Recent reactions to the Pope: a symptom of “dictatorship of relativism”?

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).

Is our world leading to political self destruction?

From a certain point of view, which is basically general, and upon comparison of the last two wars in Iraq and now in Lebanon, there is a radical change of perspective in the manner of waging war. A dangerous development which leads to a precedent in warfare in international scene.  I am convinced that sooner or later the world will learn that war is an exercise in futility.  But it would take a certain process.

The world now is deprived of the awareness of a Father. The international community and family of nations could never be achieved fully if there is an absence of a deep consciousness that the world is really one family of nations and therefore what is presumed is the reality of a Father: whatever you want to call it, Yahweh, God, Allah. If humanity does not go deep in this awareness the realization of belonging to a family of nations and therefore as brothers, the dream of a world of peace and justice would just be a dream.

I am reminded of the biblical Jewish tradition, that after Adam and Eve’s separation from this “Father” otherwise called their creator, its immediate effect, at least in the Jewish bible, even though it maybe took place after thousands of years, Cain killed his brother Abel. It is said to be the first written account of murder in the world because the real family ties that bind brothers was turned into jealousy, mistrust, hatred, anger ultimately murder. Diplomacy was absent. From that act of violence, it grew exponentially in history, especially until now when the technology of the killing power of arms is doubled if not quadrupled.

But let us go back to this war of our times:

When in the 1990’s before USA and allies attacked Iraq, it was done when diplomacy seemed not to succeed. Even it could be said that there was a prior plan to invade Iraq, US led coalition forces kept their guns silent. Only after talks and diplomacy in the UN failed or was interpreted to fail, that hostilities began. This was repeated when again, Iraq was invaded for the second time. At least there was first of all an investigation of the so called weapons of mass destruction, and when Iraq did not anymore allow UN observers to enter Iraq, since they out rightly denied it, (and they were vindicated since it was proven to be true – the US led coalition did not find anything to conclude about these weapons of mass destruction), the guns were fired. US and invaded Iraq, which I believe was their first intention after all.

Now, in this war in Lebanon the inverse is true. The guns are now being fired at will irrespective of the innocent victims involved. While the guns are being fired, irregardless of where it come from, diplomacy is being painstakingly and slowly done. We have here a new working theory of war and diplomacy. An outright affirmation of “Might is right”. Superior force of gunpowder is being used at will since there is a loss of judgment what is a military target and civilian target. And while the killings are going on, diplomacy is being used to cover up the war till objectives are attained. And if diplomacy does not succeed or is intended not succeed, hostilities continue at the expense of civilian deaths, to uphold forward political, economic and cultural intentions of the aggressor. It seems to me that by the military actions of Israel, they do not want only to do away with Hezbollah but to change the political, cultural, economic reality of Lebanon. This, with the blessings of those who supply them arms. It is a war against Lebanon, not only Hezbollah. It is even termed: “collective punishment”

There is a blatant denial of the principle: “The end does not justify the means”. Irrespective of the end and the purpose of Israel, innocent victims are being killed! War and aggression is justified even the means are morally evil. Self defence is evoked but it’s not the militants that are being killed but civilians.

The world is leading itself to a “justification of the means, however murderous, in order to attain its end;” and that “power and decision making comes from the barrel of the gun.” This is very dangerous development to the civilized world which is fast becoming uncivilized. We are evolving backwards rather than forward.

If the divine “Fatherhood” is not established in the consciousness of man, diplomacy could be useless because there is not anymore a clear objective standard of right and wrong but much depends on the “number of missiles” and military equipment.

Divine Fatherhood of Allah/Yahweh is for me a basic solution in the Middle East, Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. Construction of a multi-religious, multi-racial Middle East is a must based of common brotherhood. It is not true that Muslims and Jews came from the same Father Abraham?

Here is a quotation from a Hebrew Holy Bible:

Gen 50:15 After the death of their father, Joseph’s brothers said, “What if Joseph still hates us and plans to pay us back for all the harm we did to him?” Gen 50:16 So they sent a message to Joseph: “Before our father died, Gen 50:17 he told us to ask you, ‘Please forgive the crime your brothers committed when they wronged you.’ Now please forgive us the wrong that we, the servants of your father’s God, have done.” Joseph cried when he received this message.

In fact forgiveness is mentioned one hundered and ten times in the Old Testament.

Here is another quotation from the Koran:

From the Sura 5 entitled “The Table”. (5:12) Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: “I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude.”

(5:13) But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

I discovered that the forgiveness in the Koran is mentioned one hundred fifty four times!

Violence breeds another violence. “An eye for an eye” makes the world blind, as Gandhi once said. To reverse this tide of self destruction, we have to realize that all of us belong to the same family, having the same Father and therefore to preserve this family from within and without, ultimately all of us will be confronted by this choice which could be freely decided: to forgive to have lasting peace. A Christian leader, John Paul II, once announced at the end of the last millennium: There is no real peace without justice, but there is no real justice without forgiveness.