Did Benedict blow it?
Wednesday September 20, 2006
Benedict had even more clarifications of his Islam statement today. He really needs to stop doing this. He's said what he's said, and at this point, it's not going to help, only make him look weak. The Muslims who haven't...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
This week Albert Mohler's blog presented lengthy excerpts from two Vatican documents, Rod, that Mohler (a Baptist) believes amount to acceptance of Muslims as within the economy of salvation despite Islam's rejection of the Trinity and of the divine nature of Christ. You can check over there and see if you think that (1) these documents are authoritative for Catholic theology and (2) they amount to what Mohler thinks they do. To me both (1) and (2) do seem true. If so, then it would seem that the Catholic Church can condemn illicit Islamic violence, but would be pretty limited in the capacity to criticize its doctrines. What do you think?>
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207bt.asp
Is this a helpful explanation?>
Rod,
I would argue that Islam is very concerned about social justice. One of the Five Pillars is the zakat, or alms tax, which requires 2 1/2% of one's wealth(not income!) given to charity. And by charity this means it has to go directly to the poor. It can't go to the upkeep of a mosque.
As far as justice for women, Islam gave women the right to vote, the right to a say in marriage and divorce, and also the right of inheritance over a thousand years before women had these kind of rights in the West. The current situation is another matter depending on the culture.
A great article I recommend was in the September 2001 issue of America Magazine. It was written by Avery Dulles(surely no liberal!). It is called "Christ amoung the Religions." He talks about different positions like coercion, pluralism, etc., but then goes on to discuss some meaningful ways that people or different faiths can work together. I use it with my students and I think it's worth a read. If you do end up reading it, let me know what you think.
PatPlato>
I probably know less about Vatican II than you do, but it seems like the Council was trying to affirm the things that are true in the various non-Catholic religions: Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, etc.
I don't see where that would preclude criticizing the things that are not true, even to the point of wondering whether there is a fatal flaw in a particular religion.>
James Kurth has an interesting essay as the cover story of the American Conservative out now, in which he mentions that Islam is concerned with social justice, though what they mean by social justice and what we mean are two very different things. Still, equality and justice means something to Islam, which is one reason the poor adhere so strictly to it. I'll post it tomorrow.>
I think Auster's comments are just a notch or two shy of completely preposterous. Doesn't even seem worth the trouble of trying to refute him. Benedict will "never face the truth"?!?! Sorry, that's ridiculous, and not even worth arguing with. Better to spend time reading Nostra Aetate, or maybe then-Ratzinger's Truth & Tolerance, which I have not read but which is high on my list.>
Maclin Horton wrote:
"I think Auster's comments are just a notch or two shy of completely preposterous. Doesn't even seem worth the trouble of trying to refute him."
Drop him a line. He frequently posts and responds to criticisms. If you did so, and if he did post your exchange, it would help us to better assess the claim that it's not worth the trouble of trying to refute him.
I for one think Rod and Auster have ample reason for disappointment. It was crucial that Benedict didn't say too little or too much in this situation. Alas.>
I'm no expert on Vatican II, but neither are the experts, who tend to be a bit fancy-free in their interpretation.
However, there is at least something in the notion that our INTERPRETATION of Vatican II documents leaves us open to this sort of ambiguity. This has always been a big debate: the "spirit of Vatican II" verses Vatican II. But Pope Benedict has been known as one who opposed "the regime of novelty" that, in his eyes, was a willful distortion of what Vatican II actually means.
I don't think the Pope "blew it," but this does show the limits of how far the Church is willing to go in its rethinking of our relationship with Islam, from the John Paul II strategy of just reaching out, to the more varied strategy of "constructive dialogue." It also shows the limits of dialogue with Islam, for any who choose to see it.>
"I would argue that Islam is very concerned about social justice."
Hmmm. And just how much of this "social justice" reaches out to the non-Islamic world? In the Catholic Church alone through her hospitals, schools, agencies such as Catholic Relief Services, on the diocesan and international level charity is extended to all people, Christian or not (and I by no means want to exclude the charitable work done by other Christian bodies).
Further, how come those oil-rich governments don't do more to aid their own people with their tremendous resources? Or is it just more convenient to make them political footballs, like the Palestinians?>
I'm no expert on Vatican II, but neither are the experts, who tend to be a bit fancy-free in their interpretation.
However, there is at least something in the notion that our INTERPRETATION of Vatican II documents leaves us open to this sort of ambiguity. This has always been a big debate: the "spirit of Vatican II" verses Vatican II.
Amen. For example, given the liturgical mess in most parishes these days, you'd never guess that the documents of Vatican II call for the continued use of Latin and Gregorian Chant in the liturgy.>
Caedmon, it wouldn't exactly make sense for me to argue about something I don't think is worth arguing about, would it? I never heard of Mr. Auster before last night when I read Rod's post. He may have very sound views in general. Maybe, like a lot of bloggers (I plead guilty), he's prone to hyperbole. Whatever--he's "ready to throw up" because of conciliatory statements made by a pope who "will never face the truth"? Call it triage maybe, but the attempt to counter wild stuff like that strikes me as a waste of time.>
Everyone should keep one thing in mind: In August 2005, Benedict direcly confronted German Muslim leaders on the subject of terrorism. According to two sources, the London Observer and Sandro Magister of Italy's L'Espresso, no pope (not even JPII) had ever addressed the issue as directly and bluntly as Benedict did.
If Benedict were JPII, I'd share Auster's pessimism: JPII was to Islam what Neville Chamberlain was to Nazism. But Benedict is a far more subtle man than anybody realizes, including his supporters. If Benedict is making a retreat, it is for tactical, not strategic reasons (unlike his predecesor).
And, yes, the Vatican as a whole still has trouble coming to grips with Islamic terror.>
"If Benedict were JPII, I'd share Auster's pessimism: JPII was to Islam what Neville Chamberlain was to Nazism. But Benedict is a far more subtle man than anybody realizes, including his supporters. If Benedict is making a retreat, it is for tactical, not strategic reasons (unlike his predecesor)."
I hope you're right.>
Auster's an idiot. I'm with Maclin. why dignify such nonsense with a response?>
Rod:
Benedict only blew it if you think a) Islam is a monolith, b) the Pope's job is to be a sort of quasi-Caesar articulating the theological justification for a new Crusade to be implemented by our Glorious Western powers.
If, however, he is a shepherd who is responsible for the flock under the heel of Islamic power, as well as a Pontifex (bridge-builder) who is acutely aware of the fact that the best hope for dealing with Radical Islam is to help non-Radical Islam organize to quell the nuts in their midst, then the apology (such as it was) was probably a good investment.>
I don't know what the Pope is thinking, but I would imagine things would be different if he would declare a plenary indulgence for anyone who kills a Mullah.
They just don't make Popes like they used to!>
No, they don't, alas. Where are Innocent III and Gregory VII when we need them?
But Mark is probably right; the fuzzy apology was probably the right thing to smooth things over for now. And he still got the benefit of having the radical Muslims once again expose themselves for who and what they really are. So what he said at Regensburg was probably a good investment, too.>
A further response to Mr. Horton:
"Caedmon, it wouldn't exactly make sense for me to argue about something I don't think is worth arguing about, would it?"
True enough. But then again, that was just a little rhetorical device I employed in order to suggest that your response to Auster was just a wee bit facile. You might want to look in again at the "idiot" Auster's blog today if you already haven't, as he's devoting a lot of space to this matter. I think you may find this entry about George Weigel's faux pas interesting, especially Paul Cella's response therein: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006456.html
"I never heard of Mr. Auster before last night when I read Rod's post. He may have very sound views in general."
I believe he does. Though not a Catholic himself, he seems to be popular with certain traditionalist Catholic bloggers, such as Cella and Jim Kalb.
"Maybe, like a lot of bloggers (I plead guilty), he's prone to hyperbole."
He is, as indeed we all are. However, that doesn't necessarily render his arguments, however momentarily hyperbolic they might be, "not worth arguing about."
"Whatever--he's 'ready to throw up' because of conciliatory statements made by a pope who 'will never face the truth'? Call it triage maybe, but the attempt to counter wild stuff like that strikes me as a waste of time."
You have to understand that in the immediate wake of Benedict's comments, Auster, like so many of us, were intensely hoping that he would bravely resist the pressure to apologize, only to have his hopes dashed. That likely accounts for much if not all of the hyperbole. And now with Benedict's several retractions, qualifications, etc., assisted by such off-the-mark analysis exhibited by commentators such the otherwise laudable Weigel, I think it's now safe to say that the Jihad has been handed an enormous victory. That to me is the real "idiocy.">
And there were reasons for additional clarifications, since the English translations were sub-par from the beginning, to the point that Slate thought the Vatican was modifying the text after the fact for damage control. And they (Slate) appear to be dead wrong. See:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/09/stop_the_lie_be.html
The Vatican needs to get a new German to English translator.>
Sorry for that terrible first sentence of the last paragraph. I think you mean what I knows.>
Rod: Auster's wrong. The proper way to interpret VII's documents are in concert with previous and subsequent Church documents. The proper trajectory in this case should be VI-VII-Dominus Iesus.
Also, Nostra Aetate says Muslims "adore" the One God. It doesn't say they love God. That's a pretty crucial difference. One wonders what prominent Muslims would think of BXVI's Deus Caritas Est?>
"Auster's wrong. The proper way to interpret VII's documents are in concert with previous and subsequent Church documents. The proper trajectory in this case should be VI-VII-Dominus Iesus.
Also, Nostra Aetate says Muslims "adore" the One God. It doesn't say they love God. That's a pretty crucial difference. One wonders what prominent Muslims would think of BXVI's Deus Caritas Est?"
Ho-hum. Well, I don't think Auster's wrong:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_pope
I'm beginning to wonder if the cause of what's left of Christian culture wouldn't have been better served if he had merely said, "Eat s#&t and die." That might just have rallied the kind of force necessary to win the day. As it stands now, we're still sitting around trembling and sucking our thumbs.>
"He" being Benedict, not Auster.>
Benedict only blew it if you think ai) Islam is a monolith, b) the Pope's job is to be a sort of quasi-Caesar articulating the theological justification for a new Crusade to be implemented by our Glorious Western powers.
If, however, he is a shepherd who is responsible for the flock under the heel of Islamic power, as well as a Pontifex (bridge-builder) who is acutely aware of the fact that the best hope for dealing with Radical Islam is to help non-Radical Islam organize to quell the nuts in their midst, then the apology (such as it was) was probably a good investment.
There are several things wrong with this analysis:
1. The behavior of the vast majority of responsible Muslim leaders, let alone Muslim faithful, demonstrates that Islam effectively is an ideological monolith, regardless of its organizational structure.
2. The fact that Islam has some non-psychotic elements in it doesn't necessarily mean that those elements have the confidence or the power to speak up and be taken seriously by their brethern. After all, the Nazis never won a working majority of seats in the Reichstag until Hitler became chancellor. IOW, most Germans weren't Nazis. That didn't stop the Nazis, however, from brutalizing their opponents once they held and consolidated power.
3. The author of the italicized comments believes that the pope should be a "quasi-Caesar" articulating the theological justification for indulging the barbaric elements of a religion in return for rather dubious (if not non-existant) benefits. That statement accurately describes Benedict's predecesor.
4. The fact that a pope is a "bridge builder" doesn't negate the fact that popes have spoken boldly and forthrightly in the face of persecution. See Pius XI's "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Anxiety"), issued in 1937 and addressing the Nazi government's oppression. The language would make today's politically correct blanche.>
I haven't heard an "apology" from the Pope. What he said was: a careful reading of his speech would reveal his true intent. And as far as Vatican II is concerned, Pope Benedict made his thoughts clear in December 2005 when he spoke of the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" to describe those who have willfully misinterpreted Vatican II. Nostra aetate is very naive in its presentation of the interreligious dialogue, but it was written in the 60s before some of these proablems surfaced. Benedict XVI has shown he intends to go beyond the "feel good" approach of this document (and Gaudium et spes, for that matter) and approach issues like interreligious dialogue with clarity as to the differences among the religions, not simply a desire for sterile "dialogue.">
I have to disagree about Nostra Aetate's alleged naivete, Janice. (I agree with the rest of your comment, however.)
I believe N.A. was badly needed and that it has seved a very valuable purpose. I used to stay in touch with Remnant of Israel, a rock-solid orthodox group of Hebrew Catholics. I'm not sure these fine Jewish Catholics--and countless others like them--would feel quite so comfortable in the Catholic Church were it not for Section IV of Nostra Aetate.
Jewish Catholics, at least, see this document's continuing value and importance.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.