Pope tells Muslims he's "deeply sorry" for crisis

Below is the Reuters report that accurately summarises the situation as seen by an independent reporter.
But what needs to be understood is the point the Pope was making and why some Muslims are offended.
Whether this matters is something else again, but it may be at least educational.

It is widely appreciated that both Christian and Muslim inspired political leaders have taken up arms on many occasions throughout history. Military action has been taken by all nations in the course of the emergence of what we have called civilizations, empires, alliances etc. These actions have sometimes been in defence, sometimes in deliberate acts of enlargement or colonisation. In the case of what we know as the 'Crusades', the action was taken to recover what was perceived (I ignore the rightness or wrongness in absolute terms here as it is not important to the logic) as the loss of a specific territory deemed sacred to Christendom. In the course of the Crusades there is no doubt some Christians behaved in a violent and even bloodthirsty manner

The point Pope Benedict was making was on another matter all together. It was to say that the idea that religion could be imposed on people by force, let alone violence, was irrational. That either Islam or Christianity, both of which have peace at the heart of their message, should be imposed by force is doubly irrational. He took an historic example to make his academic point, and the first example he took was unfortunate as it cited an opinion at the time which included criticism that went quite far and wide beyond the specific point. The individual he quoted was sweeping in his condemnation of Mohammad, and this is where offence seems to have been caused. The second unfortunate omission was not giving other examples where, for instance, a Christian or Buddhist nation or empire had imposed religion by force, or advocated the killing of non-Christians. Certainly such ideas cannot be laid at the door of the founder of the Christian philosophy (the subsequent Christian 'religions' were so to speak autonomous and evolutionary), but perhaps such examples could have been found to balance the books and reinforce the point that if errors have been made in the past there is no need to repeat them. Always make new mistakes.

In the light of all this you will appreciate, dear reader, that we are witnessing a dialogue of the deaf to some extent. The Pope has apologised, as he had not intended to offend. The offended do not understand this, and he may not fully understand it either. In truth, neither side really understand their own history, religion, present day reality or the future. Not to worry, this is how to learn. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
JB Sept 17 2006

Sunday September 17, 04:24 PM

The head of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics stopped short of the full apology or retraction demanded by some Muslims for a speech they say portrayed Islam as

It was unclear whether his words would end the backlash.

The deputy leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Habib, initially said it was "a sufficient apology", but later said: "It does not rise to the level of a clear apology and, based on this, we're calling on the Pope of the Vatican to issue a clear apology that will decisively end any confusion."

Before the Pope spoke, there had already been a protest on Sunday in Iran and attacks on churches in the West Bank. In Somalia an Italian nun was killed in an attack one Islamist source said may be linked to the crisis.

"... I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence.

"These in fact were a quotation from a mediaeval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought," the Pope said at his weekly Angelus prayer.

"I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect."

The German-born Pope was interrupted by applause from the pilgrims at Castelgandolfo, in the hills outside Rome.

But he faces the worst crisis since, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was elected Pope in April last year. His comments followed a Vatican statement on Saturday attempting to clarify the meaning of the academic speech made in Germany on Tuesday.

The heads of Muslim countries have expressed dismay at what they see as offensive comments and religious leaders have called it the start of a new Christian crusade against Islam.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi hoped the death of a nun working at a Mogadishu children's hospital was "an isolated event".

"We are worried about the consequences of this wave of hatred and hope it doesn't have grave consequences for the church around the world," he told Ansa news agency.

"...ON HIS KNEES..."

In the speech, the Pope, a former theology professor and enforcer of Vatican dogma, referred to criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

The emperor said everything the Prophet Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and politicians in Italy rushed to Benedict's defence, saying he had been misunderstood and had really being making an appeal for dialogue.

But angry Muslim leaders flung what they saw as allegations of violence back at the West, referring to the mediaeval crusades against Islam and to the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have fanned the flames of Muslim resentment.

In Iran about 500 theological school students protested in the holy city of Qom on Sunday and influential cleric Ahmad Khatami warned that if the Pope did not apologise, "Muslims' outcry will continue until he fully regrets his remarks".

"The Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam," Khatami said.

In a sign that some Muslims have been mollified, the head of Turkey's religious affairs directorate welcomed the statement from the Vatican on Saturday. Ali Bardakoglu had previously called the Pope's comments "extremely regrettable".

The uproar had raised questions about whether a papal visit to Turkey in November could go ahead, but the Turkish government, while calling his remarks "ugly", said there were no plans to call it off.

The church has officially encouraged dialogue with Islam and other non-Christian faiths since the Second Vatican Council that ended in 1965. Benedict has sought dialogue with Islam -- but he also stresses Europe's Christian roots and, before elected, said he opposed mainly Muslim Turkey joining the European Union.

He may have come closer than any modern-day pope to saying sorry in public for something he has said. His predecessor John Paul II made public apologies for the church's historic errors, such as the Inquisition and its failings in World War Two.

SEPTEMBER 6th 2010
Since I wrote the above comment to the posted Reuters report 4 years ago, Pope Benedict has proved he is poorly advised or just not up to the mark. Now he is coming on a 'State Visit' to the UK to which we are supposed to contribute financially. As far as security is concerned, if it requires overtime and the purchase of special technology I suppose we have little choice. We can hardly refuse him entry. But as a baptised, confirmed Christian I am not surprised some people object.

There is indeed a new anti-Catholicism on the rise and for very good reason.

Most people in this country thought the Catholic threat had been dealt with once and for all. The Catholic church has long been considered not only harmless but by many people a force for good. Only the obsessed Richard Dawkins and his followers could possibly see it as a threat, and hardly any Catholics in any position beyond the Church in the UK were taking the Pope seriously anyway. They realised he had a job to do, that he usually did it very badly as had many if his predecessors, but hey, what do you expect? The Catholic Church is like a large tanker with a captain elected every so often by a largely blindfolded crew. Let it cruise on till it runs aground harmlessly. Catholic politicians no longer represent a threat either. Paedophile priests and cardinals are a threat of another kind; but there is more than that to the objectors case

The current Pope, as clueless as some of his predecessors, is not content to concentrate on damage limitation or keeping a comfortable house for those who need to abandon thought for faith (it seems the former gives them grief or a headache). He wants to make something of it, and come visiting the UK on a membership drive. I'm sorry, but there is no way we should help him financially in this. This is not a State Visit. It is a propaganda exercise. The current wreckage of modern Christianity lies at the door of the Vatican as much as anywhere. I am sure it will be rebuilt and flourish but only if we can get rid of the silly idea that best practice and enlightenment emerges from monoculture. We must get real. Unity is not the basis of the universe, of evolution, or of anything that has ever transcended the entropic decay that inevitably awaits even transient success in any growing organism.

To call anti-Catholicism 'prejudice' is correct if we refer to discrimination against Catholics on anything except religious grounds in religious matters. To discriminate on religious grounds in religious matters is of course right, correct, and the duty of all who are charged with that responsibility, above all, the head of the Church of England. The Act of Settlement must be absolutely inviolate unless overthrown by a national referendum in which voting should be compulsory. It is anti-Catholic for very good reasons. These reasons should not upset any individual Catholic unless he or she believes, along with Moslem fundamentalists (and the Pope?), that they alone have the truth and the backing of God/Allah and therefore that they should be able to run the country if they can scare enough people into supporting them. Please remember the principle of the Church of England is to abolish Popery here and allow many Christian denominations to flourish, in which each can find a home. That includes confused Catholics. They would not expect the College of Cardinals to elect a Protestant as Pope, after all!

SEPTEMBER 13th 2010
Yesterday, I was told, historian David Starkey got quite worked up and referred to the Pope (in a discussion on Radio 4) as just a man in a silly frock (or was it a silly man in a frock), I forget.  As a historian, Starkey should know better. The Pope is an authority figure for a reason, the reason is history, the dress is tradition and part of the history and goes with the job, and Ratzinger is a serious man, not a silly one, who has landed himself in a rather hot seat. I referred to him earlier as clueless but I was talking about his disconnection with some obvious realities which he may find trivial but in doing so invite trouble.

His appreciation of Henry Newman could, on the other hand, mark him as a man who is well aware of the paradoxical position his dogma and doctrine can lead to. There is, after all, no need to agonise about reconciling faith with reason and evidence unless you can't get it to 'add up'.. Newman agonised, and came to a similar conclusion as Ratzinger, that in matters beyond human understanding it is right to follow one's conscience, but that conscience should be guided by such humility as to prevent its subjective reasoning to overthrow the collective councils of the Catholic Church. The submission position, one might call it.

I have to agree that if I was Pope, or had I been Newman, I might have done and be doing my share of agonising. Silly or not there is no way the Pope can remove his frock. It is a little late for that, just as it is a little late to say loud and clear that words, customs and interpretations of 2000 years ago have to be seen in the light of what we have learned since then. It would be better he keep the frock for the moment and continue his work of cleaning up and modernising his branch of the church. It can keep its traditions. Those for whom those traditions and the particular fellowship of the Catholic Church are important should not be let down. The one thing he should give up on is any pretence that he and his Church represent an exclusive and full understanding of the meaning of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. 

SEPTEMBER 16th 2010
Arriving in Scotland (I won't press the tactical reasons for this, though they are several and amusing. concerning as they do the Scots, our Royal Family, recent poltiical developments and past history) the Pope launched right away into remarks which exemplify why I find all this absurd.

The Pope said he wanted to "extend the hand of friendship" to the entire UK, not just the Catholic population.

He added: "Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate."

The 'hand of friendship' is surely one that is proffered only by one from whom it might be, or have recently been, questioned. Perhaps there is something lost in translation here but I assumed the friendship was taken for granted. He is here as a guest, head of the Roman Catholic Church even though he pretends to be a head-of-state rather than a top cleric in one of many branches of Christian church. State-hood was indeed granted to Vatican City, so he is technically justified and can get away with calling it a state visit, but it is a confidence trick.

Why we should be interested in his comments on multiculturalism is a mystery. The cultural customs that are tolerated in any country are a matter to be resolved by the elected government of that country, mindful of its history. They can vary from time to time depending on the extent to which they are practised, used or abused by citizens to the benefit or damage to civil society. The French, for instance, are big on integration and tolerate other cultures only to the extent they are not contrary to current, historically developed, French culture. This is logical and, like some other EU countries, they draw the line at people covering their faces in public or flouting dress codes in schools. The British are not sure what their culture is, most of the time, so tolerance and integration are not viewed in the same context. Britons tend to mind their own business until rather late in the day they find they are under threat from people with strange ideas.

The  reason why secularism has been so forcefully adopted by the western democracies has been the same in every case: to prevent rule by clerics who, instead of accepting the rule of civil law guided by Christian values of mercy and compassion, claim divine right for themselves or those they consecrate. 'Aggressive secularism' which I deplore as much as anyone, has come about due to the confusion spread by ignorance amongst both religious and secular movements, their leaders and their lieutenants. Faith, which should mean faith in the future, in the value of virtuous behaviour rather than unmitigated self-interest, in rational altruism even if it falls short of heroism, in honest dealings and in quality, faith in the response of nature to love and care, faith worthy of the name, has remained or deteriorated in some quarters the awful superstitions that characterised the mediaeval mind.

There is a lot to be said, that needs to be said, to reveal the real truth that was left for us to discover by the founder of our faith. Not a single word to that effect has emerged from a Pontiff in  my life-time and there is not the slightest indication that it is about to now. This may not be a silly man in a frock, but he is certainly looking like another useless one apart from rather belatedly doing his best to sack a load of paedophiles who used superstition and fear for damaging ends.

In Scotland it has just been reported that the demand for 'humanist' wedding ceremonies has so increased that there is now a greater demand for these than for the classic and church approved vesions. Anyone who reads the New Testament in the light of all the history and developments of the past few thousand years, with a modern education, should be able to put two and two together to make four. Christianity and Humanism are one and the same thing once the old (but necessary for their times) imagery has been cast aside for the clear view. That does no not mean humanity is responsible for the origin of space-time or of the basis of logic, truth or beauty. The science and theology are not as dumb as that! But it means we MUST GROW UP and cease the attempt to impose outdated imagery on the minds of 21st century children if we wish to avoid them throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We do need faith, but it cannot and should not be in conflict with science, nor should it need miracles other than those to be found in Nature. There are more than enough of them, we have misused much of our knowledge so far. That is the very message to be found again and again in the New Testament. It is a message utterly misunderstood by many branches of the Christian Church, to its detriment and our loss.

SEPTEMBER 18th 2010
It has been reported that the Pope is to address the compatibility of reason and faith on this visit. Indeed he must if it is to do any good. It is not enough to complain about the 'aggressive secularism' of Richard Dawkins, he has to answer the questions Dawkins poses ) if he is to maintain that reason and rationality, while separate from faith, are compatible with the Roman Catholic version of the Christian faith or evn the Anglican version as understood by many. The time has come to do this, and if the heads of the Christian Church are not up to the joib they, and their senior supporters in the church hierarchy, should stand aside. Dawkins is a pretty low level scientist but it seems the Pope is no better and his theological expertise is too circumscribed to make the connections. Richard Ingrams is right to criticise Dawkins as mildly obsessed, but in saying that Dawkins 'discredits all paranormal phenomena' fails to spot that while some are discredited, others are explained. To explain is not necessarily to discredit and, since all scientific explanations are temporary, limited and contextual, explaining one thing in terms of another, no scientific explanation of what was once thought to be a mystery or magic need diminish its fundamental ineffability or the so-called 'spiritual' access by those with 'faith' to the resources of nature that science can only reach through laborious intellectual and physical methods.

At the moment I see no sign of any proper understanding in the church hierarchy of these matters. Here is a useful summary of the position set out in an interview with Andrew Marr by Archbishop Nichols. It covers certain questions which readers might be interested in (such as why it is a 'state visit'), but on the reason for the deterioration of relations between atheists, agnostics and Christians, nothing useful is said.

nnnn