CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
Bernard
F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
The PopeÕs Bad Press—Part
II
Last time I wrote that almost everyone
commenting (both pro and con) on Pope BenedictÕs controversial Regensburg
speech had missed his point. Now the Pope has called for "building
bridgesÓ between religions and met with key Muslim leaders in an effort to
defuse the violent response to his talk.
The Pope said he called the meeting "in
order to strengthen the bonds of friendship and solidarity between the Holy See
and Muslim communities throughout the world." He acknowledged that "the
circumstances which have given rise to our gathering are well known," and
then tried to blunt any suspicion that he had anti-Muslim intentions:
I should like to reiterate today all
the esteem and profound respect that I have for Muslim believers ÉInterreligious
and intercultural dialogue is a necessity for building together this world of
peace and fraternity ardently desired by all people of goodwill.
But all this still leaves open the
question: what was the PopeÕs real message? And why have I claimed that Benedict
is faulting the West—and not the Muslim world—for todayÕs
conflicts?
The text of his speech answers both
questions.
BenedictÕs topic at Regensburg was not faith and violence in the world at all. His real
topic is the role of faith and religion in the university, and he offers an
extended (and rather academic) argument. His view: western intellectuals have
reduced the role of faith, even to the point of excluding religion from the
Òintellectual marketplaceÓ that is the academy. He sees this as a historic and
dangerous reversal.
From its very birth, he argues,
Christianity linked the rich spirituality of Israel with the rational outlook
of Greek culture. He finds this link in Saint Paul and Gospel of John. He
argues that this link:
Was decisive for the birth and spread
of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here,
an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion.
He admits that Christian tradition did not
always consistently support this link, but itÕs obvious that he believes that
link is essential to authentic Christianity. In his view, this ÒInner rapprochement between Biblical faith
and Greek philosophical inquiryÓ explains why Christianity transplanted its center
to Europe despite its roots in the Middle East.
Benedict acknowledges three modern
attempts (in the 16th century, the 19th century, and the
present) to break this link by ÒDehellenizingÓ Christianity (that is, removing
its Greek/philosophical elements). In his view, these attempts they all have
the same negative affect: ÒReason is so reduced that questions of religion and
ethics no longer concern it.Ó
For Benedict, reducing reason this way is
a root cause of todayÕs religious violence. For him, it is urgent and imperative that we restore reason
to its complete place by including in it the religious and ethical elements of
faith. ÒOnly thus,Ó he says, Òdo we become capable of that genuine dialogue of
cultures and religions so urgently needed today.Ó
But Benedict does not stop his critique
there. Beyond appealing to the intellectuals of the West to play a more constructive
role in todayÕs conflicts, he lays heavy responsibility on those intellectuals
for excluding religion from reasoned discussion. That exclusion, he argues has had
dangerous consequences:
The worldÕs profoundly religious
cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an
attack on their most profound convictions.
Note the word ÒattackÓ!
It is widely acknowledged that extremists
and fundamentalists are fueled by a siege mentality which encourages them to
see even terror as a kind of self defense. They really do feel they are under attack. But there is little consensus about what
makes them feel besieged, because we in the West often lack insight into how our way of life threatens others.
Such insight is the whole point of
BenedictÕs address. HeÕs saying that the very culture and climate of our
universities, our intellectual centers, is threatening to those from other,
more religious cultures.
This insight matters not only to
understand othersÕ feelings better, but to protect our own security interests.
For Benedict is convinced the WestÕs militant secularism has backfired:
The West has long been endangered by
this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only
suffer a great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason,
and not the denial of its grandeur –this is the program with which a
theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. ÓNot
to act reasonableÉis contrary to the nature of God,Ó said Manuel IIÉIt is to
this breadth of reason that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.
What strikes me is that all of the
coverage and commentary has avoided or ignored this central point. While
Muslims only saw insults and insensitivity and reacted either critically (the
moderates) or violently (the extremists), Western observers preferred to ignore
the Pope's criticism of them while
either applauding or deploring his supposed critique of Islam (which it turns
out was probably not intended and certainly done in passing).
In other words observers East and West,
progressive and conservative, all preferred to focus on a point the Pope was not making rather than the point he was making.
To a great degree, of course, BenedictÕs
problem was self-inflicted. His decision to quote Manuel II on IslamÕs defects gave
so many observers the perfect alibi
to ignore his main message. And this begs the question: why did he use that quote
at all?
I can only speculate on two possibilities.
Either 1.The Pope is so na•ve he did not foresee the disastrous consequences which
have undermined his own message by provoking violent responses, or: 2.He is so shrewd
that he deliberately provoked controversy in order to highlight the urgency of
establishing dialogue – even at the risk of making dialogue more
difficult.
Do we have a Pope too naive for his own
good, or a Pope too shrewd for his own good? Either possibility troubles me no
end – especially when I happen to agree with his main point about the West
threatening others and endangering itself.
I think he is absolutely right. But what
good is being right if no one can hear you through the static you make?
© 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
#150