Posted on 09/18/2006 8:14:46 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Unreasonable Response
Benedict XVI hasn’t revived the Crusades.
By Thomas F. Madden
--------------------------------------------
In November 1095 Pope Urban II called the First Crusade. To judge from the comments issuing from some Muslim groups and politicians, Pope Benedict XVI has done the same thing. According to Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of the majority party in Turkey, Benedict, “has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world.” Kapusuz maintains that the pope is engaged in “an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades.” And so it is that protesters across the Middle East are hastily sewing together pope effigies. In Ankara a black wreath was laid before the Vatican embassy and in Cairo people are chanting “Oh Crusaders, oh cowards! Down with the pope!”
So, what about that Crusade? Well, as one might expect, there isn’t one. Is it nonetheless true, as Muhammad Umar, chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation in Britain has claimed, that Benedict “has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam…”? Not exactly. But he has fallen into the trap of association, even from the distance of six centuries, with someone who once criticized Islam. And that is clearly not acceptable.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI addressed scholars and scientists at the University of Regensburg on the topic of “Faith, Reason, and the University.” It was a very learned and scholarly lecture, which means that it would put most people comfortably to sleep. However, it is in this lecture that, some believe, Benedict revealed his true colors when it comes to Islam. Early in the address he referred to an interfaith dialogue between a Persian scholar and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus which probably took place in 1391. Manuel was the leader of the last Christian state in the East. The descendent of the once mighty Roman Empire, Byzantium had by Manuel’s day been reduced to little more than a few crumbs floating around in the soup of the ever-expanding Ottoman Empire. This was a world in which the forces of Islam were the real superpower, and they knew it. Manuel spent his reign flattering and appeasing the Turks on the one hand and desperately seeking aid from Europeans on the other. In neither case was he very successful. Less than three decades after his death, the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II destroyed the Byzantine Empire and made its capital, Constantinople (modern Istanbul), his own.
But back to Benedict XVI. The pope resurrected Manuel II in order to make a point. He noted that the learned Manuel was well aware that the Koran states that “There is no compulsion in religion.” But he also knew, as someone who had been on the business end of jihad himself, that the Koran also speaks of holy war. With “startling brusqueness,” the pope continued, Manuel tackled this seeming contradiction by saying “’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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.”
The pope’s purpose in citing this passage is made clear almost immediately. “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor [of Manuel’s dialogue], Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” Now here is where it gets a little complicated. (I said that it was a scholarly lecture.) Benedict asks the question, “Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?” He concludes that the Greek concept of reason, bound together with Christianity, fundamentally shaped, even gave birth to Europe. He then describes a process which he calls “dehellenization” in which Europeans from the Late Middle Ages onward have chipped away the fusion of faith and reason, placing them in completely separate spheres. This separation is the main focus of the lecture. It is, in fact, not about Islam at all. Benedict is calling a crusade, but it is one against a Christianity stripped of reason and a science stripped of transcendent truths. “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.”
This is a tough lecture to boil down to one sentence, but if forced I would characterize it as: Theology belongs in the university because only by studying faith with reason will we find solutions to the problems of our time. However, if instead of reading the lecture we simply cut out everything except the words of Manuel II Palaeologus written six centuries ago, then we have a good justification for Pakistan’s parliament to unanimously condemn the pope. If we further pretend that it was Benedict, rather than a long-dead emperor, who expressed these sentiments we have a sound basis for the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon to demand “a personal apology — not through his officials — to Muslims for this false reading (of Islam).” Or we can rage with Syria’s top Sunni Muslim religious authority, Sheik Ahmad Badereddine Hassoun, who replied to the pope, “We have heard about your extremism and hate for Arabs and Muslims. Now that you have dropped the mask from your face we see its ugliness and extremist nature.”
During Friday prayers in Iraq’s Shiite Muslim stronghold of Kufa, Sheik Salah al-Ubaidi reminded the faithful that “last year and in the same month the Danish cartoon assaulted Islam.” The pope’s comments were now a second assault, he said. Al-Ubaidi is at least partly right. The furor over the Danish cartoon brought in stark relief the cultural differences that exist when it comes to matters of free speech and expression. At least with the cartoon, the illustrator and publisher really were criticizing Islam and its founder. In the case of the pope, however, we have someone who is merely citing a medieval source within the context of a scholarly address. Is that really sufficient justification for Mr. Kapusuz to characterize the pope as “the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks… [who] is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini”?
In the coming days there will undoubtedly be more protests, more outrage, and perhaps even more violence (a nun in Somalia was murdered this weekend) in response to the 14th-century words of Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. Pope Benedict XVI has already apologized to the world’s Muslims, assuring them that he had no desire to offend them. Heads should soon cool. But the underlying problem will still remain. Interfaith dialogues, by their very nature, require some criticism and some understanding of the shared histories of the respective faiths. If these are stifled, if reason is exiled, then we will never understand, let alone bridge, the religious and cultural gulfs in the world today. And that is what the pope’s lecture was all about.
----------------------------------------------
— Thomas F. Madden is professor of medieval history and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author most recently of The New Concise History of the Crusades.
The truth is that the Muslims did us a favor by their response to the Pope's comments. They've exposed their mindset to further ridicule.
"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
Muhammed is a false prophet if he proscribes jihad - the killing of innocent people.
God's 6th Commandment = Thou shall not kill is a part of all major religions.
Pope Benedict should have been blunt when talking to the Muslims -> Thou shall not kill especially innocent people who have done nothing but exist -> WTC Victims come to mind. Those victims did nothing to the Muslims.
"Why Can't We Be Friends?" (©1975)
Isn't killing/taking a human life, relative to the situation? Murdering is wrong, but going to war is right...they both take human lives, don't they?
I'm so upset by the Pope's comments that I'm going to go cut my own head off.
Indeed!
My first comment is fo any of these people have jobs
or anything else to do with their lives?
Typical thought process.
Let's see our leaders keep us in poverty while they live
in castles. We have no jobs, no life, no money. But guess
what my local leader told me that the pope insulted me.
Yeah time to go on a rampage and get on TV
A serial killer takes lives.
A person who kills someone who is entering his house in the middle of the night to rape his wife is also taking life.
There is a difference, those who can not see the difference are the ones who should pay the price of their folly. Unfortunately the world is not fair.
Did you realize that the Japanese stopped torturing American prisoners in WWII right after they were nuked?
"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
And what exactly is untrue about this statement? Look around the world at what is going on and it is plain to see that the followers of Moe are fed and inspired by his "revelation," I mean, "revulsion." The burned churches, the murdered nun who was shot in the back, the protests, the statements issued--all of it proves the Pope's point. Perhaps it's time for another Crusade?
Isn't one of the end results of war and murder the same?
We can only dream.
Muslim clerics need to have a meeting to update a missive,
The Koran, that dates back to 620 a.d.
Do not spam, i.e. do not post the same message every time.
Most informative discourse on what the Holy Father said.
Ah, the Knights Templar. I went thru a stage once of reading everything I could find on them. Quite an interesting fraternity.
Not always. We are on earth and there is no perfection of any person on this earth.
The original translation of the word kill in the saying "Thou shalt not kill" was a Hebrew word. The Hebrew word was the word murder. It had a distinctly different meaning than the word kill.
In many wars there is no right side and I will just not say that taking life is good. It is always desirable not to take life, but if someone wants to enslave someone else they may just get a serious buttkicking (and that may mean many people are going to die).
Fighting for your freedom against tyranny or defending yourself against an intruder is justifiable, and so is defending against islamofascism. If the isalmofascists were willing to sit down and discuss their differences all would be different. They aren't.. so war is the result, because many of us are not willing to roll over and give up.
Justification sounds relative.
Does anyone grasp now why the Vatican has steered clear of supporting the allied forces in Iraq or Afghanistan?
My take all along is that while the Vatican knows and understands the measures that must be taken to ensure safety, peace, and freedom, that it could not be seen as giving official sanction in a conflict which involved Muslim fanatics, because it would turn the situation into a powder keg.
It is true that no human on Earth has ever been perfect (short of Our Lord and His mother), but that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church, while its membership is comprised mostly of fallible men, is as a whole perfect.
As far as the commandment goes, I feel the best English expression of it would be "Thou shalt not take *innocent* life". Like you said, if someone is guilty of a crime and needs to be killed to prevent recurrence, that obviously is not wrong to do.
You're questioning the one thing the Conciliar Vatican has done right? Are you aware that Catholicism, while legal prior to Bush's invasion, is now *illegal* in Iraq?
There is no "fanaticism" involved in any case-- Muslims who are "peaceful" are really not Muslims at all.
I am not questioning anything the Vatican has done.
I can remember when even conservatives criticized the Church for the Crusades.
They still do, but we call them "neo-cons" now, not "conservatives".
Relative to self-defense versus someone deciding that they will impose something on you.
"As if the Crusades were a bad thing? False belief systems have no "right to tolerance". We need the Inquisition to be reinstated so heretics like Benedict can be exposed."
Trouble is that we do in fact have to 'tolerate' Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, and so on in our Western style democracies and republics. It is required, unless we wish to resurrect the idea of a religious state. And I'm not sure that it's be the best idea.
Heretics like Benedict? What do you mean?
That's one.
"Freedom of religion" as promoted in these Western governments, is heresy and contrary to Catholic teaching. While it may be beneficial to allow people believing such nonsense to stay in our country and maybe even practice their beliefs in private, having them actively solicit for membership is ridiculous.
A heretic is one who claims to be a Christian yet is not really one (because he denies an infallible teaching, such as a doctrine or dogma). Benedict, since he claims to be a Christian (a Pope, none the less!) and denies Catholic doctrine, is therefore a heretic. His choices under the Inquisition are to cease making the claim of being a Christian, accept all Catholic doctrine and dogma and submit to the Church, or face the consequences.
For some people, everything is relative...talking to them is a waste of time.
Just in case..where are those Crusade outfits stored.?.
Thanks for the post. Wonderful article. Clarity, facts and reason on display by Madden, an unquestioned expert on the Crusades who should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject.
I'm still a little puzzled. Where exactly do you think that Pope Benedict is heretical?
Here are a few lists of citations where Benedict has taught heresy:
http://www.truecatholic.org/heresiesb16.htm
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_heresiesfile.html
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=73&catname=15
This last article (which is from a Catholic source), focuses on Benedict's denial of Limbo which, while it isn't dogma as mentioned in the article, is still doctrine and denial of such is indeed heresy.
Sorry, this doesn't convince me. It reminds me of the hysterical anti Catholic websites hosted by crazed fundamentalists who have tinfoil hats and see conspiracy everywhere.
One hint is large coloured fonts, and lots of exclamation points. Mine eyes glazeth over.
I will pray that the Holy Spirit has enabled God's Rottweiler to ascend to the post of the Servant of the Servants of God, and that he will lead us, in His hame, through this world war. And perhaps the Holy Spirit might help whichever one of us is wrong to see His light.
The facts persist despite the authors of those particular lists/articles. Benedict denies the existence of Limbo, which is heresy. He also is not validly ordained a bishop, and to be a pope, one must first be a bishop.
The Holy Ghost assists God's Holy Catholic Church, which is not inclusive of a heretical priest claiming to be a pope. He will surely lead any and all to the Truth who honestly thirst for Him.
Okay, I'll bite.
How do you figure all this?
The Vatican says that: On 25 March 1977 Pope Paul VI named him Archbishop of Munich and Freising. On 28 May of the same year he received episcopal ordination. He was the first Diocesan priest for 80 years to take on the pastoral governance of the great Bavarian Archdiocese. He chose as his episcopal motto: "Cooperators of the truth". He himself explained why: "On the one hand I saw it as the relation between my previous task as professor and my new mission. In spite of different approaches, what was involved, and continued to be so, was following the truth and being at its service. On the other hand I chose that motto because in today’s world the theme of truth is omitted almost entirely, as something too great for man, and yet everything collapses if truth is missing".
Paul VI made him a Cardinal with the priestly title of "Santa Maria Consolatrice al Tiburtino", during the Consistory of 27 June of the same year.
Where does it say that you have to be a bishop to become a pope?
I went out the website truecatholic.org to see where you're coming from.
Sorry, dude. The Church changes. Or don't you say the Rosary? The effects of Vatican II were profound and in some cases unfortunate, but I'll say the same to you that I say to those who adhere to the Protestant Reformation: splitters don't get to make the rules. Call yourself as you will; the name is not the thing.
For a fuller description of the history of Limbo in the Church, you may want to read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Prior to this, Antipope Paul VI changed the Conciliar religion's rite of ordination such that it fell short of the required form for the Sacrament and thus was not valid.
A pope is the "bishop of Rome". One cannot be the bishop of Rome without first being a bishop. While a non-bishop can be elected by a valid Catholic conclave, such a person would need to be ordained a bishop before he become pope.
The Catholic Church is perfect and its doctrine has never and never will change. For something to change, it is necessary that it was either better before or after the change, which implies in one of the cases it would have been imperfect. Catholicism does not change for the same reason God Himself does not change.
The Conciliar sect split from the Catholic Church, not vice versa. Just like the Protestants claimed and continue to claim to be Christians, the Conciliarists falsely claim to be Catholic. Both Protestants and Conciliarists deny doctrines of the Catholic Church. The crime is in heresy itself, not in *which* heresy they choose to adhere to.
Further, you might note that in these cases, the heresy was preceded by schism. Just like the Orthodox before them, the Protestants began by rejecting the authority of the Pope. As with the Protestants, the Conciliarists began by rejection of the Catholic Pope Gregory XVII and appointing their antipope John XXIII. Only after the schism had taken place did they move on to defy doctrine in antipope John XXIII's "Vatican II council".
Oh, dude.
Interesting notions. I don't think it's worthwhile getting even more off topic than we are.
You're wrong. You appear to have fallen out of communion with the Holy See in your arrogance. You do not make the rules and neither do vision-seeing mystics.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2651
Well, the "Pope Gregory XVII" in that article sure sounds like an antipope, but no moreso than Benedict is as well.
I was referring to the Catholic Pope Gregory XVII (formerly Cardinal Siri) elected in 1958 as successor to Pope Pius, just prior to the Conciliar schism that elected antipope John XXIII.
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.