on this point. Muslims should not be surprised by the lack of respect that many Christians show for the prophet Muhammad since Christians allow their own son of God to be ridiculed in their literature, film and cartoons. I think if Muslims are aware of this tolerance in your culture, then perhaps we will feel less offended when certain remarks are made.
Living in the west for the past 18 years, I have come to expect the depiction of Muslims as barbarians and uncivlized. You went on to list all Muslim atrocities that have been committed in the 20th century against the west, yet you did not mention once when an Arab Muslim country attacked or declared war on a Western European country during that time period. You speak of terrorists, yet you do not speak of state sponsored terrorism and the terror inflicted on the Iraqi people as their country is unjustly invaded(a sentiment shared by the current Pope and the former Pope may he be in peace)and tens of thousands of innocent people die as a result. Did Iraq declare war on the west? Did Iraq say they will invade the west? The answer is no. Yet the country is invaded in what is called a preemptive war (which is opposed by the Catholic Church.)
I only ask for people to be reasonable when they are ready to list the terrible faults of other people. I have no problem with you or any of the other Catholic/Christian bloggers on this website thinking that their religion and way of life has the higher moral ground and is superior to other religious beliefs. That is definitely to be expected, otherwise you would not be Christian.
I hope that I have not offended you or your religious beliefs with what I have said above. That is not my intention. If I have, I apologize in advance. I look forward to discussing this with you further.
Posted by:Marwan Alnima | Sunday, September 17, 2006 at 03:15 AM
To my Muslim cousins:
Please consider the responses of some of your, self-proclaimed followers to the Pope's speech. "We who adore death will reek vengeance on you who adore life", etc. Aren't you a little concerned by these statements and the harvest of suicide bombers that your religion is producing? We who follow Jesus love you but we are very confused over the actions of some of your followers who claim to be following God. I have read the Pope's comments and I don't see any calls to kill Muslims merely a plea for them to consider the unreasonableness of Mohammed's methods of spreading religion by the sword. We who follow Jesus do not believe that this is how God works. You can talk about the Crusades if you like. That was a dark time for our faith. We find it significant that Jesus never killed and in fact died to avoid violence. In fact, our religion has spread most effectively when we are persecuted (Nero) not killing. We love you and are praying for you.
Posted by:Luther | Sunday, September 17, 2006 at 10:25 AM