I’m thinking about the latest speech of Pope Benedict XVI that was interpreted as an attack against Islam by many muslims. The controversial part was actually a quote from an unknown Byzantine emperor
Was this an attempt to raise tension between islam and the catholic world? - To be more specific: An attempt to destroy the close political ties that have developed between Iran and Venezuela ?
…
To start with just the most obvious question, why would the Pope do that?
Again, why does the Pope care about the ties between those countries?
Maybe because he wants to contribute to the attempted isolation of Iran because of the nuclear issue - or because he want less influence from muslim countries in Latino America
Here’s an interesting supposition on what the pope is up to: Pushing to roll back ecumenicism and re-establish the primacy of the Catholic Church as the only faith. According to this commentator in The Guardian, anyway.
This could be his motivation
Anyway, there is no way such a person made this speech without an hidden agenda of some sort
What influence do Muslim countries have in Latin America? Chavez and Ahmadinejad have made a few appearances together, but I don’t know that anything substantial has happened.
We’re speculating about somebody’s motives, so I don’t know how anybody could disprove your guesses. I don’t find them convincing, though.
An opinion piece in the N.Y. Times on Tuesday (by the Vatican correspondent for The Catholic Review) had this to say (in part) about the Pope’s “hidden agenda”:
*"The new pope is tougher both on terrorism and on what the Vatican calls “reciprocity” — the demand that Islamic states grant the same rights and freedoms to Christians and other religious minorities that Muslims receive in the West. When Benedict said in his apology on Sunday that he wants a “frank and sincere dialogue,” the word “frank” was not an accident. He wants dialogue with teeth…Personally, Benedict’s graciousness toward Muslims is clear. For example, when Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani, a member of the powerful Guardian Council in Iran, wrote a book comparing Islamic and Christian eschatological themes in the 1990’s, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, swapped theological ideas with him in the Vatican.
Immediately after his installation Mass last year, Benedict thanked Muslims for attending an inter-faith meeting. “I express my appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and Christians,” he said. “I assure you that the church wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions.”
Yet Benedict has also challenged what he sees as Islam’s potential for extremism, grounded in a literal reading of the Koran. In a 1997 interview with me, he said of Islam, “One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of pluralistic society.”
In the same interview, he accused some Muslims of fomenting a radical “liberation theology,” meaning a belief that God approves of violence to achieve liberation from Israel. He also said he opposed Turkey’s candidacy to enter the European Union, arguing that it is “in permanent contrast to Europe” and suggesting that it play a leadership role among Islamic states instead…Desire for a more muscular stance (toward Islam), however, has been building among Catholics around the world for some time. In part, it has been driven by persecution of Christians in the Islamic world, like the murder of an Italian missionary, the Rev. Andrea Santoro, in Trabzon, Turkey, in February. A 16-year-old Turk fired two bullets into Father Santoro, shouting “God is great.” But perhaps the greatest driving force has been the frustrations over reciprocity. To take one oft-cited example, while Saudis contributed tens of millions of dollars to build Europe’s largest mosque in Rome, Christians cannot build churches in Saudi Arabia. Priests in Saudi Arabia cannot leave oil-industry compounds or embassy grounds without fear of reprisals from the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop of the region recently described the situation as “reminiscent of the catacombs.”…At a meeting with Muslims in Cologne, Germany, last summer, Benedict urged joint efforts to “turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress toward world peace.” "*
Well, we knew Ratzinger was a putz, didn’t we? The only complaint I have about the article though is the phrase his “involvement” with the Hitler Youth. By all acounts, membership was manditory, he was enrolled by one of his teachers, and he never even attended a single meeting or event.
I take it that you have not actually read the speech in question.
I don’t even like Benny, but the only person noted in this thread with an “agenda” appeares to be Madeleine Bunting.
Benny is a doctrinal hard-liner, but only withing Catholic circles. A full reading of his text seems to indicate a scholar who might be a bit tone deaf. His quotation was very much a starting pont for a wholly separate discussion. (I suspect that he would have done better to find a different quotation to make his point, but that was the quotation that came to mivnd after he read a particular work that had triggered his ruminations.)
I would say the premise is ass backwards. There’s something wrong when a planet full of fringe Islamic loons go crazy over an intellectual comment. The people engaging in mayhem are the ones playing a high game.
Muslims are insulted by the idea that Mohammed was a warrior prophet? I’m insulted that Islamo-fascists think they control world opinion. I’m insulted that they try to beat the religion of peace into the consciousness of the world. I don’t understand why they think an all-powerful God is too lazy to deal with those he wishes to punish and would pimp 72 virgins to those who kill on his behalf. The constant acts of violence around the world are the real insult to the religion of Islam.
Not to turn this into a debate about theology, but I’m pretty sure that you will find enough verses in the New testament that support the use of violence as a tool to spread christianity
You just did. Cite?
Put up or shut up.
And what’s your evidence that Benedict is an enemy of Hugo Chavez? What leads you to believe that Benedict is trying to sabotage him? Benedict isn’t an agent of George Bush, you know. Or maybe you don’t. See, the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, not an agent of American hegemony. Would you like some Wikipedia links to learn more about the Catholic church? They might even have some in Svenska if that would be easier for you.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ratzinger’s take on any given subject (though “y’know, violence to further religion is not really such a hot idea, we gave it up a couple of centuries ago, you should think about quitting it too” is pretty sensible), it has long been rather clear that where he’s coming from is that he’d rather be “right” than liked. This will of course result in that any given pronouncement will tick off millions, and he has been doing that with gusto since he was at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Now, you don’t get to be head of the CDF and then Pope w/o a sense of politics so I most certainly don’t buy the “oh, he’s getting used to having to watch what he says now that he’s Pope” story. He knows… but that’s where the whole “ivory tower academician” persona, which apparently is part of his real character becomes ALSO a convenient façade to allow people to think *“hmm… maybe that’s just just the old German University Professor in him, he’s just clumsy at the whole ‘feelings and sensibilities’ thing, the old feller”. *
If I wanted to assign a “gaming” perverse motivation, I could pose that the “play” here is to throw out such a quote precisely in the context of arcane, professorial, academic discourse, and watch the reaction – can we even bring up something up in this arid a discussion environment without a hysterical knee-jerk reaction? Are people willing to accept your explanation? Are they even willing to hear *any * explanation? Will any moderates stand up and say, “wait, I did not like how that sounded, let’s exchange reasoned arguments and see if we can understand each other” ? Or are we limited to contrived meetings where we sit together and talk about how much we love one another, all the while each of us thinks he is the one doing all the backing down?
And if there is a hysterical knee-jerk reaction, well, that can still be spun in your favor, because while you come across as a bit of a pointy-head intellectual who’s not in touch with “sensitivites”, your antagonists look… well… like a raving hysterical mob.
Tell you the truth, this argument is tired.
Yeppers, it’s true. There they are, those verses, and lo, they were used at various times.
Old Testament verses have also been used at various times to support various nefarious things.
As was pointed out in this speech, support of this notion has been far from universal. Nevertheless, it certainly has occurred.
This does not mean that in this time at this place we are forever bound to either support or allow the continued use of violence as a tool to spread religious belief of any stripe. Does it? I mean, are you seriously proposing that everybody say “Oh, well, it’s their turn again on that convert or the sword thing, we’ll just get out of the way?”
I know him! Well not personally of course. I don’t know any emperors personally. Besides he’s dead.
…umm what an intriguing little theory. I think it needs a bit about the CIA and some Jews to be creditable, perhaps you can work in the oil and Haliburton angle somewhere. So do you have any evidence at all, that this is simply more than something you just made up? Or is this more of a my-post-is-my-cite kinda theory.
What logical point are you trying to make?
This is a list that could go on all night and it would have nothing to do with theology or Christianity. It has everything to do with reality.
But since this is about the Pope I’ll just point out that his sermons are about peace. The acts above speak for themselves.
Agreed. I don’t have much in common with the Pope but I think this business about Hitler Youth should be forgotten about. I am convinced that had most of us been in Germany as 17 year (or so) old’s in the 1930’s we would also have been Hitler Youths. Probably even enthusiastic ones. After all, the girls were being taught that their highest duty was to have babies with us.
A good friend of mine was a Hitler Youth and near the end of the war was pressed into service as an anti aircraft gunner.
[ hijack ]
Ever figure out whether he ever shot at you?
[ /hijack ]
Chances are against it. In any case, he said, “Well, I missed, didnt I.” Actually, he was one of the flunkies who passed ammunition to the actual gun crew.
He was around Munich and although we probably missed what we were aiming at, we sure didn’t miss Munich.
Clinics have been bombed and doctors have been killed, and ISTR a ‘hit list’ against doctors that was put out by radical Christians.