"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
-- Manuel II Paleologus, as quoted by Pope Benedict XVI
Posted on 09/16/2006 9:39:14 PM PDT by AFPhys
Father Federico Lombardi, the new director of the Vatican press office, has renewed his argument that Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) did not intend a condemnation of Islam in his speech on September 12 at the University of Regensburg.
When he denounced the use of violence in the cause of religion, Father Lombardi said, the Pope was setting out "an important starting point in the speech, but it is not the aim of the speech."
"It wasn't among the Pope's intentions to make a detailed study of jihad or of Muslim thought on this subject, much less to offend the sensibilities of Muslim believers," the Vatican spokesman told reporters on September 14. On the contrary, he said, Pope Benedict intends "to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward other religions and cultures, and clearly toward Islam."
The central point of the Pope's presentation at the university, Father Lombardi said, was that the tendency to dismiss religious attitudes and arguments is a serious flaw in Western thought today. He cited a key sentence from the Pope's lecture: "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."
The Vatican spokesman sought to direct reporters' attention to the central theme of the Pope's talk-- which, he said, was the need to include theological reflection in academic life. The Pope's speech, Father Lombardi said, was a scholarly argument that "an idea of reason reduced simply to the criteria of natural or positive science cannot respond to the needs of man today."
The Pope, he said, advocated a broader vision of human knowledge, in which "the religious dimension is essential." This broad vision was contrasted against an approach to knowledge limited to "purely mathematical-scientific of experimental criteria."
The speech in Regensburg also show the rich scholarly and cultural background that Pope Benedict possesses, the Jesuit spokesman said. "In about 10 minutes," he observed, "the Pope was able to give us an enormously broad view of cultural history and of the history of theology, bringing it all up to date."
Here is the official vatican transcript of the address:
Faith, Reason and the University
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
I encourage CAREFUL READING OF IT keeping in mind that it has NOTHING to do with Islam, but is rather is encouraging a more open university attitude!
Note it was given at a:
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
_Not_ politicians and reporters. He expected these people to be able to consider the whole of the address in its totality, not to look at one small section divorced from the rest of the address!
Here is how I've distilled this earlier today, as many have seen, quoting the speech profusely. The statement by the official spokesman for the Vatican seems to support me, for the most part:
--->
He was not discussing the use of violence for religious purposes. He was not discussing Islam at all!!! He was discussing: "FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY" ... and stated as part of his conclusion that "...theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences..." and that "... 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." - even Islam should not be excluded!
His final statement was, "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." The "cultures" he was referring to had little or nothing to do with Islam - he was talking about the clash of "empirically verifiable" vs. "theology" cultures, as he earlier had said, "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."
He is being excoriated for using a quote from over 600 years ago "-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.": "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pope made clear he was quoting an ancient conversation. He made clear that this is NOT HIS words, but that of the Byzantine emperor, and that emperor then went on to make a "... decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
The last sentence was the whole point that the Pope was making during his whole presentation: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. It was one of his many starting points for his theological discussion of "Faith, Reason and the University", part of his conclusion being, "...We will succeed in [broadening our concept of reason and its application] only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today..."
The reaction to the very profound things the Pope said illustrates several things. One of them is that the people are completely incapable of understanding the profound, and that Western universities have fallen short in their education responsibilities, including in their education of the NYSlimes' reporters and their readers who can't bring themselves to acknowledge that they don't know everything. Another is this illustration that people should not be given access to specialized knowledge and discussion, whether that be theological, political, or scientific, without thorough and accurate filtering. Yet another, but by no means the final, is that biased people always misunderstand what even the finest communications expert says.
The Pope's point is that ALL of the profoundly religious cultures whether they be Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Hindu, etc., should not be marginalized by being snootily looked at as a "subculture" not worthy of inclusion in the university environment, and that the university "culture" must engage in reason with the religious "culture".
PLEASE, If you agree with this analysis of what the Pope said, or any part of it, FEEL FREE TO USE IT any way you desire!
There he goes again … apologizing! I don’t think Jesus would be apologizing.
Jesus beat the doo doo out of moneychangers in the temple. I wonder what He would do to the folks in the Dome of the Rock!
We're probably at least at the PG-13 level here.
How many times do they have to say it!??
How did he apologize in this?
everyone knows that saying "I'm sorry I made you mad" isn't an apology. (I had to teach my husband that a long time ago when I would follow with a, "but you're not sorry you did it?")
The Pope passed down a centuries old warning of what awaits those that will appease and try to accept.
It has its own life now, separate and apart from its original intent.
I'm sorry, but every thing I read about what the Pope said sounds like an apology to me. If it hurts your sensibilities, so be it. I can only go by the headlines found in most newspapers and online news sources.
.
As soon as someone says “I’m sorry”, they are apologizing
When studying Nazism--we all wonder, "How could that happen?" Now we're seeing how it happened.
Because we quail at confronting the reality of evil, we try to pretend that evil is good. Do otherwise, get called a bigot. And, heavens, we'll just die if someone calls us a bigot.
Ironic that the pope speaks and Orianna dies in the same week.
The Pope hasn't said anything of the sort. There have been some 'spokesmen' from the Vatican out there saying sorry you were offended, but they're not saying that the Pope is sorry for what he said.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
-- Manuel II Paleologus, as quoted by Pope Benedict XVI
Dear Father Lombardi,
Don't bother with explanations, you are wasting your time.
The ignorant Muslim hordes were rioting in the street before the speech was ever translated into Arabic. They have NO IDEA what the Pope actually said, and couldn't understand it if they did.
Islam - the Religion of Perpetual Outrage
"The speech in Regensburg also show the rich scholarly and cultural background that Pope Benedict possesses, the Jesuit spokesman said. "In about 10 minutes," he observed, "the Pope was able to give us an enormously broad view of cultural history and of the history of theology, bringing it all up to date."
I've read his presentation. What the spokesman has said is true.
I've read most Muslims, in the arab nations have never read their koran, because they cannot read, they've been told only portions of it. They do not have the privilege of education that we have.
I've finally found an official spokesman saying what I have been maintaining on this forum all day.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, and as is obvious to the careful reader, this address is even more innocuous than the storied "Danish Cartoons". What we are seeing in the Islamic reaction is a kind of "Muslim Gong Show", where the Imams rant on every pretext, and the faithful are driven into the streets to engage in thuggish behavior to intimidate the infidels and prospective dhimmis.
Equally predictably, the dhimmi-minded like the New York Times editorialists and craven Eurabian "diplomats" and death-threatened journalists roll over and hiss at the alleged offenders to shut up and apologize.
Repeat until the intimidated learn how to do the censoring work before the Imams begin to bray again.
The logical pushback: tell CAIR and other "institutionalized organs of Islamic outrage" that THEY have a problem, and either they solve it amongst their own people, or they get invited to buy and use 1-way tickets back to the pest-holes from which they emigrated, i.e., the Australian policy.
Christians marginalize and lock up their theo-fascists (the Eric Rudolphs and "Christian Identity" thugs), Jews do the same for their Kahanists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanist
and thuggish murderers like the Baruch Goldstein.
They don't mob the streets bellowing joyously when such outrages occur, passing around candies and selling souvenir gimcracks celebrating the slaughters and praising the "martyrs for Islam", they throw them in the slammer, and outlaw their political arms.
Muslims, go and do likewise, or face the continued consequences: the Islamo-thugs for all their outrages against the "infidel" and "uppity dhimmi" have killed far more Muslims along the way. Resist, or die in the cross-fire between your internal thugs and the rest of the world that has had quite enough of their irrational violence. Your choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
