How To Offend 100 Million People
The whole idea of the Pope has always struck me as an archaic enigma. The notion that the pope has some kind of direction connection to the divine is about as plausible as god speaking direction to Pat Robertson or the George Bush. Typically, except for discouraging birth control in overpopulated nations, most of the pope's pablum is harmless, at least until this week. The nice thing about the lack of kings and divinely appointed spiritual leaders in the United States is that when they do something extraordinarily foolish, one way of another popular will can and usually does ensure that they are replaced. Now a self-proclaimed infallible spokesman for God makes some very deliberate outrageous statements such as that Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. Quoting the Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the emperors words were, he said:
Show me just what Muhammad 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.
Of course he has already apologized. But as we say in court – you can't unring a bell once rung. He apologized much like someone who isn't apologetic might. He said that he was sorry for causing offense. He was sorry for the reaction. Its like saying "I'm sorry you feel that way," instead of admitting error or taking responsibility. Instead, he should have said he was wrong and then listed what Muslims have done for the world and how things have changed in since the 14th century. But he won't.
The last Pope made sincere, long term attempts at religious tolerance and bridging divides. Everything the last pope did was set back instantly by a few unwisely chosen words.What to do now? If this Pope was sincere about his apology he would have to follow in his predecessor' footsteps. He would have to never again say anything that would make the world doubt that he did not believe his statement. He won't do this – he has instead made a lame apology Aside from his lame apology he won't make a concerted effort to reach out to the Muslim world. Sure, he will do some nominal efforts. It will be like him saying I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black, Hispanic, Jewish, whatever other knee-jerk explanations racists use when their racism is unearthed. To put it another way, the Pope's credibility has been destroyed and I doubt he will do that it takes to ever have it restored.
If the head of the Methodist Church, Episcopal Church or some other more democratic organization made such comments, even much more mild, he or she would resign before being ousted. The Pope should, but won't do the same.
Comments
In an era dominated by relativism and political correctness, where all religions are supposedly equal and truth is a matter of opinion (usually someone else's), it is refreshing to see someone uphold what they believe and defend it against all comers.
Clearly, Benedict had no idea that, in returning to the University of Regensburg, where he once taught theology, and delivering a lecture with the supremely inoffensive title of "Faith, Reason, and the University - Memories and Reflections," he would be charged with launching the Tenth Crusade. Yet that is plainly happening.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709
Posted by: Lwood![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/hoglawyer/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 19, 2006 12:47 AM
Old prejudices run deep and sometimes they come out at the most unexpected times, even from the Holy Sea.
However, that being said there are a lot of Muslim's out to prove that what he said was true. How ironic and how very sad!
Posted by: Jim | September 19, 2006 09:39 AM
Isn't it amazing how the man upstairs is talking to the Pope, W, and other various fruitcakes and when I ask for just the order of the first four horse's in the third race at Belmont I get nothing. go figure.
Posted by: Mudbug | September 19, 2006 09:40 AM
The Quoran authorizes spreading the word of the prophet by the sword.
I find it offensive that a leader of a Christian sect cannot speak that truth.
It is true that in history some Christians tried the same thing, yet they lacked authority in their foundational documents and teaching to do that. One could easily compare the actions of men to the words of the church fathers and see the disconnect. They could measure the actions against the teaching see the failings of those men.
Where is that disconnect in what the Pope said? Violence in the name of Islam is permitted by the foundational teachings. Ought not the question be why is there any outrage over honesty?
Islam, Christianity, and Judism are all incompatible. Only the ignorant claim that since they declare the same God and share a history are they compatible.
Islam declares Mohammed is the last prophet and the way to eternal reward is but through his teaching that replaced the biblical texts they became corrupted through years of copying. It declares Jesus was not who he claimed to be.
The Jewish faith declares the Messiah has yet to arrive in contradiction of Christian faith and declares that the Word of God remains uncorrupted and God has set them apart as his people who have salvation/redemption as long as they keep the law.
Christian faith declares that Jesus was the annointed one and salvation found only through faith in Jesus and that any other declaration of gospel is a lie.
All three are mutually exclusive.
John Paul II did preach tolerance but he never taught that any other way would provide redemption. John Paul II merely taught what is foundational in Christianity (depsite the perversions of many teachers), that faith in Jesus is the only route to eternal life and the only way to share that faith was through, love, charity, mercy, and compassion.
Benedict does not need to demonstrate his opinion by words but rather actions, making sure that the Catholic Church is on the ground in the Muslim world providing food and health care. Putting the missionaries, priests, monks, and nuns in harms way sharing love, compassion, charity and mercy. Already one nun has been murdered to prove the tolerance of the Islamic world and more will have to follow.
While I am not Catholic, there is no need for his resignation. Those who find his teaching in error can do like others have done and follow their faith without recognizing his authority. The Orthodox Church did that when the bishop of Rome first attempted to be first among bishops, Luther challenged the system and so forth.
In matters of faith, you have it or you do not. If you believe the office of Pope is filled by the Cardinals at the moving of the Holy Spirit, you are stuck with the leader you get. If you do not believe it then you place your faith elsewhere.
Posted by: Well | September 19, 2006 11:35 AM
Guess Mama Ratzinger forgot to teach her little Joey what all our mamas taught us: If you can't say something nice...
Posted by: citizen | September 19, 2006 04:32 PM
The thing about popes is, there are good ones and not so good ones--okay, some are nowhere near good. They comes and they goes, just like everyone else.
This pope's speech to a gathering at his alma mater was not an "infallible" pronouncement. The bounds of papal infallibility were defined by the enacting council in 1870, and this falls far outside those bounds.
Nevertheless, it was definitely a diplomatic faux pas to quote a Byzantine emperor to address Muslims, and he has not satisfactorily explained himself. I fear that may be because, scholar though he may be, he is not a pope of the first category--and don't kid yourself, it's a hard job, especially these days.
Some of his predecessors--at least two of his recent ones--would have done this: He would make a public act of atonement. You know, make a pilgrimage to a commonly-held holy shrine, abase himself before it, and go on with matters. If the crowds killed him on his way, he'd become a saint, and the strife would continue or get worse. If they allowed his pilgrimage, they would be obliged to forgive, and matters could go on.
In short, he would challenge the Muslims and count on their sincere beliefs. The burden would be theirs. If they killed him, they would lose.
But alas, the world doesn't work that way anymore.
Posted by: widj | September 19, 2006 09:06 PM