Deconstructing Pope Benedict XVI

Second Version Of  'Study For The Red Pope 1962' by Francis Bacon 1971

 

Previously on ATB:

"Now Pope Benedict XVI has let it be known that he does not believe Islam can reform. This we learn from the transcript of a radio interview with [Hugh Hewitt and] one of Pope Benedict's students and friends, Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, posted on the Asia Times Online forum by a sharp-eyed reader. For the Pope to refute the fundamental premise of US policy is news of inestimable strategic importance, yet a Google News scan reveals that not a single media outlet has taken notice of what Fessio told his interviewer Hugh Hewitt last week. No matter: still and small as Pope Benedict's voice might be, it carries further than earthquake and whirlwind.

Father Fessio described a private seminar on the subject of Islam last year at Castel Gandolfo, the Papal summer residence:

The main presentation by this Father [Christian] Troll was very interesting. He based it on a Pakistani Muslim scholar [named] Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years, and Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran, like cutting off your hand if you're a thief, or being able to have four wives, or whatever, and takes the principles behind those specific pieces of legislation for the 7th century of Arabia, and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society [in] which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures [emphasis added]. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.

Hugh Hewitt then asked Father Fessio, "And so the Pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Qur'an is?" Fessio replied, "Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Qur'an as it's understood by Muslims.""

We now discover via Hugh Hewitt, the letter written by Father Joseph Fessio to the Washington Times, which more or less serves as a partial retraction of the previous statement he made on Hugh's show, which for obvious reasons caused a huge amount of controversy in some circles. In others, like this blog, it was a welcome sign of recognition and a surprising admission of the true feelings of Pope Benedict on the hot button subject of Islam being "incapable of reformation".

The all too obvious and disappointing appeasement - partial retraction:

Dear Editor,

I think it is important for me to give context to and clarify the remarks I made recently in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, reported in Diana West's column in The Washington Times ("Silence that speaks volumes," Op-Ed, Friday).

The most important clarification is that the Holy Father did not say, nor did I, that "Islam is incapable of reform."

What I did say — and it contains an unfortunate ambiguity — is that "in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through His creatures."

Note first that it was the Koran that was referred to, not Islam. The comparison was between the Christian Bible and the Koran, not between Christianity and Islam. I said, paraphrasing the Holy Father, that "there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted to new situations." Then I maladroitly alluded to this comparison, referring to "that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community."

I made a serious error in precision when I said that the Koran "cannot be adapted or applied" and that there is "no possibility of adapting or interpreting it." This is certainly not what the Holy Father said. Of course the Koran can be and has been interpreted and applied. I was making a (too) crude summary of the distinction that the Holy Father did make between the inner dynamism of the Koran as a divine text delivered as such to Mohammed, and that of the Bible, which is both the Word of God and the words of men inspired by God, within a community that contains divinely appointed authorized interpreters (the bishops in communion with the pope).

The meeting was an informal one of the Holy Father and his former students. The presentation and the discussion were in German, and the Holy Father was not speaking from a prepared text. My German is passable but not entirely reliable. My later remarks in a live radio interview were extemporaneous. I think I paraphrased the Holy Father with general accuracy, but it was an indiscretion for me to mention what he said at all, and my impromptu paraphrase in another language should not be used for a careful exegesis of the mind of the Holy Father.

    The Rev. Joseph Fessio
    Provost, Ave Maria University
    Editor, Ignatius Press
    Naples, Fla.

"Strange as it may seem, the Pope must have to whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Qur'an prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief of his reported (and now on his behalf partially retracted) comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform.

The first is that Pope Benedict's comments regarding the nature of Muslim revelation are deliberate and informed, for his primary focus as a theologian has been the subject of revelation. In his 1953 doctoral thesis, biographer George Weigel reports, Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope:

... following Bonaventure, argued that revelation is "an act in which God shows himself"; revelation cannot be reduced to the propositions that result from God's self-disclosure, as certain forms of neo-scholasticism tended to do. Revelation, in other words, has a subjective or personal dimension, in that there is no "revelation" without someone to receive it. As Ratzinger would later put it, "where there is no one to perceive 'revelation', no re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed".

The Judeo-Christian view of revelation, as summarized above by Father Fessio, expresses the mutual love between Revealer and recipient of revelation, a concept alien to Islam.

A second element of context is Benedict's admiration for the US separation of church and state. In an essay published in this month's issue of First Things, Benedict makes the remarkable (for a Pope) statement that the US model is what the early church really had in mind. He proceeds from the famous argument of Pope Gelasius I (492-496) that "because of human weakness (pride!), they have separated the two offices" of King and priest. Neither the state church model of Northern Europe nor the secular model of France, Italy and Spain has sufficed, Benedict observes. But he continues:

Situated between the two [failed] models is the model of the United States of America. Formed on the basis of free churches, it adopts a separation between church and state. Above and beyond the single denominations, it is characterized by a Protestant Christian consensus that is not defined in denominational terms but rather in association with its sense of a special religious mission toward the rest of the world. The religious sphere thus acquires a significant weight in public affairs and emerges as a pre-political and supra-political force with the potential to have a decisive impact on political life."

From my darling friend the Anchoress:

Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, which we talked about last week, is called Deus Caritas Est - God is Love - and it is released today.

She also points us to Gerald who provides an interesting introduction to the above.

Comments

[Kenny Pierce]

Papa Ray,

Islam as it is actually lived out in individuals' lives, is rather more complex than you would imagine. I spend a lot of time in Kazakhstan, where the Muslims are generally speaking adamant in their nominal devotion to Islam, but where most of them have well-stocked liquor cabinets and where a perfectly respectable Muslim boy who considers himself devout can be in his mid-twenties without having entered a mosque more than two or three times -- and with no particular plans to ever get around reading the Koran. "Islam" to him has to do with decency and tradition and family loyalty and being a generally good guy, and Kazakh Muslims in general detest Arab fundamentalism pretty much the way liberal American Christians in general would detest Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart if Robertson and Swaggart were actively murdering as many children of Democrats as they could manage to get shrapnel into, in the name of "Christianity."

If you want to argue that the Koran is an evil book and that Islam that isn't into jihad and sharia is fake Islam...well, theoretically, I suppose you can argue that. Despite having read the Koran, and despite being significantly uncomfortable with much of the surface meaning, still I wouldn't consider myself to know the book well enough to speak at all sensibly about it's "true" meaning. In practice, I know that a great many people who think of themselves as Muslims live out an "Islam" -- theoretically pure or not -- that resembles wild-eyed murderous Arab fanatacism about as much as the ladies down at your local Presbyterian chuch resemble the KKK.

Even if you want to say that "true" Islam is evil and "true" Christianity is good, still, wouldn't you agree that a great many people who call themselves "Christians" are living something that doesn't look much like good New Testament Christianity? In the same way, even granting your premise, still a great many people who call themselves "Muslims" are living something that doesn't look much like evil Wahabbite Islam.

However, if you wish to say that (a) a grossly disproportionate share of the murderous civil strife in the world involves Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, and that (b) the balance within the Muslim world has in the last century shifted dramatically away from moderation and honor and toward evil and hatred -- well, I'd hate to have to argue against you.

[Stefan]

Well Mr. Ray,
It is possible that there is no hope for Muslim society as long as it remains Muslim and as a Christian I think mass conversion would be just super but I am not holding my breath. I still hold on to the hope that there will be some middle road between a radical Islamic Empire dominating large swaths of Europe and Asia and all out warfare between the West and the Muslim world. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently pessimistic or perhaps I am simply being foolish but there is something, being a Christian, that never seems to let me just close the door on mankind Jew or Gentile, Christian or Muslim,...redemption is always possible and Providence works in mysterious ways. Just when the sky is the darkest, when our resolve is at its breaking point, and the battle seems all but lost the tide may turn in ways we cannot yet guess. Until then we must steel ourselves and walk relentlessly onward into the wind.

[Papa Ray]

Great writing and comments too.

Except I have something to say about this:

"What would Islam look like in a world where Muslims are free to pursue their own dreams and taste the success of their own labor?"

Granted I never even finished high school and know nothing about Islam except what I have learned in a desperate self imposed crash course over the last 4 years or so.

But, in order for that wish? above to come true, the Muslims will have to just convert to another religion or not believe in any god at all.

Islam is a cult of dispair, anger, conquest and deception. It is the most evil cult ever placed upon this world.

It will allow nothing more than what the Qur'an says and what the various haddith demand. Shari'a, (Islamic law, also known as the Law of Allah.) leaves some room for discussion between the various sects which do not agree on the application of same. But still the best application is still somewhere back in the centurys that end with "th".

Islam has created a culture of failure, of dispair and a people that blame anyone and everyone else for their failures and for their troubles. A people that are directed by their holy book to conquer, recieve homage and taxes from those slaves or non-believers, that do not resist, or to kill those that do resist.

It needs much more than revising, it needs to be destroyed. That is last way that Muslims will be freed.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

[Mike]

For your blog readers from Milwaukee, WI:
Sorry, a shameless plug...

To gain some more information about Pope Benedict XVI, and support one of the few worthy efforts of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, plan on attending a lecture hosted by Archbishop Timothy Dolan and given by His Eminence, Francis Cardinal George. The Cardinal will speak about the new Holy Father and, I am sure, the new encyclical.

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006
Archbishop Cousins Catholic Center
3501 S. Lake Drive
St. Francis, WI 53235

Vespers at 6:30pm
Greeting by Archbishop Dolan at 7:00pm
followed by lecture, Q & A, and a reception.

It looks to be fascinating. For more info see: http://www.archmil.org/news/ShowNews.asp?ID=2448

Thanks.
Check out my blog:
http://movingcatholic.blogspot.com/

Mike

[Dumb Ox]

Alexandra,

This is one of the most important and best posts you have ever made. I'm frankly totally impressed with your grasp of these global things.

Our new Pope is a man of clear convictions. He took the name of Benedict mainly because he has the intention of reaching out and converting Islam.

Yikes.

That is my opinion (lawyer, historian, philosopher me).

Apart from that. I've posted a short comment on his first encyclical. God is Love, and that means something. Those are not just words. Human love, sex, and charity are all united, but they have specific differences. Liberals have lost the ability to make distinctions.

Anyway, love this post. Please drop my blog a note when you put up stuff like this! I want to read and report on your thoughts. Now more than ever.

All the best,
D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com

[Stefan]

Bah!! Read JPII’s writings and there is no “tiptoeing” around the benefits (and pitfalls) of democracy and as to “Vatican Secrecy” that is much ado about nothing. Pope Benedict, I suspect, is not so rash as to state that Islam can never be "interpreted" because he understands that it is effectively re-interpreted on a regular basis by every Mullah in town. There is no “teaching authority” in Islam and therefore you have many, many variations of thought even within sects actually from region to region and town to town. He does correctly state that it is a dicey situation because of the fundamental difference in the perceived nature of the Koran as the direct “Word of God” as opposed to the revelatory nature of the Bible. It is important to remember that the Pope is not to be used as a club for one temporal power or another. The lines of communication must ALWAYS be left open; especially the Pope’s. We were seemingly at the brink of world pulverizing, all-out nuclear war with the Soviets but we always had the “Red Phone”. I know that many folks are whipped up over Iran and our other terrorist enemies (not without good cause) who are steeped in Islamism and that they are seeing the world with an apocalyptic “clash of civilization” mentality but hopelessness can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no reason to assume that the only solution that will resolve the present tension in the world is the annihilation of Iran or some other super-catastrophic event. The world has been in similarly grave situations (arguably much more grave) and we have managed to stumble through. This is not naïveté but it stresses the importance of the call to the West (which echoes the call of Pope BXVI) that it must rediscover its cultural inheritance and remember “where it came from” and what it stands for. We must stand firm and always interact with the world in a manner that shows our strength, our resolve, and our justice. If we truly do stand on the side whose ideas are more “in tune” with the reality of mankind then they have a force of their own and we must live them truly ourselves in order for us to be an example to the world and we must have faith. There are things that may occur in the Middle East that we cannot foresee. Where is the Iranian population in all this brinkmanship? They may have something to say before the end. Will Arab countries, most of whom are not wild about a nuclear armed, aggressive Iran, really do much but publicly “huff-and-puff” if Iran’s nuclear capacity is taken out by unified (relatively) world consensus? If Iran’s regime collapses under this pressure what will happen? Could Iran be “taken back” by its population in this event? What would the Middle East look like then? Can the ideology of Islamic terror continue to sustain itself? Will it burn itself out or just fall out of favor? Will we kill so many terrorist leaders that the networks weaken and begin to atrophy? Will the populations of the Middle East finally get so tired of the senselessness of terror that they begin to “stand as one defiant”? What effect will the nascent democratic endeavors have on Muslim thought and on the real lives of Muslims? Not next week but in 10 or 20 years? Remember, it is not the poor who cause the unrest (they are often the foot soldiers) but it is always the educated “middle-management” (so-to-speak) that foments political/religious upheaval and violence. If they get busy doing well for themselves and their families they may lose interest in fantasies of “world domination” and the disaffected will have a new entrepreneurial model to follow. What would Islam look like in a world where Muslims are free to pursue their own dreams and taste the success of their own labor? Will Europe rediscover itself and, in turn, change the dynamics in the world? Could Eastern Europe become a leader in this regard? Will the US finally fully embrace the new democracies of Eastern Europe and see them as valuable partners as we have historically seen France, England, and Germany? Would this strengthen Europe? Will the Christianization of Africa begin to change its overall complexion thereby affecting the Middle East and Europe? Will Islam find within itself a capacity for some level of pluralism? Will Roger Waters ever do another album with Pink Floyd? Who knows? There are a lot of things that can happen and the Pope and all others who care deeply about mankind should never “write off” an entire region of the world as “hopelessly lost”. Anyways, don’t expect that the Pope will start sounding like Sean Hannity or anything ‘cause it ain’t gonna happen….not his style. Be sure to read his first Encyclical (which Alexandria linked) because it is quite good.

[Joseph Marshall]

For the Pope to refute the fundamental premise of US policy is news of inestimable strategic importance...

Not really. After all, how much consulting did the White House do with his predecessor while framing the policy?

Strange as it may seem, the Pope must have to whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Qur'an prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself.

Also not very strange. Any more than any other responsible head of state would have to keep his private views quiet in the interest of effective diplomacy. He is no longer Cardinal Ratzinger, whose views could pass unnoticed by the press and the world.

The only really strange thing is Father Fessio even discussing in a public forum a "private seminar on Islam" with the Pope. I don't think anyone would have dared to do so under John Paul. Since his elevation, the new Pope seems to have a little trouble getting his sea legs about proactively enforcing the kind of disciplined secrecy that must surround him as Pope, whatever the political issue.

Further, a closer reading of some of Cardinal Ratzinger's more recent [1996] theological opinions [which I have done] shows him rather evasive on the subject of democratic government [he calls it, at best, "considerably right"].

There is good reason for this. It is the papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, "On the Origin of Civil Power", which is explicitly and profoundly anti-democratic. Post World War II Catholic thinkers have generally had to tiptoe very quietly around this quite well-reasoned work of Leo XIII.

I once read a remark somewhere that "Orthodoxy is reticience." I think, in a world such as ours, this is more profoundly true than it has ever been.