CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
Bernard
F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
The PopeÕs Bad Press—Part
I
If you feel confused about the latest Pope
controversy, you have every reason to feel that way. I have read the
Pope BenedictÕs Regensburg address in full, as well as most of the media
coverage of the furor over it. A lot of ink and bandwidth has been spent on the
speech, the reactions to it, the PopeÕs subsequent regrets, and analyses of
what it all means. My own view is that all of these reactions are beside the
point. In fact, Benedict XVIÕs real meaning appears to have eluded just about
everyone.
As a matter of fact, in all of this I have been unable to find anyone who
has bothered to answer the two most obvious and relevant questions.
First: Why did he include the
trouble-making quotation in his talk (after all, he said later he intended no
negative judgment on Islam, but did not much explain what he did intend)? And Second: What was the Pope actually trying
to say?
Islamist extremists, for example, obviously found the PopeÕs remarks
insulting, and furthermore found his expression of regret insufficient to calm
their rage. The multiple protests, church burnings and even the death of a nun
in Somalia are the results of that rage. Benedict may not have intended any of
this, but some of the damage is permanent.
Moderate Muslims found the PopeÕs remarks troubling, but in most
places from Austria to Egypt they have accepted his ÒapologyÓ as adequate
contrition, and in some cases they even saw it as a retraction (even though the
Pope has withdrawn nothing from what he said). In these moderate quarters, it
is possible that no permanent damage has been done – but it still seems
the point of the PopeÕs speech has been missed.
Among moderate and progressive
Christians, the reaction has been
quite different. Mostly they lament what they take to be a papal faux pas, but
they still insist that Benedict is right to reject any link between violence
and religion. Some moderate commentators have even seen the controversy as a
positive opportunity to provoke more dialogue – a case where misunderstanding
and overreaction reveals more clearly the need for better understanding!
But conservative Christians have taken a grimmer view, seeing the ÒIslamicÓ
reaction as proving what they take to be the PopeÕs point – namely, that
Islam is too prone to react violently whenever its beliefs are questioned or
challenged. Rather than faulting the Pope for insensitivity, they see his
remarks as a positive test case. For some, this test proves the intransigence
of the Islamic extremists, while for others it even reveals some fundamental flaw
within Islam itself (such as the absence of a central controlling authority
that could keep extremists from overreacting).
My own reading tells me that none of those
people get it. In fact, Benedict XVIÕs main thesis is not about faith and
violence at all!
Consider the context. His audience was not, after all, Muslims or even activists. His talk was a
university address to a bunch of academics. His theme was not the place of violence in religion--it was the place
of religion in the academy.
The reference to faith and violence that
caused all the trouble came near the beginning of the PopeÕs speech, and set a
context for a broader point. The PopeÕs citation of a long passage from a 14th
century emperor did include
provocative language about Mohammed and Islam. Observers pro and con have obsessed
about this language, even though the Pope has made it clear it expresses an
opinion he does not share.
But virtually all commentators have
ignored the END section of the passage, which is on another topic entirely. Yet
THIS section of the quotation contains the main theme of BenedictÕs speech. In fact he repeated this section (and
not the section about Islam and Mohammed) four more times to emphasize his point.
Here it is: ÒNot acting reasonably is contrary to GodÕs
nature.Ó I repeat: this quote appears
five times in seven pages.
The context here is not Islam at all; it
is religion in general. And the issue at stake is not Òfaith and violence,Ó but
its flip–side: Òfaith and reason.Ó
Obviously violence is, in BenedictÕs eyes,
what happens when reasoned dialog breaks down. But his focus here was not on the
effect of such a breakdown; his
concern here was with its cause.
And here – overlooked by nearly all the commentators both pro and con
– he lays the blame for the collapse of East-West dialogue not on Islam
(as everyone has been led to believe), but on the West itself! In other words
the real target of the PopeÕs critique is not ÒThemÓ at all – it is ÒUsÓ!
Is it mere coincidence that this has not
been reported? I think not.
Next time: Why does Benedict blame
the West for current East-West conflicts?
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006
Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com
Dr. SwainÕs
opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.
Bernie Swain has
devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US,
Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer,
teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious organizations.
He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy Cross, Harvard,
The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.
His writings include Liberating
Leadership (Harper & Row,
1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic
Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot,
Harvard Theological Review, and
Liturgy.
A lifelong layperson,
he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:
CrossCurrents
Is a weekly subscription service for parish
websites. Individual Subscriptions
are also available.
For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183
#149