Brad Hirschfield: January 2009 Archives

While applauding his efforts both at the inauguration and in his Al Arabiyah interview, President Obama's words often missed the mark. With the best of intentions and in pursuit of an important goal, I think that he was too hard on many and too soft on some in the Muslim world.

Is there really a clash of civilizations, as President Obama's words indicate? If there is not, then there would be no need to reach out to the entire Muslim world as he did in his inaugural address. If there is no civilizational clash, then he should have addressed no specific religious group, but those people who either support, or are opposed to, America and the values which animate our nation.

And if there is a genuine clash between two civilizations, what is the source of the clash? Is it intrinsic to Islam? And if it is not, and it is not, then why approach it that way? Could it be that the president was playing to those who see America's policies as a war against Muslims? And if he was, is that approach likely to bear fruit? I think not.

Our bodies and our souls are deeply connected. The physical/spiritual divide is really a theological position made up by folks who thought that our bodies were bad or sinful, but that we had a better part, called soul, buried within us. But ask anyone about the spiritual challenges of enduring great pain, or about the physical warmth that is often experienced in moments of deep spiritual connection, and you will see that we are not so divided.

In fact, sports and spirituality are more connected than we often appreciate. And the Super Bowl is a great example.

Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated four previously excommunicated bishops, all of whom are members of a far-right group that rejects Vatican Two and one of whom is a raging conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier. Is he pandering to those on the theological far-right of the Church, and if so, why? Or could he be moving to create a genuinely more inclusive church, one which actually makes room for those whose views are loathsome to most church members? Perhaps it's a bit of both.

If that is case, this Pope continues his tradition of making theological/communal moves which are so nuanced, that they end up being misunderstood by most and may actually hurt many, even if that is not his intention. Think his speech about Islam, his reinstating the Good Friday prayer which calls for the conversion of Jews, etc.

Whatever is going on here, the focus should not be on the fact that one of those reinstated, Richard Williamson, is a Holocaust denier and how painful that is to Jews.

My earlier post about Pope Benedict XVI's reinstatement of four excommunicated bishops was for informational purposes and in no way endorses either the tone or content of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin's analyses. While I appreciate Riskin's pain and frustration brought about by the Pope's endorsement of Richard Williamson, an avowed Holocaust denier and rather loony conspiracy theorist, I found his approach to the entire situation arrogant, self-serving and insensitive.

Is the Pope right? Is the Pope wrong? Could he be both? My comments to follow...

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 25, 2009

Upon learning of Pope Benedict XVI's lifting the excommunication of Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin said "the Pope has muddied the waters of truth and compromised his own religion, specifically the Gospel of John 8:32, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Bishop Williamson has mentioned on national television that there were no gas chambers and the highest estimates of Jews killed during the Holocaust were up to 300,000.

The Chief Rabbi of Efrat and recent founder of the first orthodox Jewish center to religiously dialogue with Christians (Ohr Torah Stone: Center for Jewish Christian Understanding & Cooperation -- CJCUC) added that "this was more than a near fatal blow to the advancement of Jewish-Catholic relations; it's staining the essence of sacrament within the church."