What is he up to?
Posted by Anon at 19:28, 16 Sep 2006The pope must appreciate the irony of his latest blunder. Quoting a 14th century book to paint Muhammad in a bad light (“his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”) backs Benedict into a corner. How easy it will be for his detractors to quote 14th century texts that paint off color pictures of the Inquisition (it’s okay for the Pope to order the killing of 20,000 people since, after all, the pope is infallible according to Dictatus Papae, an 11th century canonical legislation that said “No one may judge the Pope.” Certainly no one would think to judge Pope Alexander VI who fathered at least two children. Or Pope John VIII who ruled for two years, until 855. One day, while in a procession from St. Peter’s to Lateran in Rome, he suddenly stopped and gave birth to a child. John VIII was really a woman. How indeed can Benedict think to cast aspersions?
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Anon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
20 March 2006
8 weeks 6 days
It is too late. What he said is of no consequince to the positon it puts the world into...Now the taint of both religions will defile mankind. Both have been taken over by the worst in man but can only be solved by the best in man. who will step forward...both should together. But who in the islamic world is equal to the Pope? Is there one who has the same esteem who could stand and say we forgive as I know you regret??? Will man end this sillyness and find God once again??? 2012 is coming.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
I don't want to get into ths discussion about religions, and who is or was practicing violence in the name of God, or the gods, or the absence of gods. Just some links to the original lecture, for anyone who is interested.
Here is what Benedikt actually said, according to the official vatican records:
in german,
which I believe is what he actually said.
Then there are the Vatican official translations english
and also in italian.
All of this is of from the official Vatican web site, www.vatican.va, which is a strange concept in itself. But these are the modern times we live in.
4 May 2004
4 years 28 weeks
You make valid points, EF.
Earthling: Thanks for the links. I find it interesting that in his address onthe issue of "faith and reason", the pope found it expedient to use the writings of a 14th century Byzantine emperor as the starting-point for his reflections on the issue. Are there not thousands upon thousands of other works on this same issue he could have referenced without inciting violence?
Although Benedict is a scholar, he is not a good writer. He jumps constantly from one point to another without cohesively tying his thoughts together. In the pope’s recent talk in Germany he cited the Byzantine emperor’s explanation as to why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable – “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul." "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.” The pope does a foot stomper on this by saying “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.” (Notice he says nothing throughout his talk about the Inquisition.)
Then he confounds his very premise (acting in accordance with reason) by asking a question that has no answer, but nevertheless proceeding to answer the question based on his interpretation of historical writings (“As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?). The world as we know it is fast disappearing yet perhaps if one wears blinders they don’t notice and can ask inane questions as if they matter in the big picture (the man must be wearing blinders).
The pope must rationalize that if it’s okay for the Apostle John to modify the Old Testament so that it makes sense, it’s okay for Benedict to do the same. The pope apparently likes the way John modified the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible. Does it seem reasonable that one should be able to modify the words of the bible so they fit better with one’s version of the truth? I know Benedict doesn’t have a lot of options (intuition, metaphysics, quantum physics, etc.) given his religious constraints, but where’s the reasonableness?
To his credit he espouses the need for genuine dialogue of cultures and religions. To his failure – as God’s main representative on earth, he set a poor example by letting pride (isn’t that a deadly sin?) stand in his way of making the kind of apology he knew would placate Muslim anger – apologizing for uttering what he knew could be explosive words. If even one life could have been saved by a more complete apology, should he not have said the extra words? He’s not setting a very good example. It’s more of the old “Do as I say, not as I do” routine we got from our parents. Didn’t make sense then – still doesn’t.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
ok, this post is an opinion relating to this discussion (unlike my last one).
1 - The pope made a speech for a german audience. Perhaps some of it was poorly constructed. I didn't hear it.
2 - Then this speech is incorrectly interpreted by some media.
3 - Then this incorrect interpretation is interpreted as an insult to the prophet Mohammed.
4 - Then a few muslim leaders tell their followers that they should now be angry.
5 - Then a few of these followers get angry, and someone gets killed.
6 - People in the 'west' are reported to be scared by the media who did step 2.
To me it seems there are several problems. Basically one at each step in my list. Two big problems are 4 and 5. 4, because these leaders seem to be waiting for an opportunity to tell their followers that they should be angry, when the followers have not heard anything about what happened. This seems to be institutionalized. Why is that? This is a problem within muslim countries, not imposed by anyone outside.
Number 5 is of course a problem that can show up in many societies, if not all of them.
Perhaps the main problem is in steps 2 and 6.
My personal view is that I can insult the prophet Mohammed any time I want. I don't do it in public, nor in private. But perhaps that view is an insult in itself. Am I now on the list of bad guys?
Does it say anywhere in the Koran that you are not supposed to insult the prophet? I haven't read the whole thing. But it would be surprising that a book authored by one man would say "insulting the author is a deadly sin".
Of course, this last part is probably put to the wrong audience, we don't seem to have many muslim scholars reading this.