What Pope Benedict said in his homily during the opening of the conclave in which he was later elected as the successor of Peter is becoming more evident in the recent hurried reactions which seems to be unguided and which might be caused irresponsible reporting. What he said could be a right diagnosis of the world today:
“How many winds of doctrine we have known in these last decades, how many ideological currents, how many fashions of thought? . . . . from Marxism to liberalism, to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, etc.”
” . . .Relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of “doctrine,” seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure.”
How easy are our brothers swayed by their own way of looking at things. The controversy was sparked by the lecture of the Pope. It was about “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections” in a Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg when he visited his native country. It would be good to to visit The Controversy over Pope Benedict’s Remarks on Islam in The Benedict Blog to understand the lecture of the Pope better. There is even a Part II.
The reactions were triggered by an unfortunate quotation which could have been avoided. I italicized the quotation:
“I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, 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”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.
Certainly there was “brusqueness” in what the byzantine emperor said, and this could even be evident in historical blunders of the crusades.
Yet, it seems to me that the Holy Father wants is to topple down this “dictatorship of relativism” which all ideologies and doctrines are prone, in order establish some fundamental principles and standards for a fruitful dialogue with other cultures. He is faithful to the conviction when already in the opening of the conclave, of what he told the cardinals. His first encyclical is about Charity. But as he said, “charity without truth is blind. . . and truth without charity would be a clanging cymbal.” Here the Pope, because he loves humanity and each one of us, wants to present some fundamental truths of faith which is not an exclusion of reason and reason should not limit itself but is invited to open itself to the absolute. The great divide faith and reason could be catastrophic, like to use violence in name of God be it state sponsored or ideologically sponsored.
Without the right understanding of faith and reason, without a great awareness that rationality is not incompatible with faith, but on the contrary, in fact rationality is part of faith, whether be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism, this “dictator” in the world would continue to dominate our mentalities. There should be an objective standard in the human world: reason. Call in common sense, rationality, good sense, human understanding, whatever, what is needed in the world, in whatever camp: politics, law, jurisprudence, economics, technology, communication, education, etc. there must be a moral standard, outside of us, of our intellects but also intelligible and reasonable in order to allow the world go ahead. Take away God and religion from reason and “reason” will lead us to great disrespect to man to the point of eliminating man himself. Take away reason from God and religion would also be catastrophic.
Positively, it was good that the Pope’s words struck a controversy and you could find an array of positive and negative comments in the web and blogosphere. This would mean that a greater interest would arise from this. Our muslim brothers who are sensible, do not agree to the quotation: this means that they have the common sense to voice out that Islam is not violent. Otherwise, the more they take violent protests, the more the words of the Pope becomes true. (Amarji a muslim himself, in his blog would have strike a chord in muslim’s hearts).
The clarification of Cardinal Bertone on Islamic Reaction to Pope’s Address still maintains primarily the deep respect and esteem of the Pope to our Muslim brothers. Though the quote itself as I have said is unfortunate, I am sure that the world sensible opinion will make more evident to the truth of what he is saying and be vindicated in order to give light to this already dark world.
(Listen also to A Vatican envoy to the U.N. puts into perspective a papal speech and Church Committed to Interreligious Dialogue. Recently (22 Sept 06 – RV), there was a positive response of Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See, Albert Yelda, in a meeting between the Pope and representatives of the Muslim Community).
