| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| What the Pope was really saying |
| 2006-09-16 |
| These are the last four paragraphs of the Pope's speech at Regensburg. They are well worth reading as is the entire speech at the link. What is ironic is that his comments are much more of an attack on the secular West than on Islam. His quotation is from a civil dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim. It is hard to see such a dialogue taking place between either and a secularist. Coupled with the comment I posted yesterday regarding the historic context of Manuel II's comments, they reveal a Pope who sees himself located in a westward drifting position between a rock and a dessicating hard place with little affection for either. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”. The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer 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. “Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #13 "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. “Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”," This is a complex statement. It implies that western science and reason are fully healthy in God's sight . And encourtages one to observe the "grandeur" of the natural universe and marvel at god's fingerprints in the beauty of it all. It also makes a stand for rationality ( or what we consider reason) being opposed by the irrationality and retrovision of Islam. These statements are a philosophy. And a challenge. |
| Posted by: J.D. Lux 2006-09-16 20:16 |
| #12 Last Tuesday, he uses a quote which decries Islam's use of violence and, 5 days later, the Muzzies respond with violent protests. Not only is this clearly another manufactured bit of outrage theater, it's also just no fun when your opponent is too stupid to understand when they've been nailed. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-09-16 19:18 |
| #11 As a Catholic, I ain't feeling my usual guilt on this and neither is the Pope LOL |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-16 17:42 |
| #10 The media are the ones spinning this up as some sort of an apology. Benedict regrets that the Muslims have found cause to take offense but nowhere retracts or mentions that he's sorry for what he has said. Basically, he has made a polite but sidelong reference to how easily offended Muslim sensitivies are. I can only hope that the Pope does not alter his stance one bit. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-16 17:41 |
| #9 The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur My comments have more to do with how the Pope said things rather than what exactly he said. But what he said seems to come into play, too! Whew! That's a difficult read! But I picked this out as central, or close enough to it. Yes, the West seems to be stuck on logical thinking and doesn't consider the |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-09-16 17:11 |
| #8 At first gloss I will certainly say that the above reveals a man who cannot possibly be accused of blind faith. How refreshing. As far as I can tell, that's quite common among popes, excepting the ones who were purely political appointees. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-09-16 17:08 |
| #7 At first gloss I will certainly say that the above reveals a man who cannot possibly be accused of blind faith. How refreshing. I'll need to read his entire reply before diving in about any "apology" on his part. Be sure that I do hope he has not made one. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-16 14:11 |
| #6 Not in quite the same way, I think. The previous pope was indeed a charismatic thinker and quite bright. Benedict is an intellectual with a reputation for highly rigorous reasoning. He ran a salon for many years in which he probed and challenged the thinking of many people. For better or worse, I see the same mode happening here. "Islam means peace." is the claim. He probes: "conversion by sword is a horrid evil". Seething, violence or angry silence -- his point is made clearly. And since "Islam is peace" he is ""genuinely upset"" at the angry response. I don't think that's a falsehood, by the way. I think he really IS upset by it, for the response makes clear the coming clash. I'm not so sure he was surprised by it, though. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-16 13:02 |
| #5 The previous Pope was also a philosopher and great thinker. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-09-16 12:55 |
| #4 He's nWake me when he gets to the part about new Crusade. Change your tag to Rip Van Winkle. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-16 11:19 |
| #3 Wake me when he gets to the part about new Crusade. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-09-16 11:17 |
| #2 Indeed -- and one who is deeply and well trained in theological reasoning. Benedict was a formidable choice for the papacy. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-16 10:55 |
| #1 Jeebus, a Philosopher Pope. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-09-16 10:20 |