I agree with you about the state of affairs between Muslims and Christians, and lament the "thinly disguised totalitarianism" that relativism has become in Europe.
But SD, you did not address the Church's social doctrine. Is what you're saying Pope Benedict did consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Please excuse the length of this response, but precisely because I want the Church to speak for herself in these matters, I am devoting a large portion of this blog to a text from Vatican II.
The union of the human family is greatly fortified and fulfilled by the unity,
founded on Christ,(10) of the family of God's sons.
Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one.(11) But out of this religious mission itself come a function, a light and an energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community according to the divine law. As a matter of fact, when circumstances of time and place produce the need, she can and indeed should initiate activities on behalf of all men, especially those designed for the needy, such as the works of mercy and similar undertakings.
The Church recognizes that worthy elements are found in today's social movements, especially an evolution toward unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms. The promotion of unity belongs to the innermost nature of the Church, for she is, "thanks to her relationship with Christ, a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God, and of the unity of the whole human race."(12) Thus she shows the world that an authentic union, social and external, results from a union of minds and hearts, namely from that faith and charity by which her own unity is unbreakably rooted in the Holy Spirit. For the force which the Church can inject into the modern society of man consists in that faith and charity put into vital practice, not in any external dominion exercised by merely human means.
Moreover, since in virtue of her mission and nature she is bound to no particular form of human culture, nor to any political, economic or social system, the Church by her very universality can be a very close bond between diverse human communities and nations, provided these trust her and truly acknowledge her right to true freedom in fulfilling her mission. For this reason, the Church admonishes her own sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strife between nations and race in this family spirit of God's children, an in the same way, to give internal strength to human associations which are just (Gaudium et Spes, par. 42, emphasis mine).
The Pope and therefore the Church are pro-humanity and pro-dignity of the human person before being pro-Europe, even if the European culture is predominantly Christian.
Because this blog is already very long, I will address one last issue where you say, "Islam may have a few truths, and insofar as they live in accordance to that truth, Islam has dignity, but even that is a double-edged sword. The truths they do have only make their untruths all the more potent." The Church is the champion of the dignity human person. We have to presume upon that dignity ALWAYS even when the person exhibits violence and irrationality.
Explain to me how what you propose the Pope is doing is consistent along these lines, especially when you yourself describe the situation as the Muslims "falling for it." The Pope did not only say, "I'm sorry you were hurt"; he also said, "In no way did I wish to make my own the words of the Medieval emperor...I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason go together."
For me, Pope Benedict exhibits humility and strength. On this point SD, I second your "bravo."
3 comments:
You suggest Pope Benedict violated the Church’s social doctrine, but I just don’t see where false religion or the promulgation of dangerous lies is protected in the Church’s social teaching. I cannot see how to interpret the documents you quoted as a reason to accept all religions or stand idly by while Islam consumes our Christian lands, raising no finger in protest. Or as some indicator that our spiritual Father cannot make a statement against untruths in this world, even though they might hurt people’s feelings. I think a more appropriate use of the documents would be to see Christianity as not being pro one culture versus another, but Christianity is always pro truth and against lies and heresies and religions that seek to destroy the gospel. No where in Gaudium et Spes is the command never to warn people, or make evident the dangers of Islam. I don’t see how the parts you quoted pertain the debate at hand.
Do you think Islam should be allowed to succeed and we should just accept it in the name of peace and unity? No. Our good Lord rejected lies in all forms and St. Paul did not spare his invectives against those who opposed the work of the Lord. People are killing others, people are rejecting the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the gospel is being stopped in the wake of every single Muslim victory. But we must win our victory in prayer and reason. We do not need to engage them in war, but we need to sharpen our minds to their dangers. That’s what Benedict was trying to do…and they reacted not with their reason, but with the sword. Could they have tried harder to prove his point?
If Muslims didn’t react the way they did, would people still be in uproar? I hold Muslims to a higher dignity, not a lower one. If someone says something that you don’t like, you still have a responsibility to act like a human being and not an enraged animal. Our society is used to Muslims acting this way, so we blame the people who set them off, instead of the people themselves for their inhuman behavior.
The Pope is not affronting their dignity, in fact, he wasn’t even speaking to them at all. He was bringing to the attention of his colleagues how that Muslim philosophy rejects the dignity of others. He wants those Muslims to see their own dignity and act in accordance with it. It is they, and those who excuse their behavior, who are denying their dignity.
--SD Papist
Ok, so this is my last comment on the whole Islam thing for awhile.
I reprint here what I commented on Christopher J's blog site:
"I think 99-99.5% of the Pope's speech was perfect, but as Pope, he has the responsibility of making sure he is "reasonably" understood. Drawing attention to one point out of sensitivity to a potential misinterpretation is I think the issue.
My mom used to tell my brother and I over and over again growing up, "you can say whatever you want...it just matters when and how you say it."
It's precisely because what the Pope is asking is so important, that we want to make sure the people to whom his speech addresses most--Muslims and people of the West--can actually hear that message. The Church is for everybody, and this must be maintained."
SD, I am completely for the Pope speaking out against that which is untrue, violent, and just plain ol' bad EVEN with the use of forceful language.
What I was commenting on in response to your comment was the potential "scheming" in the Pope's intent and the subterfuge in the Pope's apology. I think that goes against the Church's social doctrine and the role of the Pope.
Granted GS cannot be read in a vacuum, but when read with Dignitatis Humanae, it sheds light on JP II's and I would argue Pope Benedict's approach.
Hooray for Catholic disagreement. I mean, how boring would it be if we agreed all the time? I wouldn't have these blog comments to read or instigating blogs to write.
Pax.
Since I have so much free time on my hands (ahem), I think I might give a rhetorical analysis of this oh so controversial speach. Look for one soon.
Post a Comment