yes,strong and decisive,unbending to the Truth

stupor-mundi in the main forum puts it best.

E' VERO: IMMENSO BENEDETTO OGGI!!!!UNA VERA ROCCIA!!!
TU ES PETRUS: DIO E' CON TE!!!

It is true, she says (commenting on Sybella's 'firm and decisive' comment):
BENEDICT WAS GREAT TODAY! A TRUE ROCK!
TU ES PETRUS! GOD IS WITH YOU!!!!

Grace - that is a great word for Papino: UNBENDING!

----------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, check out Christopher Blosser's new post on his blog
www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/index.html
where he has links to a couple of major English articles about the Regensburg lecture written by thoughtful analysts before this whole hullaballoo, and you can check out anything else in English that we missed, including the coverage of the Bavarian trip, where he kindly mentions the PRF as one of his recommended general sources for coverage of the trip.

At the very beginning, he has a link to the University of Regensburg site, which has some historic documents about Ratzi and a couple of newspaper clippings about him at the time. It's in German, but most of it is self-explanatory.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/09/2006 15.23]

These poor 'theological' students in a benighted land run by benighted minds! To read their comments is to shudder at the extent and degree of unreason that shackles the minds of Muslim belligerents who simply take their cues from their mind-masters and mind-minders, and have never perhaps learned to think on their own.

Why would they shut down school to protest the Pope? Any excuse for a holiday, eh? And any pretext to work in and play up their masters' political propaganda against America and Israel!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Iran (Muslim) seminaries shut
in protest at pope remarks
by Atta Kenare


QOM, Iran (AFP) - Religious seminaries across Iran shut to stage protests over remarks by Pope Benedict XVI that linked Islam to violence as top clerics vehemently criticised the pontiff's remarks.

All of Iran's seminary schools were closed in protest at the pope's "outrageous remarks", state television said, and instead of regular lectures students shook their fists in anger as they listened to clerics denouncing the speech Sunday.
[Silly, silly...]

Up to 400 seminarians sat in the auditorium of the Feyzieh -- the main seminary school in Iran's clerical epicentre of Qom, south of Tehran -- to protest against the pope's remarks last week in his native Germany.

They carried portraits of revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini and supreme leader Ali Khamenei emblazoned with the slogans "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" written in Arabic, an AFP photographer reported.

"The pope must present his apologies and read the Koran more since it acknowledges Christianity," top cleric Ahmad Khatami, one of the leaders of Friday prayers in Tehran, told the protesting students.

"Instead of preaching peaceful coexistence among the great divine religions, the pope is planting seeds of division," Grand Ayatollah Saafi Gholpaygani said, according to state television.

The state-run IRNA agency said the order for the schools to shut had come from Qom's Grand Ayatollahs, the highest-ranking of all Shiite clerics.

In a speech in Germany on Tuesday, the pope spoke of a link between Islam and jihad, or "holy war", and quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who said innovations introduced by the Prophet Mohammed were "evil and inhuman".

On Sunday the pope said he was "deeply sorry" for the outrage triggered across the Muslim world by the remarks he made about Islam, and stressed they had not reflected his personal opinion.

Several Grand Ayatollahs in Qom issued separate statements on Saturday urging the pope to apologise and to increase his knowledge of Islam, Iranian media said.

Two Iranian hardline newspapers on Sunday scented signs of an Israeli-US plot behind Benedict's remarks, which have created a wave of anger across the Muslim world.

The daily Jomhuri Islami said Israel and the United States -- the Islamic republic's two arch-enemies -- could have dictated the comments to distract attention from the resistance of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah to Israel's offensive on Lebanon.

"The reality is that if we do not consider Pope Benedict XVI to be ignorant of Islam, then his remarks against Islam are a dictat that the Zionists and the Americans have written (for him) and have submitted to him." [Lord have mercy!]

"The American and the Zionist aim is to undermine the glorious triumph of Islam's children of Lebanese Hezbollah, which annulled the undefeatable legend of the Israeli army and foiled the Satanic and colonialist American plot," it said.

Fellow hardline daily Kayhan, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said there were signs of Israeli interference aimed at creating conflict between Islam and Christianity.

"There are many signs that show that Pope Benedict XVI's remarks regarding the great prophet of Islam are a link in a connected chain of a Zionist-American project," it said.

"The project, which was created and executed by the Zionist minority, aims at creating confrontation between the followers of the two great divine religions."
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well, some things are just too outrageous for words....
These zealots are now using the Pope in more ways than one as a tool for their own ends!

ITALIAN NUN SHOT DEAD
BY SOMALI GUNMEN
by Mohamed Sheikh Nor
Associated Press Writer


MOGADISHU, Somalia - An Italian nun was shot dead at a hospital by Somali gunmen Sunday, hours after a leading Muslim cleric condemned Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks on Islam and violence.

The nun, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the back at S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu by two gunmen, said Mohamed Yusuf, a doctor at the facility, which serves mothers and children. The nun's bodyguard and a hospital worker were also killed, doctors said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, and it was not clear if it was directly linked to the pope's comments. Two people had been arrested, said Yusuf Mohamed Siad, head of security for the Islamic militia that controls Mogadishu.

Earlier Sunday, a Somali cleric criticized the comments the pope made in a speech last week for offending Muslims. The pope had cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as "evil and inhuman."

"The pope's statement at this time was not only wrong but irresponsible as well," said Sheik Nor Barud, deputy leader of the Somali Muslim Scholars Association.

"Both the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor he quoted are ignorant of Islam and it is noble Prophet," he told journalists at a news conference in the capital Mogadishu.

In Rome, Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi called the nun's slaying "a horrible episode," the Italian news agency ANSA said. "Let's hope that it will be an isolated fact."

Lombardi indicated the shooting could be related to the uproar over the pope's remarks.

"We are following with concern the consequences of this wave of hate, hoping that it does not lead to grave consequences for the church in the world," he was quoted as saying.

Benedict apologized earlier Sunday for the angry reaction to his remarks, which he said came from a text that didn't reflect his personal opinion.

Witnesses also said the shooting and the pope's comments appeared to be linked.

"These gunmen always look for white people to kill, and now the pope gave them the reason to do their worst," said Mohamud Durguf Derow, who was at the scene when the nun was killed.

The nun, who spoke fluent Somali, was believed to be around 60 and had been working at the hospital since 2002, said witnesses at the hospital on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Somalia has been without an effective central government since warlords overthrew it's longtime dictator in 1991 and divided the nation into fiefdoms. The Islamic fundamentalists have stepped into the vacuum as an alternative military and political power.

The current interim government was established two years ago with the support of the United Nations, but has failed to assert any power outside its base in Baidoa, 150 miles from Mogadishu.

The Islamic group, which seized the capital and much of southern Somalia this summer, is credited with bringing a semblance of order to the country after years of anarchy, but some of its leaders have been linked to al-Qaida and there are fears of an emerging Taliban-style regime.

___

Associated Press writers Salad Duhul and Mohamed Ali in Mogadishu and Mohamed Olad Hassan in Baidoa also contributed to this report.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Let us say a prayer for the victims, their families, our Pope and the Church, and yes, even for Islam, that Muslims may come to know the One God as a God of love and reason.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In Palestine, Hamas officials are now saying the right words, at least, about attacks on Christian churches, but ...let's wait and see.

Hamas PM denounces attacks
on West Bank churches
by Imad Saada


NABLUS, West Bank (AFP) - The head of the Hamas-led government, Ismail Haniya, denounced a spate of attacks on Christian churches in the Palestinian territories after assailants targeted two West Bank churches following Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam.

"This is totally rejected," Haniya told reporters in Gaza City Sunday.

"Any Palestinian citizen should stop attacking Christian churches in the Palestinian territories. The Christian brothers are a part of the Palestinian people, and I heard the highest Christian authority in Palestine denouncing the statements against Islam and against Muslims." (????)

Haniya's statement came after two churches in the northern West Bank came under attack from unidentified assailants on a third day of attacks in the Palestinian territories following Tuesday's remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence.

In Tulkarem, assailants broke into a disused church and set a car tire ablaze, causing serious damage, they said.

In Tubas, assailants threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at the windows of another church.

Other senior Palestinian officials echoed Haniya's calls.

Palestinian lawmaker and former Gaza security chief Mohammad Dahlan condemned the attacks on churches and urged the Hamas government to do more to protect Palestinian Christians.

Dahlan, a loyalist of president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah party, in a statement called on the interior minister of the Hamas government, Said Siam, to "take all necessary steps to protect the churches from repeated assaults".

In Bethelehem, traditional birthplace of Jesus Christ, Palestinian police said they had beefed up security around the city's churches.

"We are taking security precautions to protect the churches in Bethlehem, especially the Church of Nativity, against any aggression in reaction to the pope's statements," said Ahmad Al-Haddar, head of Palestinian police and security in the town.

He said that "extra plainclothes policemen have been posted around all churches" in the city, where no disturbances were reported Sunday.

In a speech in Germany on Tuesday, the pope spoke of a link between Islam and jihad, or "holy war", and quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who said innovations introduced by the Prophet Mohammed were "evil and inhuman".

His remarks have sparked a backlash throughout the Muslim world, including in the Palestinian territories where there is a minority Christian population.

On Saturday, a group calling itself the Islamic Organization of the Swords of Righteousness claimed responsibility for unleashing a volley of gunfire at the oldest church in Gaza City, where a grenade had also exploded outside the building the day before.

In the West Bank town of Nablus on the same day, gunmen lobbed Molotov cocktails at four churches of different denominations, Palestinian security sources told AFP.

In one incident, gunmen also opened fire inside an empty Catholic church after the building's door had been burnt.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/09/2006 17.03]

I wouldn't hold my breath yet!

The following item reiterates what we reported yesterday from adn-kronos, with more details coming from the official Turkish news agency, according to this Bloomberg brief:

Muslim Turkey Rules Out
Canceling Pope's Visit,
Anatolia Says
By Mark Bentley

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Turkish government said a visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Turkey in November will proceed as planned, describing the pontiff's remarks about Islam as ''unfortunate,'' the state-run Anatolia news agency reported.

Canceling the pope's trip to Turkey on Nov. 28, the first by a leader of the Roman Catholic Church in more than 25 years, is ''out of the question,'' Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in Ankara today, according to Anatolia.

The pope today apologized in person for causing offense to Muslims with comments he made in a university lecture implicitly linking Islam to violence. He made the apology during the traditional Angelus blessing, his first public appearance since the Sept. 12 speech in Germany that led to protests worldwide from Muslim groups.

[Well, all right, it's petty to quibble about this, If they see it as an 'apology', so be it, if it mollifies and placates them. We know the difference.]

Joseph Ratzinger before he was elected pope in April last year opposed Turkey's membership of the European Union, saying the nation belongs to another continent. Membership talks began on Oct. 3 last year. Turkey's supporters in the EU say its accession is needed to help prevent a clash of civilizations.

----------------------------------------------------------------
And yet another positive feedback on the 'apology':


Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
Accepts Pope's Apology
By VOA News
17 September 2006


Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says the Pope's comments Sunday amount to a sufficient apology for his earlier remark about Islam.

A top official of the banned but tolerated Brotherhood, Muhammad Habib, said in Cairo he considered the Pope's new statement to be a retraction. He said the group still hopes the Pope will further explain his views about Islam.

Elsewhere, Muslims continued to protest the Pope's comments last week in an address in Germany.

Two more churches in the West Bank were set on fire in apparent retaliation for the pope's remarks. One of Sunday's attacks caused serious damage to a church in the town of Tulkarem. The other incident took place in the village of Tubas near Jenin, where a small church was partially burned after being hit by firebombs.

In Qom, Iran, several hundred theology students protested against the Pope's remarks.

And a senior Iranian cleric, Ahmad Khatami, said the Pope should learn about Islam.

On Thursday, a senior Turkish cleric said the Pope had hate in his heart and should reconsider a planned visit to Turkey.

Historian-philosopher Ernesto Galli della Loggia writes in today's Corriere della Sera about Oriana, the Pope and Islam.
---------------------------------------------------------------


There is a strong symbolic suggestion - already noted by Magdi Allam yesterday - in the coincidence betweemn the death of Oriana Fallacci and the Islamic attacks agaiunst the Pope for his lecture in Regensburg.

It is a suggestion that links to an episode during one of Fallacci's celebrated interviews - that with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in 1979.

Tha was when, face to face with the new master of Iran, who agreed to meet her only if she covered her head with a veil, Oriana, once in his presence, just took it off impetuously, thus showing clearly what she thought of 'tyranny.'

That gesture with the chador, which became the center of the interview, anticipated the sense of what was going to be, before long, the dominant cause of the dificult relationship between the West and Islam: the clash of mentalities and of cultures, the clash between two antithetical ideas of equality (or non-equality) among human beings (between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals) and of their dignity.

That impertinent Italian woman, defying a suposed precept of the Muslim religion, anticipated symbolically the dozens - who knows, perhaps even thousands - of Muslim women who, arriving in a free Europe, would one day perhaps choose death rather than continue submitting to obligations and customs that are mortifying to their physical selves as to their personal autonomy.

With the intuition of someone whose profession is to interpret the signs of her times, Fallacci understood that that insignificant piece of cloth represented a most important stake in the encounter with the Ayatollah, because it would subsequently be a sort of standard at stake between two cultures. So she made of it literally a flag to wave in the face of the adversary.

She understood - and she remained faithful to her intuition as few would have - that in the future, the West would increasingly be called on to consciously renounce its identity or seriously risk the uncomprehending ire of Islam.

It is that incomprehension and anger that are now directed at Benedict XVI. Simply because he expressed - as the scholar Giovanni Filoramo told the Communist newspaper L'Unita - "a legitimate judgment about another religion after a theological evaluation (of its belief set)."

Therefore, for having reaffirmed - oh, what unheard-of audacity for the Catholic Pope! - his own convictions on the uniqueness and superiority of Christology' and that perhaps, there is a difference between a faith that places God in the realm of absolute 'free will' and another which is intimately bound up with reason, Logos.

The irate and intimidating sounds raised against the Pope today are similar to those raised with the Mohammed cartoons or with Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses.'

They only serve to confirm how difficult it is for Islam to relate to our culture, which among other things, has known for centuries - even in religious matters - philology (literally meaning' love of reason'), textual criticism, free discussion.

Islam, on the other hand, having had neither a long nor ample experience of free and open discussion, has touchily and testily installed blasphemy and insult as a substitute for reason.

A culture which, displaying that it does not know how to answer in any other way, immediately jumps to threats, demands for apology, ultimatums; that attacks and even promises death to their 'offenders.'

But God help us if we allow ourselves to be intimidated! There are challenges - we are reminded today by Fallacci who is passing on to us the baton for justice and freedom - to which the only possible and reasonable asnswer is: NEVER GIVE IN!

Thanks, Teresa, for all the articles you have provided us with the last couple of days. Your analysis - as always - hits the nail right on the head.

The Sunday Times of London had this editorial today - I'll quibble about how they end it, but this is light years above and away from the New York Times editorial yesterday which added its voice to the chorus of unreason:
----------------------------------------------------------------

Let the Pope preach


Pope Benedict XVI’s return to his old university at Regensburg in Germany for a speech entitled Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections was not the most obvious trigger for a new front in the clash of civilisations.

The Pope began with a mild joke at the expense of his own religion, recalling that critics used to ask why the university had two departments devoted to God when He did not even exist. Then he strayed into controversial territory.

Arguments about whether religion is based on rationality are not quite on the level of how many angels it is possible to get on the head of a pin, but they are manna from heaven for students of theology. That was Pope Benedict’s audience and that was where he expected his remarks to stay.

But these are unusual times, and his decision to quote the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus’s views on Islam guaranteed that his speech rang out beyond the ivory tower.

The emperor’s words, taken at face value, certainly look explosive. “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,” he said.

The point was to illustrate the fundamental contradiction between religion and holy war. The same contradiction, as any Muslim interested in debating the issue could point out, applies to Christianity. Violent conversion to any religious faith, or for that matter violent oppression of religious opponents, goes against God’s nature.

The reaction this weekend shows that many Muslims and their leaders are not interested in this kind of debate. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, has accused Benedict of trying to associate Islam with terror. Churches have been firebombed in the West Bank. Indian Muslims burnt effigies of the Pope. In Iraq, Shi’ite and Sunni political parties and clerics, at each others’ throats most of the time, united in attacking his speech.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has to her credit defended his words, insisting they were misunderstood.

The Pope’s important trip to Turkey in November will go ahead, Turkish officials said. But its aim, building bridges between faiths, looks even more of a challenge.

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of the country’s ruling Islamic party, accused Benedict of either “pitiful ignorance” or a “deliberate distortion of truths”. Not only was the Pope trying to revive the mentality of the Crusades: “He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.”

This is, in some ways, a re-run of the hoo-ha among some Muslims over the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting Muhammad. In the frenzy that followed, with bloody riots and demonstrations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Indonesia and India, about 140 people were killed and hundreds were injured. The cartoons were implicated in religious riots in Nigeria in which 200 people — Muslims and Christians — died. Denmark was targeted, its embassies attacked and its businesses boycotted.

The clash of civilisations is not between Christianity and Islam, it is between nations that encourage religious diversity and those which practise religious intolerance. It is between those who favour open debate and those who think free speech is anathema.

[Even defined that way, the opposing forces come down to Judaeo-Greco-Christian culture and ideological cultures like Islam and communism where it still exists!]

The Pope may or may not have known what a hornets’ nest he was stirring up. Even if he did, there was nothing inappropriate, within context, in what he said.

The Vatican has said he is very sorry his speech caused such offence to Muslims. That is fine but it should not go further than that. He should certainly not be pushed into withdrawing his remarks.

As in the case of the Danish cartoons, Muslim zealots are trying to impose their restrictions of free expression on the West. Mindful as we should be of religious sensitivities, that cannot be allowed to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Oh ye of little faith! Do you really think that Benedict XVI or Joseph Ratzinger would ever consider withdrawing his words - much less be pushed into doing so? His whole history shows that not only does he live by the Word, he lives by words, with words, because among so many other things that he does well, he is a great communicator.


HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI: The ultimate man of reason
Apostle of Faith, Love and Joy

This is a Pope who does not fear speaking extemporaneously for more than an hour to answer questions in various settings with various audiences - knowing full well he is being recorded, and then authorizing the release of the full transcripts. How many other Popes have done that, if any?

If, in an extemporaneous setting, he has no fear of slipping up - even in fine points of theology and doctrine - think what long, hard, careful and repeated thought he would give to something that he must set down in writing, and which will become a Church document or a historical document in some form or other? And having done that, would he then withdraw one word of what he had so carefully and thoughtfully and consciously formulated?

Never fear he will give in. This is not the man who will do anything craven. Least of all for the sake of political correctness, a euphemism for cowardly and unprincipled hypocrisy.

He is the Rock, remember? He will remain firm and decisive and resolute, as he was this morning when he said what needed to be said - in his judgment, not that of others - and nothing more. When he took yet another unapologetic stand, not in his defense - for he has nothing to defend himself of - but in defense of Christian values and Western civilization.

In this, he has been consistent, he has not been silent - even if, for now, he and a handful of other courageous leaders like him have been isolated voices in the wild wild secularized West.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/09/2006 22.33]

Discipula posted this item from Affari Italiani, an online news service. Here is a translation:


Affari Italiani
(www.canali.libero.it)
17.09.2006

Bertone: 'No reason so far
not to make trip to Turkey'

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the new Vatican secretary of state, told journalists today that "So far, there is no reason not to proceed with the Pope's scheduled trip to Turkey in November."

He said, "Tomorrow, the Turkish ecpiscopal conference starts a meeting which will prepare the program and consider any problems."

In connection with the current controversy about some statements taken from the Pope's lecture at the University of Regensburg on September 12, Bertone did not mince words to express the disappointment of the Holy See at 'inopportune' comments made about the Pope's Regensburg lecture.

"I am sorry that a great newspaper should have launched such a harsh attack on the Holy Father, who did not deserve it, and also that some Italian politicians have perhaps missed the opportunity to keep quiet."

Especially, he implied, if the stand taken appears to take the side of the Muslim reaction. In the United States, best examplified by the New York Times, which criticized the Pope's words, and in Italy, where some political leaders openly distanced themselves from the Pope's statements.

Bertone said 'negative judgments (about the Pope's statements) have been played up' in the Western press, whereas there have even been 'some positive reactions in a few Arab countries."

The negative reactions, he added, arose out of "a rather heavy-handed manipulation regarding the Pope's intentions" by deliberate reduction of "a wide-ranging lecture" to "a fragment" of a historical dialog cited by the Pope, "which was merely a transition point in the presentation."

Bertone told newsmen, "I hope that we can resume the dialog (with Islam) which the Pope and the Church intend to carry on - through our diplomatic representatives interacting with the cultural leaders (in their respective countries of assignment), and through which the Pontifical Council for culture and inter-religious dialog can regain its true function."

I thought I would post this here first (as well as in PICTURES AND VIDEOS) - from curt jester on
www.splendoroftruth.com
to express something of what we all feel, and I hope our resident graphics wizards will come up with more of the same!

Hello everybody,

I’m a new member and a longtime „silent reader“ from the Ruhr Diocese Essen in Germany.

These last couple of days with all what is going on I spent with checking the online magazines and this special thread for news and updates and became physically sick because of all the ignorance, nonsense and arrogance our beloved pope has to face.

---

---

"If, in an extemporaneous setting, he has no fear of slipping up - even in fine points of theology and doctrine - think what long, hard, careful and repeated thought he would give to something that he must set down in writing, and which will become a Church document or a historical document in some form or other? And having done that, would he then withdraw one word of what he had so carefully and thoughtfully and consciously formulated?"

---

---

These words give me back a little bit of my of my peace of mind.

When I heard this special quotation ot the King Manuel I was rather sure that hell would be unleashed. Me, a stupid and silly person, fearing the consequences and hateful reaction and the wisest man in the world, our pope, being naive and nonchalant and unsuspecting about the consequences like the press wants to make us believe??? Never ever!!!

In the german press there were only a few voices proclaiming that this discussion is necessary and has to be led now.
In my humble opinion this was the popes motivation. He doesn’t want to shift this burden to his succsessor, but is loading it on his slim shoulders, and in spite of seeming fragile, they are carrying now this burdon like they did all their live!

I would like to mention, this very much reminds me of a little scene of Steven Spielberg’s „Saving Private Ryan“. There is this little group of soldiers around their captain Tom Hanks on their mission to save this Private for a certain cause. They are on hostile territory and they come across a german picket. The group wants to pass it and leave it to the regular army, but the Captain insits that it was their duty to remove it, as otherwise the regular army would run into an open knife. So he asks who is going with him to abolish this danger and at first no one wants to support him, no one is going to cover his side.
And this so reminds me of our Papa.
He knows he may not ignore this danger of religious fanatism, and he is facing it allone, because the press and the politicians are to cowardly or in the majority just to supid.
This makes me furious and sad at same time.

And there is this mountain of regrets for the pope’s brother Georg. First this very sad goodbye of the two brothers at the airport in Munich and now all this crap his little brother has to cope with and there is only little of the weight he can take from his brothers' to his shoulders. How could he not feel troubled and lonely. I feel so sorry for both of the brothers and I pray especially for Georg.

And with Cardinal Newman I pray for our Papa for wisdom, courage and strength (strength above all), for the consolation of the Lord’s mercy in this life and immortality in the next.

I'm so glad I've managed to registrate.
I don't have much practice in English so please excuse any wrong words and possible mistakes. As I'm nearlly at the edge of a nevous breakdown it is really a great comfort to share my emotions and to know that I'm not alone.

May the Lord bless the Holy Father!

[Modificato da Bergitha 17/09/2006 23.42]

First of all Bergitha, welcome to the forum! No, you are definitely not alone in your feelings. It is comforting to know others feel the same anger... fear... "sick".

Second, your English is very good! Don't worry, love for our beloved Papa is universally understood here.

Dear Berghita - a very warm welcome to you! Your English is just fine and I think most of us share the way you feel about this unfortunate furore. Like you, I am worried also about Brother Georg. I hope the German police/security keeps his place under surveilance.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings with us. You are not alone.

Hi, Bergitha - WILKOMMEN IN RATZILAND! May be this next news item will also make you feel better, though I keep thinking this visit to Turkey is like the spider asking the fly to come into his parlor!

Emma posted this in the main forum from one of the Italian news agencies:

Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, who is also vice-premier, said today: "For the Turkish government, there is no reason to change the dates for the Pope's visit."

He also disclosed that he wrote a letter yesterday to Benedict XVI asking him not to postpone his visit "which could represent an important opportunity for promoting dialog between different cultures."

----------------------------------------------------------------

We're all uneasy about this visit, but the Holy Father wants it because it is so important for getting together with the Orthodox Church and Patriarch Athenagoras, as well as to give moral support to the persecuted Christian community in Turkey, small as it may be. Besides, he will be visiting Mary's House in Ephesus.

I don't know - I have a feeling that when he visits with the Turkish Prime Minister, he will have an opportunity to show him that he, Benedict, knows Islam well enough to carry on a common non-controversial civilized conversation that will also give them both a measure of each other.

Meanwhile, unser Papst ist nie allein - he has more than a billion souls, theoretically, to pray for him. Although very few of those souls, it seems, have made themselves heard in his defense these past few days. Well, as long as we all pray for him....

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/09/2006 3.36]

I HOPE YOU ALL AGREE.

I have started posting updates on the Muslim madness in the thread REFLECTIONS ON ISLAM (and how!!!) so as not to encumber this thread with any more of that. ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE SHOULD ALSO GO THERE. (If it's messages or discussions about Papino himself, we can go to CHATTER or the other appropriate threads.)

On this issue, this thread will continue to be used for only anything involving the Pope directly - where he is the mover of the news, not somebody else - and/or the article is about him, not about his critics and enemies.

Otherwise, we will continue to post here 'genuine' NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT here, as we have before.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/09/2006 15.09]

Italy's former Senate President, founder of a European Movement to save Western civilization, philosopher, friend and co-author of a book with Cardinal Ratzinger, put this message online today.

He is calling on a West that has been struck dumb - or cowardly - in the face of yet another assault by the forces of unreason, to speak up now because its very existence is at stake.

Here is a translation of the original posted by Eugenia in the main forum:


THE RIGHT TO EXIST
By Marcello Pera

Benedict XVI is not a cartoonist. Nor an Italian minister with a taste for provocation. Nor an American conservative for self-styled intellectuals to mock.

No - he is the head of the Catholic Church. The world's major spiritual leader. The touchstone of over a billion Chrstian believers and a growing number of non-believers.

This Pope spoke, respectfully, profoundly. And he said - rather, repeated what he has often said before - at least two things that make sense, if as Descartes said, common sense had been truly common to all.

First, that the West has lost its self-esteem, does not trust its own identity, denies its Christian roots.

Second, that religion - any religion - is not an instrument of war, and so, we cannot deal with internal problems and exteRnal relations by fighting each other in the name of God.

Deus caritas est. And if anyone should invoke a God to brandish a sword instead of love, to espouse violence instead of reason, then he is invoking God wrongly.

The Pope has been misunderstood, even if he expressed himself in clear language and precise ideas. And for that, he is the target of global outrage.

After the first statement issued by Father Lombardi, head of the Vatican Press Office, and the unequivocal sdeclaration made by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, there should be no more room for misunderstanding what he said.

But if those who protest cotinue to do so, it only means they want to misunderstand the Pope, it is convenient for them to misunderstand him, they have been waiting for the moment to 'misunderstand' him.

Well, enough! The governments of the Islamic and Arab nations should speak to their citizens.

The governments of the West, especially, those of Europe, should speak out, and they should do so with a firm and unequivocal voice.

That some of them may have internal difficulties with fundamentalists does not mean they can turn their back on a grave and specific responsibility.

And that some of them may be fearful of disturbing international equilibrium does not excuse them for keeping silent.

Enough of this silence on the part of the West. We have just marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11, on which we here in Europe were witness to the television spectacle of a cowardly trial in the United States played over the ashes of those who were victims that day.

We already witnessed a Europe making apologies after the incident of the cartoons, to which fundamentalists reacted by attacking and killing Christians.

At that time, it was only Benedict XVI who spoke out with words of wisdom. He called for reciprocity, not of vegeance but of respect, not of violence but of dignity.

Now, let it be the turn of our governments. Starting with ours. Speak, complain, protest. Don't leave the Pope by himself so the newspapers can gloat that he stands alone.

Do not be accomplices, with your silence and inaction, to a global conflagration that the extremists are fanning.

Be truly 'adults'. Speak up and defend the Pope. Not his right to speak, which is obvious. But what he has been defending - our right, and that of our civilization, to exist, if you still want it to exist.

Leave it to Marcello Pera to express the fundamental issue at stake: the continued existence of the West and what that stands for. All of us in the West should stand up and defend our heritage and our patrimony, rather than leaving its existence to the whims of the barbarians.

Amen to this article. For what it is worth: the editor's article in the most-read Afrikaans newspaper in far-away South Africa today has strongly defended Benedict. This in a newspaper whose readers are largely Protestant, with a smaller percentage of Muslim readers. It was also clear that the editor had himself READ and studied the Pope's address.

A query, please: How many European leaders have stuck out their necks to support the Pope, thus far? Can someone please inform us? I have heard of Angela Merkel and Stoiber of Bavaria. Can they be the only ones?

Thanks a lot to all of you for the warm welcome, vergelt's Gott!!

Marcello Pera speaks out of my heart!


A commentary in the german Süddeutsche assumes that western leaders of public opinion seem to believe one has to deal with moslems like raving mad children who absolutely may not be irritated. And he adds that respect would look different.

The "Zeit" today gives a "press sighting" .

http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/38/Presseschau-Papst-Islam?page=1

I have the impression avoiding all irritation at any cost is common sense in the press and perhaps with most of the politicians, and this of course makes the neccessary dialogue difficult.

Poor Papa!

There were two in the Italian forum and at least one in the French section - I will start with this one because he is Mario Scialoja, Italian representative to the World Muslim League. Here is a translation of his statement:
----------------------------------------------------------------

As a Muslim I say
the extremists are using this
to feed hatred for the West
L'INTERVENTO/SCIALOJA


I wish to express some thoughts on the absurd polemics raised these days by those few words spoken by the Supreme Pontiff in his lecture at the University of Regensburg.

They are words which, taken in isolation, would certainly sound unfortunate, but which the mass media have arbitrarily extrapolated from an entire lecture, giving it a totally different meaning.

A misinterpretation that can be easily belied not only by everything that the Holy Father has said uring his trip to Germany, but by what he has solemnly and repeatedly declared since he became Pope.

Benedict XVI has given ample proof of wanting to follow in the path of his predecessor, a way of brotherhood and dialog, and in our case, of respect for Islam whose great religion and culture has nothing to do with the fundamentalist movements of our day and the terrorism that has a so-called Islamic matrix.

To extrapolate a few words from sacred text or an address, one can say about it and about its author anything and distort reality. But people of good sense should not fall into such traps.

If an Islamic leader cited the words said by Jesus inthe Gospel of Matthew: "Do not think I come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace but the sword," what would the Christian world do? Absolutely nothing.*

Jesus said those words before driving the merchants out of the Temple, but they are and should be interpreted in the light of his whole Gospel, which is a message of love, not of hate.

The unseemly reactions of the Islamic fundamentalists do nto surprise me. They are people who will take every occasion, whether real or imagined, true or false, to stoke up the hatred against the West and Christianity.

Nor am I surprised that these fundamentalists have a following among the young people in poorer countries, whho are embittered by the lack of any promise in their future and therefore are full of resentment against the rich West.

But what scandalizes me is the reaction - or lack of it- at the government level and among politicians in the countries who are supposed to be friends of the Western world.

They may have their own political problems, but can they be really so blind not to be able to see through an insignificant episode that has been distorted and artificially presented, that they do not even try to bring back their people to some reason and calm ?

In conclusion, all religions in the course of history have had their dificult periods but the fault has always been that of men not of the doctrine.

The message of Judaism, of Christianity and of Islam os a message of peace.

The Catholic Church has made its apologies for the errors committed by its people in the past. What have others done in that respect?

---------------------------------------------------------------
*Well, not exactly. Some of us would look it up in the Bible and having satisfied ourselves it was as quoted, then we would simply tell the world - "This was the context and the meaning of that passage" or "Here's the complete quotation". But we would not go out into the streets and riot and cry for blood! After all, we do not expect someone from another religion to be familiar with our Scriptures.

But tnank you, indeed, Mr. Lajola. [But won't you be the object of a fatwa now?] You are more a man of God than many Christian ministers in the West whose first reaction was to tell the media, "But the Pope had no business saying what he said - doesn't he know there's enough hatred and resentment out there already? Why on earth did he do that?" The New York Times line. And Jacques Chirac's.

Or Newsweek's editor Jon Meacham who wrote the hasty "special report' about this 'controversy' for his magazine, and condescendingly wrote in the subhead "What was he thinking?" - as if the Pope were some senile uncle who had gone and embarassed himself in public!

In between strutting their 'anger' for the cameras, those demonstrators must be splitting their sides in between, laughing at the craven cowards of the West, and spitting out their contempt for such pusillanimity in the face of a gauntlet thrown their way - the way Bin Laden licked his chops maniacally after he blew out the Cole, and all Clinton did was shoot a puny missile into some desolate stretch of sand.

Words are arms, too, and they can be potent, but no one's willing to wield them if only to assert their identity, if they have no pride left to assert.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's THE translation of an item Sylvie posted in the French section from the rector (?) of a mosque in Marseilles....Like Sciajola in Italy, he seems to have assimilated the freedom of expression that the West still has, thank God...
---------------------------------------------------------------

'Muslims shouldn't expect
the Pope to glorify Islam'

PARIS (AP) - The rector of the Mosque of Aix in Marseilles Mohand Alili thinks his fellow Muslims are making too much of the Regensburg citation.

"The Muslim can't expect that the Pope is going to glorify them. All he did was what a Pope would do," said Alili to France Info.

"Others have said similar things before....Moreover, he's not Muslim, never has been. He's the Pope. What do they want him to do? Why would he preach Islam over Christianity?"

"Benedict XVI," he said, "stands up for who he is. Now why can't Muslims say, '"All right, and this is who we are,' but there's no need to go into all the polemics."

"Besides, I don't see why they should be taking it out on the Pope when they should have it out among themselves, among those who have discredited Islam. No, I don't see why I should be angry at the Pope."

---------------------------------------------------------------
It seems like whoever came to interview him for his reaction started out by asking "Are you angry at the Pope?", doesn't it? Typically leading question by journalist hoping to reap rancour. At least they used his story - 'hey, dog bites man, this guy's not raving against the Pope!'

9/19 P.S. Avvenire has an interview with Scialoja, and one of the wire services has come out with the transcript of teh interview with the rector of the Marseille mosque - so I'll probably plug those in here, for the record, when I get around to translating

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 20/09/2006 3.52]

Another one from the Times of London, after that editorial yesterday...He starts flippant but he makes some points.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Pope was right
By William Rees-Mogg


JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day.

Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed.

The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is.

The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence.

The Pope’s actual quotation is not just a medieval point of view. It is a common modern view; even if it seldom reaches print; it can certainly be found on the internet.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Is it true that the Koran contains such a command, and has it influenced modern terrorists? The answers, unfortunately, are “yes” and “yes”.

The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperor’s mind:

“So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

“And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations. The shock it creates shows the importance of the doctrine.

One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden. His attitude is discussed at some length in Chapter 14 of an excellent new book, The Qur’an, a Biography, by Bruce Lawrence, who is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, North Carolina.

Lawrence observes the use of this verse as a central argument for jihad in Bin Laden’s manifesto in 1996; that was a declaration of war against native and foreign infidels.

Lawrence makes several relevant points. Bin Laden selects only those verses that fit his message, and then cites them exclusively for his own purposes. He ignores both their original context and also the variety of historical differences between committed Muslims about how to apply their dicta. He collapses the broad spectrum of Koranic teaching into a double requirement: first to believe; and then to fight.

Lawrence also draws attention to the qualifications that surround the Sword Verse; particularly that those infidels who repent should be allowed to go free: “For God is most forgiving; most merciful.”

It is impossible to reconcile the consistent Koranic teaching that God is most merciful with suicide bombing, which is indiscriminate and murders faithfuls and infidels alike.

It is a mistake to think that all the major religions are identical: they have real differences of doctrine that have real impacts on human society. [Oh yes, go tell that to the 'spirits of Assisi', those who preach the gospel of Kumbaya! ]

What is true, however, is that no religion shall survive for more than a generation or two unless it has a substantial element of truth in it. The diabolical cult of Nazism lasted for only one generation. It is natural for Christians of different denominations to love what they have in common without ceasing to be aware of their differences.

A Christian should also rejoice in the positive spiritual values of the other major religions. It is natural for a Christian to feel enriched by Judaism, which was the religion of Jesus; or by Platonism, the philosophy of the opening chapter of St John’s Gospel and of St Augustine.

Yet Christians also find spiritual truths in Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam itself. There is a significant link between aspects of Islamic Sufi mysticism and the Christian mystical tradition.

When one lists these religions it becomes obvious that there are two problems: violence and the influence of reason, both of which Pope Benedict identified in his lecture. Violence is a fault from which no major religion has historically been free.

St Patrick’s conversion of Ireland is sometimes given as a unique example of the conversion of a nation without the loss of a single life. It is one of the great scandals that so many persecutions have taken place in the name of Jesus.

This has been more or less true of all the great religions: human beings are the most savage of beasts, and they will kill each other in any cause, however noble.

Yet nowadays Islam is the only major religion in which violence is a serious doctrinal issue.

It is true that tribalised Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland have only recently stopped killing each other and vengeful Sikhs assassinated Indira Gandhi in India, but neither the Catholic nor the Protestant churches believe in terror; nor do the Sikhs.

A significant proportion of the Islamic community does believe that suicide bombers are martyrs carrying out a religious duty. Suicide bombing causes Islamophobia. There are varying degrees of authority and uniformity in different religions; rather low in most cases. This pluralism has its own virtues, but in Islam they are outweighed by the disadvantages. Those imams who preach al-Qaeda’s view of the duty of jihad are not required to answer to any authority, even the authority of reason.

Islam has only partially experienced the modern process of enlightenment and reform, which was, after all, resisted by a number of pre-Vatican II Popes.

Pope Benedict will have done Islam a service if he has started a debate within Islam and between Islam and the critics.

On www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=470 -
Richard John Neuhaus stands up for Benedict. His reproduction of much of the text from the Holy Father's address to Muslim representatives in Cologne last year is very welcome.

By the way, this is the address many Western reporters and commentators have described lately as Benedict 'lecturing' the Muslim leaders, in which the verb 'lecturing' is deliberately chosen for its arrogant, condescending nuances. Well, refresh your memory.
----------------------------------------------------------------

FirstThings
By Richard John Neuhaus

Herewith a potpourri of reflections on the Regensburg lecture by Pope Benedict and reactions to it, intermixed with a bit of my own commentary.

As many commentators, Muslim and other, do not know because they manifestly have not read the lecture, it was not chiefly about Islam.

It was a considered reflection on the inseparable linkage of faith and reason in the Christian understanding, an incisive critique of Christian thinkers who press for separating faith and reason in the name of “de-Hellenizing” Christianity, and a stirring call for Christians to celebrate the achievements of modernity and secure those achievements by grounding them in theological and philosophical truth.

I have had the opportunity of many extended conversations with Ratzinger-Benedict over the years, and he is a man of great gentleness and deliberation and extremely careful to say what he means. What he said at Regensburg he has said many times before.

Contrary to many reports, he has not apologized or retracted his argument. He has indicated sincere regret that many Muslims have reacted to his statement as they have.

The response of those who are properly called jihadists is, “If you don’t stop saying we’re violent, we’re going to bomb more churches, kill more nuns and priests, and get the pope too.” In short, the reaction has powerfully confirmed the problem to which Benedict called our attention.

Some think that Benedict was not as judicious as he might have been in quoting a medieval emperor of the East who, faced by Islamic conquest that succeeded in turning Christian Constantinople into Islamic Istanbul, declared that Islam has produced only inhumanity and evil. That is arguable.

Benedict did say at Regensburg that the emperor’s words were excessively “brusque.” But the citation was also a way of reminding everybody that this conflict with Islam bent upon conversion by the sword is very long-standing.

It can be argued that the Regensburg lecture will turn out to be the most important statement by a world leader in the post–September 11 period.

Of course, not all Muslims are jihadists, whether in the Middle East or the rest of the world. But jihadism is the ominous threat we face, and I again wish that more people would read Mary Habeck’s sobering book now out from Yale University Press, Knowing the Enemy.

Habeck, who teaches international relations at Johns Hopkins, is unlike so many students of Islam, in that she takes very seriously what these people actually say they believe, and how they intend to act upon what they believe.

Jihadism is the religiously inspired ideology that is committed to employ whatever means necessary to destroy the West (which its proponents view as the Christian West) and force the world’s submission to Islam.

The editors of the New York Sun compare the current controversy with John Paul II’s courage and candor with respect to communism.

They write: “The current pope, like his predecessor, is fighting a two-front war. He must take on radicals outside his faith while also convincing his co-religionists of the seriousness of the fight.

"In this sense, Benedict’s decision to quote the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus is an apt one. Manuel was the penultimate eastern emperor, who presided over a drastically diminished realm in the face of the mounting threat of Islamic conquest.

"Manuel was also one of the many emperors who were unsuccessful in persuading western Christians to aid the failing empire. The pressing question is not only whether Islam will take up Benedict’s challenge but whether well-meaning Christians, who have sometimes wanted to feel removed from the battle, draw strength from the pope’s leadership.”

That may strike some readers as excessively belligerent, but I think it is, in the main, a fair statement of the question before us.

Please note that Benedict has addressed these questions many times before. Especially instructive is his 1980 book of essays, Church, Ecumenism and Politics.

What is Benedict’s proposal to Islam? Just last summer in Cologne, in connection with World Youth Day, he spoke to these questions, and what he said is very much worth reading with care.

It is in this spirit that I turn to you, dear and esteemed Muslim friends, to share my hopes with you and to let you know of my concerns at these particularly difficult times in our history.

I am certain that I echo your own thoughts when I bring up one of our concerns as we notice the spread of terrorism. I know that many of you have firmly rejected, also publicly, in particular any connection between your faith and terrorism and have condemned it. I am grateful to you for this, for it contributes to the climate of trust that we need.

Terrorist activity is continually recurring in various parts of the world, plunging people into grief and despair. Those who instigate and plan these attacks evidently wish to poison our relations and destroy trust, making use of all means, including religion, to oppose every attempt to build a peaceful and serene life together.

Thanks be to God, we agree on the fact that terrorism of any kind is a perverse and cruel choice which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very foundations of all civil coexistence.

If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress towards world peace.

The task is difficult but not impossible. The believer—and all of us, as Christians and Muslims, are believers—knows that, despite his weakness, he can count on the spiritual power of prayer.

Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace. The life of every human being is sacred, both for Christians and for Muslims. There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values.

The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition. This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. It is a message which must be heeded and communicated to others: should it ever cease to find an echo in peoples’ hearts, the world would be exposed to the darkness of a new barbarism.

Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.

During my meeting last April with the delegates of Churches and Christian Communities and with representatives of the various religious traditions, I affirmed that “the Church wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions, in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole.”

Past experience teaches us that, unfortunately, relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding. How many pages of history record battles and wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing, the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity. The defence of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization. In this regard, it is always right to recall what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said about relations with Muslims.

“The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…. Although considerable dissensions and enmities between Christians and Muslims may have arisen in the course of the centuries, the Council urges all parties that, forgetting past things, they train themselves towards sincere mutual understanding and together maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all people” (Declaration Nostra Aetate, n. 3).

For us, these words of the Second Vatican Council remain the Magna Carta of the dialogue with you, dear Muslim friends, and I am glad that you have spoken to us in the same spirit and have confirmed these intentions.

You, my esteemed friends, represent some Muslim communities from this Country where I was born, where I studied and where I lived for a good part of my life. That is why I wanted to meet you. You guide Muslim believers and train them in the Islamic faith.

Teaching is the vehicle through which ideas and convictions are transmitted. Words are highly influential in the education of the mind. You, therefore, have a great responsibility for the formation of the younger generation. I learn with gratitude of the spirit in which you assume responsibility.

Christians and Muslims, we must face together the many challenges of our time. There is no room for apathy and disengagement, and even less for partiality and sectarianism. We must not yield to fear or pessimism. Rather, we must cultivate optimism and hope.

Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends.

Of course, we must cultivate optimism and hope, or at least hope. (Readers know that I have a thing about “optimism”— which is often simply a matter of optics, of seeing what you want to see and not seeing what you don’t want to see.)

But many of our influential commentators in the West are in deep denial, believing that candor in the quest for truth is dangerously provocative, and we must therefore conform to the violent demands that we say nothing to offend Muslim sensibilities. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, to surrender in advance.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/10/2006 23.09]

This one's a mixed bag, but since he's the Grand Mufti of Syria, let's hear from him. He sounds like a well-meaning man who is not proud of the extremists in Islam and who seems to hold an idealized view of Islam. This is a story from Avvenire, translated here -
----------------------------------------------------------------

'The Pope has cleared it up-
no offense to Islam!'

DAMASCUS, Sept. 19, 2006 - He is satisfied with what the Pope has said. But concerned about "those who are seeking to fan the flames' in order to provoke a religious war between Muslims and Catholics.

The Grznd Mufti of Syria, top Sunni authority in the world's last Baathist regime, speaks from his office in the Syrian capital.

Hamad Badr al-Din Hasoun, 56, who has been Grand Mufti over a year, calls himself a moderate.

"Maybe that's why the people from Al-Jazeera never interview people like me," he says. "It is in their interest to create conflict, they always look for the most extreme voices - not someone like me who believes in peace among religions."

Three days ago, he had been among the first to call for the Pope to explain his words. And yesterday, he monitored closely all the wire service reports and the television coverage from Rome which brought the Pope's statement from Castel Gandolfo.

Do you think the Pope said enough?
I would say so. He had a good answer. I do not need any other clarification. Now, however, it is necessary to work quickly to promote a dialog between the leaders of the Islamic and Catholic worlds. [Which leaders of Islam though?] We need to talk to each other to keep the extremists from inciting hatred.

How did you make your judgment about the Pope?
First of all, one must ask questions. If the Pope made a mistake
saying what he did, I asked myself, did he do it deliberately or not? I don't think he had any intention at all of offending Islam. I have read the full text of his address and I do not see anything that could provoke religious hatred.

His mistake was to have cited a sentence said by a Byzantine emperor from 600 years ago without distancing himself. So it appeared like he was making them his words as well. He should have said right away he didn't think that way.

So what is feeding the escalation of anger?
I have been astounded by what Al-Jazeera is doing - perhaps conditioned by its being anti-US. It's feeding the crisis - for three days already, it's been their top news, and in doing that, they're just making things worse.

I'd say the same thing for the New York Times. It almost looks as if there is a faction of the international media that will do everything they can to prevent dialog. Almost like a Judeo-Protestant thing against Catholics and Muslims!

Do you have other criticisms?
The Pope has tried to show that there is no dichotomy between reason and the Christian religion. But this also goes for the Muslim religion. And as for his condemnation of holy wars, I would ask him to take a look at the hundreds of precious books that Muslims wrote in the past and are in the Vatican museums.
I wrote him a letter to say so, because he would find out that Islam bans violence.

But since you are the Mufti of a country that supports Hezbollah, why don't you condemn Hassan Nasrallah when he talks about jihad against Israel?
That's different. Nasrallah and the Hezbollah are waging a war against Israeli occupation, and they are fighting for Arab rights. That's not a religious war, it's self-defense. Jihad should be an effort for peace.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[DIM]8pt[=DIM][Hmm,I would have presed him there to ask - Israeli occupation of what? Of Israel? They have left Gaza and most of the West Bank! And what is it to Hezbollah (who are Syrians and Iranians?) that they should fight for the Palestines using hapless Lebanon as their military camp? They're perpetrating Syrian occupation of Lebanon! And self-defense? Israel's not attacking them unles they attack first.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/09/2006 13.47]

Here is a translation of a signed editorial from Corriere della Sera today posted by Ratzi-Lella in the main forum. It is only indirectly about the Pope but it does comment on the absurd 'emergency' the West now finds itself in....
--------------------------------------------------------------
THERE IS NO MODERATE ISLAM NOW
By ANGELO PANEBIANCO

If some in the Islamic world have said they are satisfied with the Pope's answer about the statement he quoted in Regensburg, some still ask for an apology, but the great majority continue to shake their fists with violent demonstrations and death threats against the Pope.

Commenting on recent developments, Vittorio Messori wrote in this paper yesterday things which I fully share, but I think he is being optimistic. He is right to say the quotation extrapolated from the Pope's lecture was only a pretext inflame the Arab street. As the Mohammed cartoons had been.

In both cases, Islamist extremism has mobilized to prove its power of hegemony over the Islamic world, to show how strong it is and by, comparison, how weak and frightened the West is.

At the time of the cartoon furor, Europe experienced the most blatant attack against freedom of the press since the collapse the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, and in effect, that episode concluded with a victory for the aggressors.

Europe tactily accepted that the freedom to satirize, from then on, should carry with it a duty of self-censorship - except that is, for Islam.

So now, the Muslim world is challenging us again but with a far more ambitious goal: to strike at the religious ehart of the West and force us to accept that not even the Pope is any longer free to reflect publicly on the characteristics of Christianity and what distinguishes it from Islam.

Where Messori is too optimistic perhaps is to believe that what happened with Marxism is not going to happen this time with Europeans, including believers.

If Europe [its so-called intellectuals and their followers, at any rate] then 'flirted' ['bedded', I would say] with the secularized Judeo-Christianity which was Marxism, Messori thinks it cannot and will not do that with Islamic fundamentalism. Because it is 'incompatible ... with the prevailing political correctness in the West.'

I am afraid he is wrong. Not only because there are many Europeans who are already flirting with Islamist fundamentalism, if only since they share the same 'mortal' bugbears, the United States and Israel. Nothing leads to solidarity better than having the same enemy!

But above all, Europe is fearful, it is frightened to death - and fear more than anything drives even the most powerful to yield, justifying anything from the 'feared' power just to hold things off and to stay in 'their' good graces.

Oriana Fallaci spoke of a Eurabia. To judge from reactions in the West to the Pope's statement, it is probably here already. I don't refer so much to impromptu theologians who have been lecturing the Pope about what Christianity really is. [Even in the most tragic situations, man is capable of putting on such displays of unutterable - and tragic - hilarity!] (The parenthetics here was the writer's.]

I speak of those - and there are oh so many! - who have accused the Pope of not having been more careful about what he said. Looking at them, one must share the pessimism of a Bernard Lewis who predicts a defeated and subjugated Europe.

There is a close relationship between European fear and cowering, on the one hand, and political Islam, the part that uses religion for political ends, who now exercise a leadership so powerful that they have drowned out the few voices of reasonon-existent at this point, in Islam.

The political implications are manifold, and those who run the governments of the West would do well to take note [and take action!]

For example, our Premier, Romano Prodi, has announced that he will meet with Iran's President Ahmadinjead in New York, because of the role Iran plays in the Middle East.

Allow me to invite him to be prudent here. After all, he is dealing with a regime that wants to destroy Israel and which is now in the front rank, along with Al Qaeda, of those incpting the Muslim masses against the Pope.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/09/2006 17.15]

VATICAN CITY, Sept. 19, 2006 - Pope Benedict XVI appealed today for mutual respect for religious beliefs as he mourned an Italian nun slain in Somalia in an attack possibly linked to Muslim anger over his recent remarks about Islam.

While denouncing violence, Benedict said he hopes the killing "becomes the seed of hope to construct authentic brotherhood among peoples in the mutual respect for the religious convictions of each other," according to a condolence telegram released by the Vatican.

Sister Leonella, 65, who taught and worked at a pediatrics hospital in Mogadishu, was shot to death Sunday by gunmen as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital. There was no claim of responsibility, but many speculated the shooting was linked to Muslim anger toward Benedict.

In a speech last week, the pope quoted a Medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman" and linked Islam with violence.

Benedict said hours before Leonella's slaying Sunday that he was "deeply sorry" for the offense Muslims felt over the remark and said that the text he quoted did not reflect his own opinion.

In the condolence telegram, Benedict praised the nun for her work "carried out with joy at the service of the Somali population and offered his apostolic blessing to her relatives and fellow nuns" and all who mourn her.

From a news round-up on this issue:

In Italy, politicians and churchmen defended the Pope and said his words were taken out of context and his explanation was quite clear. Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano published it in Arabic on its front page to try to clarify his meaning.

But while some Muslim clerics say the alleged insults are the latest skirmish in a new Western "crusade" against Islam, some Catholic churchmen say the Pontiff's words have been purposefully twisted by militant Muslims.

"We pray for the Pope whose words have been maliciously interpreted," Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe said in Naples at the annual "miracle" of fourth century Saint Gennaro, whose blood turns from powder to liquid in what is seen as a good omen.

The head of Australia's 5.1 million-strong Catholic church went as far as to say that violent reaction "justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears" about Islam.

Cardinal George Pell said this showed "the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."


Vatican diplomacy mobilized
by Denis Barnett

ROME (AFP) - The Vatican launched a diplomatic offensive in Muslim countries to clarify Pope Benedict XVI's position on Islam following outrage over his remarks linking the religion with violence.

As the Holy See's move to appease Muslim anger got underway, the pope consulted his top diplomatic adviser, Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, in an audience at his summer palace outside Rome.

The 79-year-old head of the Roman Catholic Church also held talks with bishops from predominantly Muslim Chad, his first meeting with clergy from a largely Muslim country since a row erupted last week over his remarks linking Islam with violence.

The Vatican said the long-scheduled meeting with the six African bishops was part of their customary five-yearly visit to Rome.

Bertone earlier told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera in an interview that envoys from the Holy See had been asked to explain the full meaning of Benedict's speech to political and religious authorities in Muslim countries.

He said Vatican ambassadors, or papal nuncios, would highlight passages of the lengthy speech which would help to clarify its true meaning but which had been ignored in the furore.

In another move aimed at calming tensions, senior Vatican Cardinal Paul Poupard will meet the Imam of Rome's mosque, Sami Salem, at a ceremony on Tuesday hosted by the city's mayor, Walter Veltroni.

Salem on Monday told the ANSA news agency: "With the pope's words, we have stepped back by several years."

But he added that he was endeavouring to maintain calm in the Muslim community and to "work for dialogue, despite the difficulties".

Meanwhile Poupard, head of the Vatican council for Inter-faith dialogue, called last week on "Muslim friends of good will" to read the pope's speech in its entirety before passing judgement.

On Monday evening the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, encouraged them also to pay careful attention to the pope's speech on Sunday in which he said he was "deeply sorry" for the offence his words had caused: it published the full text of Sunday's statement in Arabic.

But Vatican appeasement risked being drowned out by protests which reverberated around the Muslim world, with Al-Qaeda in Iraq declaring a holy war in reaction to the remarks as protestors burned an effigy of the pope.

Italy's bishops jumped to Benedict's defence as they opened their autumn meeting. Their leader Cardinal Camillo Ruini said it was "surprising and painful" that his speech in Germany was "misunderstood to the point of being interpreted as an offence against Islam".

Ruini said the pope's speech had been twisted into a pretext for "intimidatory acts and despicable threats", to the extent of being a possible motive for the murder of an Italian nun, Sister Leonella Sgorbati, in Somalia on Sunday.

The scale and intensity of the Muslim reaction had cast doubts on the pope's next scheduled foreign trip in November to Muslim-majority Turkey.

Bertone, who took office as the Vatican's number two official only last week, said the first meeting of the Turkish bishops' conference to organise the visit would take place on Tuesday.

"Up to now, there has been no reason for it not to go ahead," he said of the visit.

Bertone said the pope's words in Germany had been "heavily manipulated" and their true meaning distorted.

The offending speech explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

But the touchpaper for the storm of criticism came in the pope's reference to a 14th century assessment of the Prophet Mohammed in which a Byzantine Christian emperor described the influence of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman".

Citing one example of what the papal envoys would be highlighting in their talks with Muslim officials, Bertone said the pope's description of the "startling brusqueness" of the emperor's comment went unreported in the furore.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/09/2006 17.28]

[I have been posting articles about the reaction to Papa's speech on our Islam thread but I think they probably should have been posted on this one so here's a positive one for a change.]

Benedict the Brave

The pope said things Muslims need to hear about faith and reason.


Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
The Wall Street Journal

It's a familiar spectacle: furious demands for an apology, threats, riots, violence. Anything can trigger so-called Muslim fury: a novel by a British-Indian writer, newspaper cartoons in a small Nordic country or, this past week, a talk on theology by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

In a lecture on "Faith and Reason" at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Benedict XVI cited one of the last emperors of Byzantium, Manuel II Paleologus. Stressing the 14th-century emperor's "startling brusqueness," the pope quoted him as saying: "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."

Taken alone, these are strong words. However, the pope didn't endorse the comment that he twice emphasized was not his own. No matter. As with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," which millions of outraged Muslims didn't bother to read (including Ayatollah Khomeini, who put the bounty on the novelist's life), what Benedict XVI meant or even said isn't the issue. Once again, many Muslim leaders are inciting their faithful against perceived slights and trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world's major religions.

Several Iraqi terrorist groups called for attacks on the Vatican. A cleric linked to Somalia's ruling Islamist movement urged Muslims to "hunt down" and kill the pope. In an apparently linked attack Sunday in Mogadishu, a nun was gunned down in a children's hospital. Pakistan's parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the pontiff and demanding an apology.

Under pressure and no doubt to stop any further violence, the pope on Sunday did so. "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address . . . which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence. The quote doesn't "in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts."

It was a gracious gesture on the pope's part, especially because his original argument deserves to be heard, not least by Muslims. The offending quotation was a small part in a chain of argument that led to his main thesis about the close relationship between reason and belief. Without the right balance between the two, the pontiff said, mankind is condemned to the "pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason"--in short, political and religious fanaticism.

In Christianity, God is inseparable from reason. "In the beginning was the Word," the pope quotes from the Gospel according to John. "God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word," he explained. "The inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of history of religions, but also from that of world history. . . . This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe."

The question raised by the pope is whether this convergence has taken place in Islam as well. He quotes the Lebanese Catholic theologist Theodore Khoury, who said that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent, his will is not bound up with any of our categories." If this is true, can there be dialogue at all between Islam and the West? For the pope, the precondition for any meaningful interfaith discussions is a religion tempered by reason: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures," he concluded.

This is not an invitation to the usual feel-good interfaith round-tables. It is a request for dialogue with one condition--that everyone at the table reject the irrationality of religiously motivated violence. The pope isn't condemning Islam; he is inviting it to join rather than reject the modern world.
By their reaction to the pope's speech, some Muslim leaders showed again that Islam has a problem with modernity that is going to have to be solved by a debate within Islam. The day Muslims condemn Islamic terror with the same vehemence they condemn those who criticize Islam, an attempt at dialogue--and at improving relations between the Western and Islamic worlds--can begin.

Should Vatican aides have warned the Pope?

By Malcolm Moore in Rome
The Telegraph.com.UK

The authoritarian nature of Pope Benedict's papacy was being blamed last night for the speech that provoked uproar in the Muslim world.

Unlike his predecessor John Paul II, who worked closely with a select group of advisers when drafting key speeches, Benedict XVI insists on writing his own.

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed regret at the ‘misunderstanding’ over his controversial remarks about Islam last week

Although the final drafts are then circulated to his aides, senior Vatican advisers believe that there is no one brave enough to tell the Pope he may have made a mistake. The Pope was known as "God's Rottweiler" when he held his previous position as the Vatican's defender of the faith.

"The speech was seen by some people in the secretariat of state and they were a bit shocked by the strength of it but decided that it was what the Pope wanted to say," said Fr Daniel Madigan, the director for the study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

He added that the Pope was "clearly writing things himself" since his speech contained elementary errors about Islam.

"He is not really au fait with the material. He says the second Surah was handed to Mohammed when he did not have political power but almost every Muslim scholar believes it was handed to him later, in Medina, when he did have political power.

"The second mistake is one he makes continually. He spells Ibn Hazm with an N at the end. It is the kind of thing I see in students' writing," he said.

Since the exile of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald to be the papal envoy to Egypt, there are few high-ranking Islamic experts close to the Pope. Yesterday, Archbishop Fitzgerald declined to comment on the row, saying that he was "on retreat" in France.

Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent of the Tablet, the Catholic newspaper, said the biggest problem was a lack of checks and balances within the Roman Curia under Benedict.

He said that the Pope was surrounded by a cabal of "yes-men" who "hold him in such high regard that they are unlikely to challenge him".

John Paul II was regularly guided either by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the former secretary of state who resigned this month, or by Joaquin Navarro Valls, the Vatican's press secretary, who served 22 years before retiring earlier this year.

Both departures have helped the Pope recast the Vatican's top order in his image. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a Jesuit who served with the Pope at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has been made the new secretary of state despite having no diplomatic experience.

"It sends out the message that the Vatican does not care about diplomacy to the same extent," said a senior priest.

Sandro Magister, a veteran Vatican observer for L'Espresso magazine, agreed that the Pope was less concerned with diplomacy than with getting out his central message.

"This is not a pope who submits himself to censorship or self-censorship, which he sees as being inopportune and dangerous when it concerns the pillars of his preaching," he said.

The weakness of Cardinal Bertone, who has publicly stated that his job is simply to "carry out the Pope's will" was cited by another Vatican source as a cause of the Pope's troubles.

BENEFAN - YES! The good things we keep here, of course. We should just shunt all the roundup of hatred and all stupid, brainless, hostile commentary elsewhere - if they're worth posting at all. The news round-ups dealing with this issue, unfortunately, we have to keep up with - in the other thread(s).

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/09/2006 20.52]

Is Dialogue With Islam Possible?

Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI's Address at the University of Regensburg


Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. | September 18, 2006
Ignatius Insight

I.

Both before and since his elevation to the papacy, Benedict has taken a consistent approach to controversial issues: he locates the assumptions and fundamental principles underlying the controversy, analyzes their "inner" structure or dynamism, and lays out the consequences of the principles.

For example, in Deus Caritas Est, Benedict does not address directly the controversial issues of homosexual partners, promiscuity, or divorce. Instead he examines the "inner logic" of the love of eros, which is "love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined . . ." He shows that it has been understood historically to have a relationship with the divine ("love promises infinity, eternity") and to require "purification and growth in maturity ... through the path of renunciation". In love's "growth towards higher levels and inward purification ... it seeks to become definitive ... both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being 'for ever'."

So starting from the "inner logic" of the fundamental reality of love, Benedict concludes to an exclusive and permanent relationship between a man and a woman. That is a fair description of the Catholic idea of marriage, and it excludes homosexual partners, promiscuity, and divorce.

Incidentally, in the very first paragraph of this encyclical, Benedict states: "In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message [that God is love] is both timely and significant." Clearly the religious justification of violence is an aberration that's on his mind.

II.

While in Deus Caritas Est Benedict defends the foundational truth that God is Love, in his Regensburg lecture he is defending the foundational truth that God is Logos, Reason. The central theme of the lecture is that the Christian conviction that God is Logos is not simply the result of a contingent historical process of inculturation that has been called the "hellenization of Christianity". Rather it is something that is "always and intrinsically true".

In the main body of the lecture, Benedict criticizes attempts in the West to "dehellenize" Christianity: the rejection of the rational component of faith (the sola fides of the 16th century reformers); the reduction of reason to the merely empirical or historical (modern exegesis and modern science); a multiculturalism which regards the union of faith and reason as merely one possible form of inculturation of the faith. All this is a Western self-critique.

But as the starting point of his lecture, Benedict takes a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Muslim to focus on the central question of the entire lecture: whether God is Logos. The Emperor's objection to Islam is Mohammed's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor asserts that this is not in accordance with right reason, and "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature". Benedict points to this as "the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion".

It is at this point in the lecture that Benedict makes a statement which cannot be avoided or evaded if there is ever to be any dialogue between Christianity and Islam that is more than empty words and diplomatic gestures. For the Emperor, God's rationality is "self-evident". But for Muslim teaching, according to the editor of the book from which Benedict has been quoting, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality".

Benedict has struck bedrock. This is the challenge to Islam. This is the issue that lies beneath all the rest. If God is above reason in this way, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for) forced conversion, terrorism, or Sharia law, which calls for the execution of Muslim converts to Christianity. If God wills it, it is beyond discussion.

III.

Let us now turn to the statement in Benedict's lecture which has aroused the most anger. Benedict quotes the Byzantine Emperor's challenge to the learned Muslim: "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."

Benedict's main argument -- that God is Logos and that violence in spreading or defending religion is contrary to the divine nature -- could have been made without including that part of Emperor's remark (made "somewhat brusquely" according to Benedict) that challenges Islam much more globally. And in his Angelus message the following Sunday, Benedict said: "These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought." Nevertheless, it may be instructive to examine this "brusque" utterance of the Emperor and ask the question: Is it simply indefensible?

As a thought experiment, let's reverse the situation. Suppose a major spokesman for Islam publicly issued the challenge: "Show me just what Jesus brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman." What would be the Christian response? Not to burn a mosque or an effigy of the Muslim spokesman, or to shoot a Muslim nurse in the back in Somalia. It would rather be to reply with some examples of just what makes the New Covenant new: the revelation that God is a Father who has a co-equal Son and Holy Spirit; that Jesus is God's Son made flesh; the Sermon on the Mount; the Resurrection of the body; the list would be long. As Irenaeus put it: he brought all newness, bringing himself. Such a statement would not make dialogue impossible; it would be an occasion for dialogue.

There is obviously much room for qualification in the Emperor's blunt statement, even for a Christian who holds that Mohammed was not a prophet, and that whatever is good in Islam is traceable either to man's natural religious knowledge or to conscious or unconscious borrowings from Jewish and Christian revelation.

Yet there is a crucial underlying principle that needs to be enunciated. Christianity and Islam make incompatible truth claims. Despite the difficulty in determining who can speak authoritatively for Christianity or for Islam, there are elements of belief common to all Christians which are incompatible with elements of belief common to all Muslims. The two most obvious and most fundamental are the Trinity and the Incarnation.

I would expect an intelligent and informed Muslim to consider me a blasphemer (because I introduce multiplicity into the one God) and an idolator (because I worship as God a man named Jesus). Should I be offended if he says so publicly? Should I not rather be offended if he conceals his position for the alleged purpose of fostering dialogue?

The question of respect is entirely distinct. Benedict is clearly aware of this distinction as evidenced in the official Vatican statement subsequent to Benedict's lecture, where the Secretary of State refers to his "respect and esteem for those who profess Islam". That is, one can and should respect Muslims (those who profess Islam) as persons with inherent dignity; but where there are incompatible truth claims, they cannot be simultaneously true. One cannot hold one as true without holding the other as false. Any religious dialogue should begin by examining the evidence for the incompatible claims.

It's worth noting, however, that while consistent Christians and Muslims in fact hold the position of the other to be erroneous in important ways, the Christian is not obliged by his faith to subject the Muslim to dhimmitude nor to deny him his religious freedom. There is a serious asymmetry here, which Benedict has criticized before. The Saudis can build a multi-million dollar mosque in Rome; but Christians can be arrested in Saudi Arabia for possessing a Bible.

Certainly, it may sound provocative to make the claim the Emperor did. But why (since Christians believe that God's full and definitive revelation has come with Christ, who brings all prophecy to an end) isn't it just as provocative for a Muslim to proclaim that Mohammed is a new prophet, bringing new revelation that corrects and supplements that of Christ?

Is it really offensive to say that Christians and Muslims disagree profoundly about this? Is not this the necessary starting point that must be recognized before any religious dialogue can even begin?

And if the response from Islam is violence, then must we not ask precisely the question raised by Benedict: Is this violence an aberration that is inconsistent with genuine Islam (as similar violence by Christians would be an aberration inconsistent with genuine Christianity)? Or is it justifiable on the basis of Islam's image of God as absolutely transcending all human categories, even that of rationality? And if the response to this question is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated.

IV.

Finally, has no one seen the irony in the episode related by Benedict? Byzantium was increasingly threatened in the 14th century by an aggressive Islamic force, the growing Ottoman Empire. The Byzantine Emperor seems to have committed the dialogue to writing while his imperial capital, Constantinople, was under siege by the Ottoman Turks. It would fall definitively in 1453. Muslims were military enemies, engaged in a war of aggression against Byzantium. Yet even in these circumstances the Christian Emperor and the learned Persian Muslim could be utterly candid with one another and discuss civilly their fundamental religious differences. As Benedict described the dialogue, the subject was "Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both".

The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam.

Satirical cartoon attack on pope surfaces, as questions remain about pope’s remarks

By Gerard O'Connell
9/19/2006
UCANews

ROME (UCAN) – While Pope Benedict XVI's expression of sorrow and regret seems to have placated Muslims in some, though not all parts of the world, a very disturbing cartoon about him has entered the Muslim world in the Middle East.

Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news network that is watched by Muslims in many countries, has carried the animated sequence under the title Era of the New Vatican on the homepage of its Web site at (http://english.aljazeera.net).

The drawings by Pakistani satirist Shujaat Ali begin with Pope John Paul II releasing white doves from a cardboard box marked "religious harmony." In the next set of frames, Pope Benedict XVI, with St. Peter's Basilica in the background, shoots the doves down with a double-barreled shotgun. The final frames, also with St. Peter's in the background, show three blood-spattered birds on the ground at the feet of John Paul II, now sitting in a chair grasping his pastoral staff. With a look of dismay, he raises his hand to his forehead, while Pope Benedict stands beside him, one hand propped on the gun and the other on his hip, looking out at the viewer.

The message is crystal-clear: John Paul II was a man of peace; Benedict XVI is a killer of peace. Sadly, the image risks entering the popular imagination of many Muslims and remaining there.

The cartoon comes at a time when many in Rome and elsewhere in the Catholic world are struggling to understand how this whole controversy could ever have happened, after almost 40 years of dialogue between Christians and Muslims, and between the Holy See and Muslim-majority countries as well as international Muslim organizations.

Many are asking how the brilliant theologian-pope could have been so unaware of the political realities in today's world that he felt he could quote freely, without creating problems, from a 14th-century Byzantine (Orthodox Christian) emperor, then in conflict with the Turkish Muslims, who expressed a negative judgment on Muhammad and jihad.

They wonder too how he could have used passages from that text without making clear that he did not share the emperor's views, a clarification the Vatican made on Saturday. The pope explicitly distanced himself from the emperor's remarks on Sunday, speaking from Castel Gandolfo, the summer papal residence.

Jesuit Father Tom Michel, who served on the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue from 1981 to 1994 as the Vatican's top expert on Islam, writing in the Turkish political journal Yeni Asya this week said "the deeper question is, why did the pope say what he did in Regensburg?"

Father Michel, a member of the Indonesia Jesuit province, revealed that he was contacted in recent days by many Muslims, as well as Christian bishops, diplomats and journalists, who asked him: How could this have happened? Was there no one to urge the pope to change his text? How can it be prevented from happening again?

One of his "most useful tasks" while serving on the pontifical council, he said, "was to look over the late Pope John Paul II's speeches to Muslims to see if there was anything that might be considered offensive in them, and if there was something of that nature, to propose changes for the pope."

He recalled that "Pope John Paul II was very conscientious lest he accidentally say something offensive or disrespectful to Muslims or to the followers of other religions."

On the small number of occasions that Father Michel detected problems in papal texts, "the pope always corrected those questionable phrases before delivering the talk." As a result, "there was never a controversy like we are experiencing today."

While "every pope has his own style," John Paul II "was always ready to make good use of his Vatican staff," Father Michel said. "My feeling is that a mistake of the order we saw last week in Regensburg would not have been possible with that pope," he added.

Father Michel also pointed out that John Paul II "had trained scholars in Islamic studies on his staff," citing Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald as well as himself. Archbishop Fitzgerald was president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue until Pope Benedict reassigned him earlier this year as nuncio to Egypt and the Arab League.

"With Archbishop Fitzgerald's departure, there remains no one in the Vatican who is properly trained in Islamic faith practice and tradition, and the lack becomes glaringly evident on occasions like that of the Regensburg address," Father Michel wrote.

"Had the pope's talk been reviewed and controlled by any competent staff person, they would immediately have told the pope that the citation of Manuel II Paleologus, which was in fact marginal to the pope's main point, should not be included in the speech," the Jesuit scholar stated.

The Byzantine emperor, he pointed out, "was not a Christian theologian, nor a scholar knowledgeable on Islamic matters, nor a peacemaker, and since he was writing more than seven centuries ago, his observations have more historical than practical relevance for today."

Some observers say "the pope did not intend to offend Muslims," Father Michel noted. He too believes this, but it is "beside the point," he said.

"Most of the time when we offend others, we do not intend to do so," he explained. "Rather, we do so because of ignorance or lack of sensitivity. In such cases, an apology is required." For this reason, "it is also proper for the pope to ask forgiveness for his offensive remarks, even though, as I believe, he did not intend to offend."

Pope Benedict "offered that apology clearly and formally" on Sunday Sept. 17, Father Michel said. "I pray that Muslims will be generous and extend forgiveness."

The priest concluded his article with a call to Christians and Muslims alike, especially religious leaders, heads of nations, members of the diplomatic corps, professors and journalists. He asked them "to urge the new Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, to make sure than any future statements about Islam or other religions be reviewed, and if need be, revised by competently trained persons, so that, in the case of Islam, every expression by Catholic leaders reflect the directive of the Second Vatican Council that 'the Catholic Church should show respect and esteem for Muslims.'"

----------------------------------------------------------------Comment by TERESA BENEDETTA:

Just what purpose did Father Michel think he was doing by writing that piece for a Turkish magazine? He put Pope Benedict in an even worse light for any Muslim leader. Isn't it self-serving to say at this point "Oh it was so much better in our time, we had the right people, the Pope then would never have made such a mistake. Now, they don't have anyone who knows anything about Islam...and this Pope didn't ask anyone, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did!" He leaves a bad taste in the mouth, this Jesuit. It is most un-Christian what he did.

10/8/06 P.S. Forgive me for getting into this space, Benefan, but I was going over this thread to look for the original post on Fr. Michel, and noticed only now that I had posted my comment on Michel in the wrong space (after the post which follows this) - so I have transferred the comment where it belongs. The article I posted it with had nothing at all about Michel!

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 08/10/2006 19.24]