Even though the Pope’s remarks about violence and Islam were buried midway into a long lecture to scientists and theologians about faith and reason, is it possible that the Vatican knew full well that his comments would draw the kind of reaction from the Muslim world that we see erupting in the streets of the Middle East and elsewhere?
I would say it is more than possible. Given the way that the Vatican vets anything the Pope says in public, it would seem likely that at some point in the review process, someone would have pointed out that connecting the words “evil and inhuman” with anything associated with Islam would cause an uproar.
Just as with any major Presidential address or a speech given by the Secretary of State here in this country, the Vatican has several different departments that review anything uttered by the Pope, especially on foreign soil. The Pope’s speeches are reviewed to make sure not only that they reflect Vatican policy but also are consistent with religious dogma. And I feel certain that anything in a Papal speech that would mention another religion would have to be okayed by both the Secretariat of State as well as the Congregation in charge of interfaith relations. Either one of those two departments would have been able to tell the Pope what he could expect from the Islamic street after using the term “evil” in relation to anything having to do with the Prophet or the Muslim religion.
In fact, the more I think about it, in order not to believe that the Pope knew his remarks would cause a firestorm, you would either have to think that the Vatican bureaucracy are a bunch of fools or that a small part of the Pope’s lecture slipped through the cracks and wasn’t vetted properly. Either scenario just isn’t very plausible.
There was some speculation in the media that the “blunder” by the Pope was due to his lack of media savvy and a doctrinaire approach to his public pronouncements. The problem with this critique is that the lecture he gave a Regensburg was not about the Catholic faith as much as it was about a fascinating dissertation on the history of reason in Western thought. In fact, there was little if anything doctrinal in what Benedict said at his old University. There was reminiscing about how his education progressed and a scholarly look at how the relationship between secular reason and divine faith have developed since the Greeks. But there were no major pronouncements about theology and certainly no opportunities to lay down the law regarding anything having to do with the Catholic faith.
As far as being “media savvy,’ the 78 year od Pontiff is stiff and uncomfortable in his public appearances although he seems to be getting better as he goes along. But the thought that the Secretariat of State would not have realized that the Pope’s words would have been taken out of context and used to incite violence strains credulity. The job of the Secretariat in vetting Papal pronouncements is to make sure that just such an eventuality is covered.
Would the Pope then deliberately roil the Muslim world and incite hatred against the Catholic church? The “apologies” issued by both the Secretariat of State and the Pope himself are careful to avoid regretting anything the Pope said and instead express regret about the reaction to the speech.
Ed Morrissey thinks that even this partial apology gives legitimacy to Muslim complaints. In an impassioned Open Letter to the Pope, Morrissey points to the expressions of regret being a sign of weakness:
When you apologize and retreat, they understand that as a triumph for their religion, a victory won with force and threats rather than through intellectual engagement. This encourages more of the same. The West had the opportunity to stand up to the same angry hordes earlier this year during the controversy over the Danish editorial cartoons that depicted Mohammed, and many of us gave into the threats and violence rather than stand up for the freedom of speech, religious practice, and editorial commentary. In both cases, Muslims ironically proved the point of the criticism leveled at them.
I have to disagree with Ed. I think there are larger forces at play here – larger even the outrageous killing of a nun in Somalia or the apparent kidnapping of a priest in Iraq. If this is indeed the first salvo fired by the Catholic church against radical Islam (which is driving the violence causing more “moderate” Muslims to respond or be marginalized), it is a possibility that this is a real effort by the Vatican to rally more moderate, thoughtful Muslims to the anti-terror banner. So far, nothing has worked in trying to engage the millions of Muslims who disagree with the jihadists. But by holding up a mirror and forcing these moderates to look their own religion in the face, perhaps the Pope believes he can start a dialogue that would help set Islam along a different path. Instead of the moderates being marginalized, such a turn of events would marginalize the extremists.
This is pure speculation, of course. But I am having a hard time believing that the Pope’s words were a “blunder” or some kind of a media faux pas by the Vatican. And if the Pope’s words were deliberately provocative, one can only conclude there was some other reason why he might have used the obscure example of a dialogue between a 15th century emperor and Islamic scholar to make a point about the differences between Muslims and Christians.
7:59 am
Pope Benedict under fire: the speech, the apologies, and the aftermath
New Media Has the Pope thrown down the gauntlet to Islam? (Right Wing Nut House) The non-apology apology won’t work: “Islamists can tell the difference between diplomatic words and true surrender, and they want the Pope to utterly abase…
10:27 am
you could be right and the moderate muslims need to do something because they will get caught up in a backlash. How about a WWII type round up of Japanese but this time Muslims? If a nuke attack would happen in the USA I could see that happening.
Also lets not forget that when the Pope speaks, he is speaking for God, so he really can’t say “I was wrong”, that would be saying God is wrong.
12:39 pm
[...] Other blogging: Malkin OTB bainbridge.com scrappleface scrappleface again little green footballs ibloga parapundit jersey nut freedom szone captains quarters old war dogs amy proctor blue crab macs mind right voices capitalism matters right wing nut house [...]
12:39 pm
Bob Z:
I agree with your comments about moderate Muslims, but have to tell you that the Pope’s words only rarely have infallibility, or his speaking for God. Only ex cathedra statements reach the level of infallibility.
12:54 pm
An Amen for J. T.
I’ve been scanning the b-sphere for someone who sees the brouhaha about the Pope’s recent statements the way I see it.
It seems that Jay Tea does.
One doesn’t get to be Pope by choosing one’s words carelessly or without a tho…
1:50 pm
It seems as though this was one remark in a lengthy, deliberate argument that was taken as the thesis. I do not believe your speculation is founded on anything more than a desire (a well founded desire) to see someone engage the radicalized Islamists on moral and religious terms.
This is a very, very academic speech. Manuel II’s reference most likely is focused on his use of “logos”, as it appears in both the introduction and the conclusion. I think the comments on “evil” were an indication of his forceful feelings on the subject, as he was under siege. The Pope called the comments “brusque” and “forceful” and noted the siege. That is, if anything, an attempt to be honest with Manuel II’s words and to downplay their combative nature.
This was not the rallying cry you want to see it as.
2:39 pm
A minor correction: Pope Benedict was 78 when he was elected last year. He turned 79 in April 2006.
2:50 pm
I’m not Catholic, but as a Christian I recognize the Pope’s influence in matters of religion, if not his authority.
That being said, I was extremely disappointed to learn that he apologized to the retarded pigs throwing yet another global temper tantrum on the same day my daughter was baptized. There are some explanations floating around that his remarks were mistranslated, which is why these people are still attacking churches, killing nuns and issuing fatwas. But it seems as though he did give in to their demands.
If we can’t count on the Pope to honestly and unapologetically distinguish bewteen a faith that promises hope and one that guarantees destruction, who can we count on?
Regards,
-the Canine Pundit
http://caninepundit.blogspot.com/
4:41 pm
Islamic Extremist Calls For Pope’s Death
Apologies are not enough for to appease the hearts of Islamic extremists. Apparantly nothing is. Burning down churches wasn’t enough. Martyring a nun by shooting her in the back was not enough. No, for some the bloodlust can not be quenched …
5:40 pm
I’m with you.
As a Catholic who recently visited Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal, I am reminded of the Third Secret of Fatima released by Pope John Paul in ‘00. I am struck by your use of ‘mirror’. Sister Lucia too use the word in the same way you imply to describe her visions in the Third Secret in 1917. My personal interpretation is in my Bible blog and my personal blog is http://www.atemely.blogspot.com.
6:48 pm
[...] The irony of the reaction by the Islamic extremist mobs needs not be ignored. I’m not sure whether or not the Pope deliberately through down the guantlet but his words did turn out to be prophetic and the truth. I really don’t see any reason why the pope should apologize and retreat. The only thing that should be regretted is that the central theme of his speech, that of reason and peaceful dialogue, was completely and willfully ignored. In the Islamic extremist animal mind, jihad was the “reasonable†answer. An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the “worshippers of the cross†in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world. [...]
9:14 pm
I have zero trouble believing that this was a simple blunder. The Pope is the head of a religion that is a contemporary force for peace, and it’s hard to believe he would have deliberately risked even a low probability of igniting mass violence against Christians. There is also the “principle of least malice” that should be applied here. (This is a particularly useful filter to apply when thinking about one’s ideological opponents.)
11:17 pm
The Popes error was in believing that the intellectuals in Islam would provide the context of his speech. He along with others will have to learn the hard way.
There can be no intellectual dialog between religions when one espouses the annihilation of the others.
12:55 am
[...] @ Truth Laid Bear the news yesterday continued with the furor caused in the Muslim World by …not that anyone cares or is listening… the Popes quotation of a historical view from a historical person. Apparently we in the West are not allowed to quote such history anymore. It seems that we need to rewrite it now to meet with the proper Islamic specs on such things. Because Friends that is exactly what is being protested. Weatern Leaders, even religious ones can no longer use their own scriptures or history or writings if it disturbs something of Islamic sensibilities. Or you burn for it. Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse was linked in the article,”HAS THE POPE THROWN DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO ISLAM?” and seems to answer “yes”: it is more than possible. Given the way that the Vatican vets anything the Pope says in public ….This is pure speculation, of course. But I am having a hard time believing that the Pope’s words were a “blunder†or some kind of a media faux pas by the Vatican. And if the Pope’s words were deliberately provocative [...]
11:20 am
Anyone who has taken the time to read or listen to the Pope speak knows that he has one of the greatest minds in the world today. Thee Pope said things that no political leader could or will…he is not the type to “throw down the guantlet” but he typically gets to the bedrock problem facing us, and EXPECTS us to step up, use our intellects and really deal with it…as he did in the Regensburg speech. You all should read some of his writings..not filtered throught the MSM, but his actual writings and speeches. To do so you actually have to go to Vatican or Catholic websites. While you’re there, take a look at the “crusades” through the eyes of the people who were there during the 1,500 some years the Muslims were engaged in their effort to take over Europe. You may not like what you read…but it is more accurate than the BBC/A&E special or K. Hughes’ work.
Also, the Pope is not God…and only in very specific situations acts “in persona Christi.” Do not confuse “infallibity” with “impeccability.”
The pope is a human being, albeit an incredibly well-educated intelligent one, he goes to confession, and makes mistakes…but the Regensburg speech was not one of them.
12:59 am
After careful thought…I have realized the pope is steering the world into a inevitable discussion. He is preventing armegedon.
Incidently: HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE FOR HIS REMARKS. NOR WILL HE EVER.
The world press is just full of fearful mental wussies…
The pope is not finished. Trust me.
Thats all for now.
10:29 pm
disegno natale colorare
Blog Records:incontri italiaComments…