The pope's communication paradox
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, May 18, 2007 - Vol. 6, No. 37 | |
Benedict XVI hadn't even stepped off the papal plane at Rome's Ciampino airport on Monday, ending his May 9-13 Brazilian swing, when controversy from the trip caught up with him. Spokespersons for Brazil's indigenous populations were incensed by comments the pope made in Aparecida late Sunday afternoon, asserting that the arrival of Christianity did not amount to "the imposition of a foreign culture" upon the native peoples of the New World. To the natives, that seemed a nasty bit of historical revisionism.
This post-Brazil contretemps offers the latest confirmation that as a public figure, Benedict XVI has two qualities which often work at cross-purposes.
On the one hand, Benedict is an exceptionally lucid communicator. He's a gifted logician, so his conclusions flow naturally from his premises. Moreover, he's able to synthesize complex ideas in easy-to-understand formula, so you don't need a degree in theology to get his point. Yet Benedict can also be remarkably tone-deaf to how his pronouncements may sound to people who don't share his intellectual and cultural premises.
The most spectacular example was, of course, his lecture at the University of Regensburg in September 2006. In context, Benedict felt it was clear he was talking about reason and faith, not taking a swipe at Muslims. Yet this context was not immediately obvious to people unschooled in papal rhetoric, and they were certainly not going to get it from a 30-second sound bite on the TV news.
One form his tone-deafness takes is failure to distinguish between abstractions and flesh-and-blood human realities, and the Brazil fracas offers a classic case in point.
Paulo Suess, an adviser to Brazil's Indian Missionary Council, said the pope "is a good theologian, but it seems he missed some history classes." Marcio Meira, who heads Brazil's federal Indian Bureau, said, "As an anthropologist and a historian I feel obliged to say that, yes, in the past 500 years there was an imposition of the Catholic religion on the indigenous people."
In truth, this is more a verbal dispute than a substantive one. Benedict never denied that many colonizers behaved atrociously. His point was about Christianity, not Christians. Because Christ came for all, Benedict reasoned, Christianity was not alien to pre-Columbian cultures; it was the fulfillment to which their religious experience pointed. It's the same argument ancient Christian writers made about Greco-Roman religions -- they were semina verbi, "seeds of the word," which came to fruition in Christ.
That claim in no way denies the responsibility of individual Christians for decimating local cultures. The pope, however, didn't exactly bend over backwards to make this clear.
Editor's Note: In his daily column May 16, John Allen reported: Motu proprio alert: Castrillon confirms ruling is coming. If you missed that report, you can read it now.
Over the years, Benedict has gotten himself into trouble in just this fashion. He'll make statements like, "Christianity is incompatible with violence," or "the church is incapable of sin," which set teeth grinding for anyone who knows even a smattering of history. What Benedict has in mind are Christianity and the church as Platonic forms -- he's well aware that individual Christians, and the concrete institutional church, have sometimes failed to live up to those great ideals.
This helps explain, I think, why initiates and outsiders often have such diametrically opposing reactions to Benedict's statements. After the Regensburg lecture, the crowd in the aula magna of the university didn't file out thinking they had just witnessed the opening salvo of the next Danish cartoon controversy -- they were abuzz about the pope's masterful reflection on reason and faith. That's because they understood where Benedict was coming from; later, we saw how people without this framework reacted.
The same thing happens on other subjects.
When the pope talks about the defects of liberation theology, for example, he means a theological system. He's not impugning the heroism, even the sanctity, of many people motivated by liberation theology -- as witnessed by his statement aboard the papal plane that the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador merits beatification.
To take another case in point, when Benedict XVI went to Auschwitz in May 2006, he argued that by killing the Jews, the Nazis also struck at Christianity, because their object was to kill God as the ultimate limit on human power. The statement outraged some Jews, who felt the pope was trying to turn Christians into victims, thereby ducking their complicity in the Holocaust. In fact, the pope was not denying that Christians had sinned; he meant that Christianity in se, in its essence, was a threat to National Socialism, because it testified to a power higher than the Volk. That's a thought-provoking assertion, but given the way it was expressed, it's hardly surprising some Jews were disturbed.
For those who know Benedict's mind, it can be painful to watch his carefully reasoned reflections become capsized in the court of public opinion by a stray phrase that's obviously open to misinterpretation, and which, most of the time, could have been put differently with no loss of meaning.
By now, there's a familiar cycle when the pope says something that triggers outrage. Clarifications, expressions of regret, and assurances of future dialogue tumble out from official spokespersons. The immediate crisis is surmounted, but a residue of suspiciousness is left behind. I recall what one person in Istanbul said to me following Benedict's trip to Turkey last November, when he strove mightily to repair the damage from Regensburg: "We're still not sure we like this pope," the Turk said, "but we dislike him less." That's progress, to be sure, but it would have been better if they never had any reason to dislike him in the first place.
This kind of misunderstanding has happened often enough during Joseph Ratzinger's career that it won't wash to say he doesn't know any better. So what gives?
Benedict is close to the communio school in Catholic theology, whose key figures accent the need for the church to speak its own language. It's an "insider's" discourse, premised on the conviction that Christianity is itself a culture, often at odds with the prevailing worldview of modernity. All this is part of Benedict's project of defending Catholic identity against pressures to assimilate in a relativistic, secularized world.
Benedict also has tremendous interior freedom, meaning he doesn't conduct focus groups before deciding what to say. Certainly no one wants Benedict shackled to a platitudinous form of political rhetoric, designed principally to avoid offense.
Yet a pope is, inevitably, Catholicism's chief ambassador to the outside world, including people not predisposed to give the church the benefit of the doubt. That implies a special responsibility to weigh one's words carefully, not just for their inner logic, but also for their potential cultural and political repercussions. It's not enough to insist that the world take the church on its own terms -- one has to meet it halfway.
To be fair, Benedict has shown flashes of a capacity to do just that, such as his moment of silent prayer alongside the Grand Mufti of Istanbul in the Blue Mosque. Moreover, it's hardly the case that the Brazil trip was a disaster. Benedict's obvious warmth played well, and even his tough line on some issues won high marks for intellectual cogency. Nonetheless, the bitter after-taste generated by the controversy over indigenous persons is unnecessary and distracting, and it's hardly sui generis.
Thus, we face the paradox of a pope who is a master communicator, but who nonetheless needs work on his communications skills. Someone in his inner circle, someone he trusts, needs to take him aside and have this conversation. So I ask again the question I posed immediately after Regensburg: "Who will say 'no' to the pope?"
To date, it remains a question awaiting an answer.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
BrianJ13, Thanks for a well
BrianJ13, Thanks for a well written and well presented post. While I find merit in many of the things you say, I also find merit in much of what John Allen says. And like ohplease says,
“Each commentator seems to put on his/her* rose-collored glasses and impose his/her* own form upon the thing itself.”
That is also true of ohplease, myself and the rest of us here. BUT there is value in sharing our opinions. And even more so when they are well presented…. On both sides of the issue. While I’m glad that the gospel of Jesus has spread over much of the world, I think it would be remiss of us not to admit that occasionally we as a church applied quite some pressure on others to accept our faith ….and as often was the case OR DIE. Not exactly the way we would want the spirit of Jesus to be known, Right?
And while you say, “Christ could no more be an imposition on them than it was on the Irish, the Portugese, the Romans,”. While it’s true that Christ isn’t an imposition, that fact that Christianity imposed it’s faith under the penalty of church imposed suffering and even death to the Irish, the Portugese, the Romans among others before it imposed it’s faith and death on the Indians of the Western hemisphere, it isn’t much of a consolation when the church denies any wrong doing in acts that are so offensive to Christ and a Loving and merciful God. Just as Pope John Paul II put a letter of apology in the wailing wall in Jerusalem and prayed for forgiveness of the church in it’s failings to do more for the Jewish people during the time of the holocaust, so to could have Pope Benedict attempted a similar symbol of remorse and redemption for the atrocities that were served upon the indigenous people in the name of God and at the hands of the church or with the church’s lack of effort to stop it.
Such a small gesture to ask for to make reparations for so much harm and injury inflicted and endured.
As you BrianJ and John Allen, state the Pope has so much to offer us. But with a little more tact and awareness of where old wounds exist he could render so much more spiritual healing with a few thoughtful words or acts relevant to the population or culture he is addressing. Pope Paul was great at doing what touched his audience and he moved so many people. Pope Benedict will do that also but not if he ignores the learning situations he’s been involved in.
The truth shall set us free.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
I am not sure I agree with
I am not sure I agree with you. My post was about three things: 1) what the Pope meant, 2) why what the Pope meant was OK, and 3) that what he meant was not properly reported by the press. As such, I think that your letter misses the point of my letter. My goal was to claim that what the Pope meant was quite orthodox, it was quite common in Christian discussion, and the full context of what he said was ignored. Concerning my Point #1, I think John Allen would have done a great service had he dedicated his article to an articulation of what the Pope's words were and what they conveyed, in context. He would not even need to weigh in on the slipshod reporting of it (as, say, he did with the poor reporting in England) or make a value judgment as I did with my Point #2. Had John simply done that, he would have served well the dialogue the Pope is seeking to have.
Also, more broadly speaking to your letter, Joer, at what point does the Pope have to stop being careful about offending people for things the Church did four centuries ago? I know that the Church's history in the Americas is not good. Like many things, such as the Crusades, that history is terrible. But I am not sure it is reasonable to ask him to apologize or be afraid to make a theological statement or argument in 2007 that might (somehow!) be twisted into an approval of things done to no one living in the past 13 generations or so. That's a bit much. I majored in history and I love it, but this all smacks more of looking for an opportunity to nitpick than having a legitimate complaint, as, say, Muslims could rightly have with his Regensburg speech.
Brianj13 Thanks for the
Brianj13
Thanks for the great reply. You’re absolutely accurate in what you say. I have no argument with the limits of your focus and how well every thing stands up within those limits. I guess I was trying to do several things in my post. 1) support you in sharing of your ideas because you seem to do it so well. 2) Introduce a perspective that was an alternative way of viewing and understanding the same actions you viewed of the pope. 3) offer support to John Allen and this site for their efforts at presenting views that are representative of so many Catholics especially in areas where asking the Spirit of God to guide them in the way they live their lives is important.
So let me assure you I recognize your position that what you were presenting was what the pope meant, and that that was OK and that in was reported improperly by the press. And I have no problem with you maintaining that position I think it’s admirable. And I respect you for it and the way you present it.
Now I will say some things that may seem contradictory to what you are presenting, But it’s actually just another perspective and I’m sure it’s something that the Pope and his aides have already considered and if they feel adjustments are necessary in the future they will do what they believe is necessary to do the work of the church. I also love the Pope and his position as the head of the church and I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide the Pope in his most difficult and delicate decisions. Anyway BrainJ13, I think we have these things in common, our love of the Pope the desire to lead Spirit-led lives and the desire that our comments our for the good of our Pope and all our church.
Where we may differ is in the positions we are presenting. While I believe both our positions are true and useful, as you’ve stated you may not agree with me totally on my perspective or the value of it being of use for the Pope’s consideration. So let me answer some of your questions in a way I believe follows Christ’s teachings and you can let me know if that’s consistent with the Orthodox Church Teachings or in contradiction of Christ’s teachings.
I think John Allen would have done a great service had he dedicated his article to an articulation of what the Pope's words were and what they conveyed, in context.
Had John simply done that, he would have served well the dialogue the Pope is seeking to have.
I think John followed Jesus’ example of specking up for those who were without a voice. The poor, the dejected, the downtrodden, those discriminated against and/or victims of torture and war. While intellectually it can be perfectly correct be make a theological statement and maintain the purity of it meaning and importance to the dogma of the church, but John’s action of giving a voice to those who Jesus would have helped is important and Christlike too.
“…at what point does the Pope have to stop being careful about offending people for things the Church did four centuries ago?…. But I am not sure it is reasonable to ask him to apologize or be afraid to make a theological statement or argument in 2007 that might (somehow!) be twisted into an approval of things done to no one living in the past 13 generations or so.”
Remember when Peter asked Jesus something like, “How many times must we forgive our brother, 7 times?” and Jesus answered something like “70 times 7 times.” Well when we harm someone Jesus taught us to ask for forgiveness and he didn’t put a limit on how many times we should ask before it was enough. So in answer to your question Brian about how long the Pope should ask for forgiveness for the wrongs that the church has down in Christ’s and God’s name in the past, I would say until it is no longer remembered that those terrible evil things were done by the Church in God’s and Christ’s name. When no one remembers those deeds and acts they it’s enough. As far as the Pope being afraid of making Theological statements he shouldn’t be. But as Christ taught us something like this, “he should be sagacious as a serpent and gentle as a dove.”
And saying something that could be viewed as rubbing salt in someone’s wound that is still hurting after 400 years isn’t a very wise thing to do.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Most of these comments look
Most of these comments look like an exercise in proving Kant's epistemology. Each commentator seems to put on his/her* rose-collored glasses and impose his/her* own form upon the thing itself. Many of these people are forever removed from the numinous by their own ideology. (And, ironically, more people who are themselves ideologues declare the pope to be an ideologue because he doesn't speak within their own ideological framework.)
There is a definite need to distinguish between what the pope actually said and what people wanted to hear. Perhaps the pope should try to anticipate misinterpretations. Perhaps people should try to understand what he's saying before they start publishing their anger and contempt. Where is the balance between the two?
I think that John Allen is definitely on to something. It deserves much thought. But perhaps it needs some modification.
*As I type these little contraptions (i.e., "his/her"), I feel so marvelously inclusive that I begin to quiver.
Col ~ you are right on net,
Col ~ you are right on net, I think. He seems preoccupied with the need to see Catholic/Jesus as "unique" having no precedent (he talks of readiness but not continuity) and not just redeeming, but almost recreating. There is, at least a mythical, comparison with the christianization of the celtic world where, it is said, that the Christians and the indiginous people found common ground and continuity. This stream of missionary Christianity however the Church was anxious to stamp out and disassociate itself.
This desire to stamp out
This desire to stamp out that kind of missionary activity is interesting given how much the Church co-opted from Greek and Roman religious cults. The Celts were probably lucky their evangelization came shortly after the rise of the institutional church. The indigenous peoples of the Americas were not so fortunate.
I've often wondered how much of the 'recreating' of indigenous culture was due to the fact their ceremonies really did bring the transcendant into this reality. I've personally experienced some really interesting phenomenon in Native ceremonies. Once I finally got it through my head that ceremonies were tools to bring the transcedant into this reality my experiences of transcendant Catholicism increased dramatically.
I strongly suspect the explosion of the pentecostal and evangelical sects is the direct result of people looking for the manifestation of the Spirit in a similar way as to how they experienced the transcendant in their native rituals. The problem is that Native rituals are powered by truly mystical ceremonial leaders and the average Catholic priest is not mystical in this sense, and cannot duplicate the same experiences.
Benedict can wax eloquently about faith and reason, but it's the person who can manifest the transcendant in this reality which captures the mind, the heart, and the imagination of believers. If Jesus wanted us to rely solely on the intelligence of his arguments He wouldn't have bothered with all the miracles.
Americans have First
Americans have First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, but that does not mean that those listening to the exercise of that right will not be offended. Know that Pope Benedict XVI loves God and Christianity. God through him, is lifing His people up to Himself. Christ will never be approved of by the world nor by its standards. Taking offense is a common tactic in the attempt to bring another down to one's own level, to try to make another "water-down" what the other has said. My hope is that Benedict keeps on speaking openly and clearly, and that those listening will open their hearts and minds and hear him, truly.
Praise to our Lord, Jesus
Praise to our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Benedict, is our pope. He, is an old man. He seems to me, to be the last papal link to a collegium of latin taught seminarians, for whom, the Church, among other things, was a scholastic haven of peacefull comfort. Think on these words of Wordsworth: "Nothing can bring back the splendour of the grass, the glory of the field, we must grieve not, but draw strength from what remains behind." What remains is Christ. His love, His mercy, His Church, all of which are eternal. Within this church, we have our liturgy. The point of our Liturgy is communion. Communion with Christ, and with each other . Hearing the words of consecration in the native tounge is the most real way to understand The Word. "This is my body... My blood, which has been shed for you." It was so, for the Fathers, it is for us. If latin works best for some, so be it .
Let's move on.
John Allen has done much to join us in faith.
The message of our Lord is simply put: Love. Our pope loves us. He loves his church, and wants to help it (us) achieve salvation. We must love him as he struggles to preserve, what, to him, is sanctified. Let us pray for him, and for all the church. Amen.
Francesco Maceri I don't
Francesco Maceri
I don't think Benedict has in mind Christianity and the church as Platonic forms; actually he is speaking of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and refering to the 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church', as we profess in the Creed. This is the Church of Christ, not invented by churchmen, but revealed in the New Testament, especially in Paul's letters.
I agree wholeheartedly,
I agree wholeheartedly, jpiszker.
I noticed the spin beginning as soon as Benedict was made pope. Within days after his election, I saw an interview of Cardinal Pell (not one of my heroes, to say the least) on EWTN. He was talking to Raymond Arroyo about what a surprise Ratzinger would be as pope.
The gist of the remarks was that we would probably expect an unpastoral pope, given the role Ratzinger played in the church under John Paul II, but that we were going to be very surprised to find that he turned out to be pastoral, once elected pope.
I have seen the press toe this line consistently after that time. The cliche is that the unpastoral Cardinal Ratzinger has turned into the surprisingly pastoral Pope Benedict XVI.
Why the need to keep emphasizing this, I wonder? If it were patently obvious, it would speak for itself, wouldn't it? The pastoral focus of a papacy ought, it seems to me, to be so much a given, that one would hardly need to comment on it.
The sad reality is that, despite his many contributions, John Paul II bequeathed to us a church torn apart, and John Paul's watchdog for orthodoxy contributed in no small part to the dismantling of Vatican II, the pitting of group against group within the church, and the alliance of the church with political movements now showing their noxious faces in ways impossible to deny.
It is hard to put back together, in a few short years, what has been so ripped apart. Faint gestures of reconciliation will not re-energize the theologians whose human rights have been denied and whose vocation in the church has been treated with contempt. It is their voices we need now to heal the church--and those voices have been silenced, as those theologians have been shoved from the table.
William D. Lindsey
Francesco~ There is no
Francesco~ There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that Ratzinger is a good, sincere, extremely intelligent and well-intentioned man. I do however agree with John Allen on this one. His Regensberg speech, as per the text, seems to bolster this "platonic" perspective. I think too that there are evidences there of questionable grasp of grounding. Like Johnny Cochrane arguing for OJ, once you grant him freedom from the evidence he's got you in his world. If you read his letter to the bishops on the role of (men and)women in the church and society it really does, to me, exhibit fatal flaws in his manner of thinking.
He seems so convinced that he is right and so accustomed to being listened to without objection that he seems not to listen to himself not to others.
Dennis, I think your right
Dennis, I think your right on your opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger on his letter on the role of men and women in the church. After reading it I felt like he forgot to get WOMEN to let him know what their perspective was and so he speculated on their role in the church from his male perspective. But I also expected him to write something like that because of his position. It like the Good cop bad cop routine. Pope John Paul was the good cop. And Cardinal Ratzinger was like his bulldog on a lease. Snapping at the radicals of the church that would have things change too fast. His position as defender of the faith, was to represent the more conservative aspect of the church which appeared to be in the majority at the time.
I believe he sacrificed himself and used his expertise at conveying and relaying dogmatic principles to present the position of the church that was required of him.
I always expected him to behave differently as Pope, because then he would be in the good cop position. I wondered if he'd be able to make the transition. As we've seen it's been some what difficult for him to get into the charismatic grove. But I do believe he would like to do that. I still believe if he lives long enough, he will be able to get to being a recognized charismatic persona.
God Bless our Pope! May the Holy Spirit guide him and through him, guide and reach us (his church) with God's Love. Amen.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Please explain to me why it
Please explain to me why it is constantly necessary to provide "spin" for this pope? He says something, but, no, that is not what he really said. Therein lies the problem of someone who is an ideologue and not a pastoral minister. At least his predecessor had the decency to shroud his remarks in pastoral concern. God help us all.
John Allen -- You are great
John Allen -- You are great and a wouldn't miss your weekly writings for anything but I for one am proud of a Holy Father that says what he thinks and does NOT edit it to be "PC" for all. I am sick of every group being so thin skinned -- the jews when he is in Poland; the indiginous in Brazil! Lets grow up and talk to each other honestly and not edit our thoughts so we aren't really being honest and effective!
Richard
Actually, we're all prowd
Actually, we're all prowd the Pope speaks his mind without editing things to appear "Correct" whatever that means, but someone's gotta help him say it in a way that gets the message across without the controversy which actually distracts from the message, causing the import of the message to be lost and a lotta ill will generated.
The pope does not have in
The pope does not have in mind "Christianity and the church as Platonic forms". Whay he has in mind is tradtional catholic doctrine. The church is bigger than our current militant church on earth. The church isn not a purely human organization. It is the Body of Christ, headed by Jesus and populated by all thes saints. Christians and catholics may fail. Not the Church in itself. It is this supernatural reality that the pope has in mind. Not an abstraction. Even less a Platonic form.
Have you not read the
Have you not read the Regensburg address? The subject of that speech, regardless of the erroneous reports of the media, was the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian thought. Any serious student of Raztinger can clearly see the Platonic influences present in his work. The intellectual wing of the Catholic right, in fact, makes no secret of its affinity for platonism (read just a few of the articles at IgnatiusInsight.com and you'll see what I mean). Just recently, in fact, Alice Von Hildebrad wrote an article for Logos(http://muse.jhu.edu/about/publishers/logos/) entitled "Platonism: An Atrium to Christianity." The recognition of the Platonic influence on Benedict and the Catholic right needn't be seen as a criticism. It is merely a statement of fact.
SJ~ Thank you for your
SJ~ Thank you for your validation and references (without implicating you in my take on it). The Platonic influence is significant to Christian/RC thought in many respects. To me though it is more than "merely a statement of fact". Resting within the limitations of a "real-out-there-system" of reality, truth, virtue and goodness to which the church is the sole gateway and gatekeeper, is a haven of the right and the fundamentalists. Though neither an historian nor theologian, it seems only fair to suggest that this has been the dominant way since Augustine. To my mind it is the basis for the medieval model of institutional and hierarchical absolutism (as opposed to the contemporary evil- "relativism") requiring/demanding denial of self and embracing the model and the way,compliance and obeisance (control). Its breakdown has been the subject of emergency retrenchment led by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.
It does not seem to be able to sustain the Sermon on the Mount model of church (love)which is more incarnational, interior and respectful of the human dimension, individual responsibility, and development. Benedict's identification of Christ as the platonic reality seems to be an attempt to reformulate, re-vitalize and justify "command and control" by the institution.
Unfortunately, to me the retrenchment has been radical rather than reasoned or balanced.
It is my understanding the Bernard Lonergan, SJ took a more rational and contemporary, not to mention inclusive, approach to incorporating dimensions of Platonic, Aristotelian thoughts with deep respect for their evolution with Augustine and Aquinas as well as contemporary science (human and physical). Ratzinger/Benedict seems to have skipped right back to Plato/Augustine.
I strongly agree with your
I strongly agree with your points. What I'm surprised by is that so many of the posters seem to be almost offended by John Allen's assertion that "What Benedict has in mind are Christianity and the church as Platonic forms..." This statement is neither shocking nor particularly revelatory, as anyone who's really followed Benedict is already well aware of this fact. In and of itself, Allen's comment is neutral. From it you have drawn out negative implications which I find to be quite accurate. Yet, all of the posters who are defending Ratzinger/Benedict (many of whom are attacking you) find Allen's statement to be erroneous. I find this baffling, and ultimately damaging to the quality of the discussion. Would not the discussion be more constructive if, instead of rejecting Allen's analysis all together, his fans were able to point out possible positives in Benedict's platonic approach? Indeed, if not even the people who are for Benedict can understand where it is he's coming from, it's not surprising that the world at large can't either.
SJ~ Your comment is
SJ~ Your comment is brilliant and charitable. I too found the degree of negative surprising, expecting adherents to that style of church, thinking and of Pope Benedict's style to be more discursive.
It is reminiscent of traditional parents' absolute attack style defense of authority, particularly church, regardless of incident, unwillingness to hear, to think, to discuss. More often than not unable to provide a rationale but able to undermine the victim. (I am no victim here but I think my point is clear).
I suspect that is one of the unfortunate consequences of an insupportable model.
Benedict XVI doesn´t have a
Benedict XVI doesn´t have a "platonic view" of the Church. But he makes a distinction, in accordance to catholic tradition, between the Triumphant Church, the suffering Church and our militant Church. We catholics make mistakes. Even when we believe to be acting in the name of the Church. But the Whole Church, headed by Jesus Christ and populated by all saints, does not fail. That is the Church the pope is talking about. It´s not an abstraction. It´s even less a platonic idea. It´s a supernatural reality.
Gabriel Austin Much [all?]
Gabriel Austin
Much [all?] of the problem arises from the newspapers' need for sound-bites. "Platonic forms" is meaningless in this context. The Church is a reality, a thing, not a form, platonic or otherwise. In the examples you mention, the Church attempted to put a brake on the sufferings cuased. That it did not, because it could not, prevent them is taken as a reason to blame the Church.
Regensburg was not an error; consider the behavior of the Muslim world today.
Very good John Allen; very
Very good John Allen; very good Denis.
Aquinas handled the "Platonic" by observing two orders when looking at reality: the Order of Perfection (Platonic) and the Order of Generation.
The Church "teaches" from the Order of Perfection, but, hopefully, Absolves in view of the Order of Generation; we are becoming perfect; we'll never get there on Earth, but we cannot but try.
And my beef: Perhaps the Vatican should not delude itself by imagining it can "pastor" the world. Bishops, who are close to the people, should "receive" Vatican documents and then relate them to the non-ordained in a way helpful to them. For a similar reason, bishops should not release statements to the Main Stream Media (no friend of the Church), but should release them through their diocesan papers and Catholic periodicals, where the non-elite can put them into a context understandable to those they are meant to inform. -- And John Allen does his very well.
What could he say that would
What could he say that would not give offense to some group who has him forever labeled as the rigid traditionalist? On today's world stage, it is the equivalent of walking on eggshells.
Benedict XVI knows much of what he says, whether on history or Christian doctrine, will be condemned from the start by the global media.
At least he's still making headlines and keeping the Church on the front page.
When he's relegated to statements solely about safe holiday driving and helping those in need, that is the time to question his communication problem.
It's one thing for the pope
It's one thing for the pope to speak a special Christian language and be misunderstood by people who take offense, then get clarification, and go on to dislike him, and perhaps, Christianity, less. It is, however, the reality that there are plenty of people who take the pope literally,who do not realize this is a special Christian language and proclaim what they hear without modification or clarification, claiming an obligation to be offensive in defense of the Church and the faith.
Dennis clearly despises this
Dennis clearly despises this Pope, as well as his so-called Platonic thinking. He looks down on this most brilliant living theologian with these arrogant words: "One of his 'deficiencis' is that he abstracts from reality and then creates a system from/of abstractions. That's not the worst of it though: where he really fails us,and the faithful is believing that his system is real, that abstractions and systems of abstractions reflect reality." And on and on "ad nauseam."
Dennis even goes on to say about Pope Benedict: "The dark side does live and is in danger of emerging. Biases...and the blindness of pride, as in seeing only what he wishes to communicate are inevitable."
My parting advice for Dennis is this: Pick up a copy of the Pope's recent masterpiece, "Jesus of Nazareth," and prayerfully meditate on it. It might do you some good. And, by the way, a little humility would go a long way.
Gino Dalpiaz
"Dennis clearly despises
"Dennis clearly despises this man....And, by the way, a little humility would go a long way", Gino ad hominem gets you no points. No,I don't despise this man and no, I haven't yet read his "Jesus of Nazareth". Never the less my references to the text of his speech at Regensberg and his "letter to the bishops...on the collaboration of men and women in the church and the world" stand. Even the "most brilliant of living theologians" might have weaknesses and when such brilliance abuses the intelligence of the ordinary person,intended or otherwise, they warrant being called.
With respect to Dennis'
With respect to Dennis' comment about Pope Benedict's supposed failure to see the "dark side" of the human condition, I think he is guilty of the same type of abstraction for which he I think he unjustly accuses Pope Benedict: he has abstracted a "strawman" Benedict from isolated and misinterpreted comments, pretended taht that strawman has true existence, and then criticized him.
Benedict's comments about "filth" within the Church, first mentioned in his pre-papal Via Crucis meditations and then specified in great detail later in various papal discourses, demonstrate that he is very much aware of the concrete instantiations of the "dark side," in himself, in others within the Church, and in others outside the Church.
On the point of abstraction in general: To teach synthetically involves generalization, and generalization involves abstraction, but, please, let's not pretend that that's tantamount to believing in the independent existence of Platonic forms or that such generalizations have "no right to be posited as truth." The generalizations may be true or false, and if they're true — because they correspond to reality, not "are" reality — then they have a right to be posited as true.
While the scholastic axiom
While the scholastic axiom remains valid that "everything is received according to the mode of the receiver," and while it is indisputable that Pope Benedict — as anyone! — could profit from those who could give him antecedent feedback about how to make his message even more effective by tailoring it more specifically to the mode of the various recipients who will hear or read his words, there is something absolutely refreshing in his telling it clearly as he sees it.
He's primarily a teacher of the Gospel, much more than a statesman, and certainly not a politician. The desire to communicate the truth seems to trump a desire to be politically correct or to spend too much of his time worrying about how the hypersensitive might take what he says out of context. Unlike many today in the Church who have forgotten that Jesus was controversial and ended up crucified for teaching things in ways that raised people's ire so much that they sought to put him to death, Pope Benedict recognizes that he, too, will be a sign of contradiction and seems very much to be at peace with it.
Some today would doubtless think that Jesus could have profited from focus groups telling him how his words would be misinterpreted by the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin and used to seek to put him to death. Some would think that they could have coached him how better to communicate with Pontius Pilate. But Jesus came to "give witness to the truth," as he said to Pilate, and Benedict is committed to continuing his divine Boss' mission.
At the end of the introduction to his new non-magisterial book on Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict writes, "I only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding." Most of the criticism that comes against what Benedict says, whether in Regensburg or Brazil, emanates from those who seem to have neither that goodwill nor that understanding.
If only the "traditionalist"
If only the "traditionalist" and "conservatives" who posted would give their adversaries "that initial goodwill."
Revelation: There is a definite pattern that manifests itself not only in the Church, but in politics. The pattern is like this: if anyone says anything against the Pope, even if it is healthy criticism that would lead to fruitful dialogue and positive change, the conservatives start wagging their finger and start laying blame, even accusing one of "hating" the Pope.
We saw just that sort of thing in the US of conservatives and Bushites accusing anyone that said anything against support for the War in Iraq, who were labeled as anti-American or being unpatriotic. It is the same sort of spirit at work in our Church.
Now, we have the same sort of "thinking" pattern in our Church, towards those who, with Christian charity try to speak the truth, are openly labeled as "haters" of the Pope. They are all too willing to say that the criticizer lacks "goodwill" and/or "understanding."
In truth, the Conservatives lack that goodwill and understanding toward their fellow Christians. It is time the Conservatives looked at their own actions and how very often they lack "goodwill", need to read more in-depth material other than right-wing leaning sources and become more contemplative and learn to listen and address their own ignorance before blaming and accusing, for true "understanding."
The problem is that they believe they have all of the answers, but do not listen to others who have valid comments and criticism that is based on thinking that is beyond the narrow perspective of conservativism and medieval or only Platonic or only Augustian systems of thought.
The "conservative" form of approaching and solving problems seems to be in ignoring the ideas and thoughts of others, distorting and mislabeling the entire substance of another's views, condemning such thought as adversarial and/or hateful. Such a systematic approach leads to movements in the Church reminiscent of the Inquisition, in which adversarial thought was a threat and was punished, books were condemned and burned, people were condemned and burned, tortured, etc. In our current time we witness the talk of "excommunication" or excluding certain people from receiving communion, all because one's spiritual, religious, or political views are different. It is the same sort of inquisitional spirit and politically defensive spirit that we see now and has been the same spirit and thought that has been going around and around throughout time.
True Christian thought does not lead one to Inquisitional movements or quasi-inquisitional institutions. All that is of disgrace brings one to inquisitional-type "solutions" to problems. Conservatives should beware of the substance that is in their thought and dogma and become aware that it is not Christian if it does not contain faith, hope and love toward their fellow man and woman.
Faith itself seems distorted by the conservative to mean something that it is not. Faith is not something that can be imposed. Faith is a true gift from God. One becomes a believer in God, by that Faith given by God. One does not become a believer in God by a religion or faith that is given from an institution or a law from the Church or the State. That is something that the conservatives don't seem to "understand." Consequently, by their not understanding this simple and beautiful truth of Faith as a gift from God, their entire way of seeing and believing is distorted and dysfunctional, condemnational and condescending towards others with any different understanding. Recently, they seem to want to always call the differences in thought "cultural relativism." That seems to be their answer for everything. If they don't understand something you have said, don't agree with something you have said, they will call it "cultural relativism."
The conservative becomes, by their own unthinking, the modern day Pharisees of our time. It is a terrible tragedy of our time to witness this form of "conservatism" which seems politically to be very reactionary, obsessively over-protective of traditional doctrine, blindly following the heirarchy of church leaders views (that should be scrutinized because of the Church's history of Inquisition), and they seem to be consumed with the desire to enforce and control humility and/or punishment on others, rather than on the truly Christian way of love for one another.
For a poster to suggest that someone needs "humbling" means that the poster is the one who needs humility even more. I have faith that God will provide it.
A pertinent question of our time might be: does the Church just want to keep and bring more bodies into the Church, or will the Church focus on keeping and bringing itself into the saving body of Christ?
Free people want to be
Free people want to be persuaded, not ordered around. Programs of Mind Control, Coercion and Brain-Washing will not get it done anymore, if in fact they ever really did. The Beauty of the Sacraments and the entire worship experience is the most engaging gift that church possesses to attract and keep its flock involved.
Fr. Andrew Greeley has posted articles on his website, agreeley.com , that address this problem directly. ' On Respecting the Freedom of the Laity ' , ' The Apologetics of Beauty ' , and ' Authority as Charm ' , are three of the most compelling with relation to your post. He has also prominently displayed his weekly columns from the Chicago Sun-Times that speak to the Social and Political implications that you have illuminated.
Fr. Greeley has also decried the highly inappropriate worship of holy persons within the hierarchy of the church. Authoritarian Pragmatism is what has led to the mediocrity of the Faith Experience, according to Greeley. The remedy is readily available, but its alot of trouble and costs money too. Very many important priorities must be addressed ! Do we really have a choice though, or the time to waste ?
The Beautiful... Acquaints Us With The Mental Event Of Conviction
Antonious~ It might be
Antonious~ It might be useful to establish some context from the start. You conclude by alleging that "Most of the criticism that comes against what Benedict says whether in Regensburg or Brazil,emanates from those who seem to have neither that goodwill nor that understanding". Given your track record, one day and nine hours, you have little ground to question anyone's goodwill here in the cafe.
I will, however, concede without question the point on "understanding". That is why I would think that Benedict should be held to a higher standard.
Your point about my setting up a 'strawman' is very interesting and I will review my own stuff carefully. It is the scholastic strawman mechanism that I found intolerable with the then Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on the role of women, and his blase condemnation of "modernism","relativism" etc.,etc. An earlier comment by "Justme" noted that Benedict is an old man who seems to be the last papal link to a collegium of latin taught seminarians for whom the church among other things was a scholastic haven of peaceful comfort". The strawman was a favorite haven of the scholastic seminary teachers who got away with it because of acquiescent seminarians and similarly disposed "simple" Catholics. No more, and that is a good thing.
You quote Benedict: "I only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding". Hans Kung and Father Sorbino and many other brilliant theologians of good faith naively expected the same from this man, our Pope and were disappointed. I might expect the same from you, and Gino.
One might also refer to
One might also refer to "deficiencies". One of his "deficiencies" is that he abstracts from reality and then creates a system from/of abstractions. That's not the worst of it though; where he really fails us, and the faithful is believing that his system is real, that abstractions and systems of abstractions reflect reality. "What Benedict has in mind are Christianity and the Church as platonic forms", Allen writes. That is almost the nail on the head. Platonic forms do not exist and like untested hypotheses, have no right to be posited as truth. He believes that finding scriptural passage or quote from the fathers to justify his interpretation is sufficient. More, the reality that he must jettison to reach his abstraction and system he seems to deny or condemn as bits and pieces of dangerous (if not evil)relativism.
There is another bit of reality that seems to escape him. No matter how disciplined, no matter how Augustine'like he may think he has emptied himself and taken on the persona of reasoned holiness, or that he lives on the platonic plane, the dark side does live and is in danger of emerging. Biases (like the Regensberg faux pas) and the blindness of pride, as in seeing only what he wishes to communicate are inevitable. But most of all, those inconvenient bits and pieces of reality that seem so inconsequential as to be denied, ignored, dismissed or condemned are essential to the human condition, that is you and me, otherwise Christ need not have had to get dust on His feet or nails in his limbs.
Dennis, I agree. It seems
Dennis, I agree. It seems ironic to me that someone affiliated with a communion movement would have communication problems, since both words come from the same Latin roots: making something or someone one with something or someone else.
Popes are (I'd have thought) first and foremost pastoral leader, pastoral leaders of the biggest church in Christianity. Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep"--in other words, be a good pastor.
It seems to me that good shepherding requires a a very clear interface between what the shepherd says and does, and his pastoral role. Given the biblical evidence for the role assigned to Peter, I'd expect pastoral use of language--pastoral intent--to be first and foremost in how a pope regards communication/communion.
Isn't something fundamentally awry, when we feel compelled to rationalize a smart man's constant lapses of language, particularly when that man is a pastor and the linguistic lapses often seem to be causing pain to one group or another? It strikes me as special pleading to say that Benedict is a Platonist and a profound theologian speaking a specialized language.
For me, the bottom line seems to be that, neither in his previous Curial role as watchdog for orthodoxy nor now as pope, Benedict is simply not strongly pastoral--never has been, never will be.
And the church has suffered a lot from this and will continue to do so.
William D. Lindsey
Is it special pleading to
Is it special pleading to claim that Benedict should be pardoned for the misinterpretations of his words? Only if one is unwilling to pardon others for being offensive on accident.
My concern is that most of the people I have encountered understand the world around them only through their own worldview. Usually this excludes all the other worldviews as wrong/foolish/blind.
Think about that first question phrased slightly differently. Is it special pleading to say that Benedict thinks and speaks like a highly trained and skilled theologian and is misunderstood when people try to understand him as if he were a politician or local pastor guiding individuals through the particular sins around them?
An inversion of that case. Is it right and proper to pardon an American gay activist when he offends his coreligionists in Africa by acting on his assumptions? Is it right to pardon an activist who misunderstands an old bishop because he neglects to consider that bishops known beliefs and then calls that bishop a liar when the bishop corrects the activist (in an unkindly manner)?
Rmgalliher, I took a stab at
Rmgalliher, I took a stab at replying to you yesterday, but the posting hasn't yet appeared on the board. In my initial reply, I indicated I wasn't sure if I was understanding you.
Maybe I could respond more clearly if I had more specific information about the case you cite at the end of your posting. You say,
"Is it right to pardon an activist who misunderstands an old bishop because he neglects to consider that bishops known beliefs and then calls that bishop a liar when the bishop corrects the activist (in an unkindly manner)?"
Is it possible for you to give more specifics about the case you seem to be discussing, in which "an American gay activist" has offended "an old bishop," who then corrected that "activist" "in an unkindly manner," and was called a liar by the "activist"?
If such a series of events has happened in recent years in the American church, and you can provide some information about those events, I might be able to respond to your posting with more clarity. I appreciate your clarification!
William D. Lindsey
Rmgaliher, I'm not entirely
Rmgaliher, I'm not entirely sure if I understand your reply. But I'll take a stab at responding. If I have misread what you're saying, please tell me.
You ask, "Is it special pleading to say that Benedict thinks and speaks like a highly trained and skilled theologian and is misunderstood when people try to understand him as if he were a politician or local pastor guiding individuals through the particular sins around them?"
If I understand what you're saying, you see some kind of distinction between the way a pope speaks as a theologian, and they way a "local pastor" speaks to individuals.
This is the point my own reflections are probing. Should there be such a radical disconnect between the language used by a "local pastor" guiding individuals, and the pastoral language used by the pope as the chief shepherd of the church?
Should papal language about issues demanding pastoral response be incomprehensible to anyone except trained theologians? Or should the papal view of the church be removed from the real world to a Platonic realm of idealism, where no real individuals live?
This is not to say that a pope's pastoral language shouldn't be informed by good theology. It's to say that (in my view) what people expect of a pope is pastoral guidance.
I have strong problems with the view that the "top" pastoral leaders of the church are like CEO leaders who are removed from the real, everyday lives of those at the "bottom." In ecclesiological terms, this translates into a view of church in which the hierarchy seems to shield itself in layers and layers of rhetoric that removes those at the "top" from the lived experience of those at the "bottom." And the "ordinary" parish priest is then delegated to translate or interpret those precepts from on high for people's everyday lives.
As to the American gay activist reference, I assume that refers to me. I wonder what makes someone a gay activist? I'm a theologian with a passion for many different issues. I suppose one could consider me an activist on each of those fronts that concerns me.
But as a theologian, I suppose I'd simply say that if I'm an activist, it's to see the church living in conformity to gospel values.
William D. Lindsey
Now, to clear out the easy
Now, to clear out the easy point. I wasn't thinking of you when I mentioned the activist and the bishop. I was thinking of an incident between Dr. Louie Crew and the retired Archbishop of Canterbury both of whom are part of the Anglican Communion.
Moving to the point I tried to make in my original post. You did misread what I was saying. On reflection I didn't say it clearly enough. The point that concerns me starts from my observation that what a person says, writes, and does is strongly shaped by the person's worldview, which is particularly shaped by education. To that observation I add the observation that many people don't take the Other's worldview into consideration when they speak. The problem I see is that it is common for individuals to condemn those outside their group for failing to consider how the Other will understand them, while they themselves do the same thing without condemning each other.
Here is another example of this problem, from my perspective.
Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria has said that the leaders of the Episcopal Church are heretics because they accepted a partnered gay man as a bishop and sometimes approve gay marriages. He has even consecrated a bishop in the US to convert the Episcopal Church to what he sees as the truth. The leaders of the Episcopal Church, particularly Dr. Louie Crew, have condemned Archbishop Akinola as a homophobe and hypocrite because he supported a Nigerian law banning homosexual organizations after signing a document urging all signatories to engage in dialog with homosexual people. More recently Dr. Crew put an image on his website regarding Archbishop Akinola. It says “We’re Proud of Your Accomplishment. Akinola joins Ahmadinejad, Al-Zawhiri, Al-Sadr, and Chavez on Time’s Magazines 100 most influential people.” In between the first sentence and the rest is a composite picture with all five of the people named.
The trouble I see is that each side is doing what is culturally unthinkable for the other, and then condemning their opponent for following the local culture.
On this forum the problem seems to be much less serious then in the Episcopal Church. Thank goodness.
Re: Gay-baiting and
Re: Gay-baiting and Religious Schism: Louie Crew is a lay gay activist with no canonical leadership status in the Episcopal Church of America. Peter Akinola is a Bishop and Primate of the Anglican Communion. The relative ecclesial authority and moral obligation of the two vis-a-vis each other or the Anglican Communion is completely without comparison.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)
Thank you for the
Thank you for the clarification, rmgalliher.
Here's my take on the questions you raise: no culture represents the reign of God in its purity. All culture are subject to the critique of the gospel.
One of the church's primary callings is to be in dialogue with all cultures, and to foster productive dialogue between cultures, always seeking to discern what the Spirit is saying to that particular cultural context (and to the church from within that cultural context), always reading the gospel in light of that particular culture situation.
Dialogue is the word I would emphasize. There needs to be ongoing dialogic interaction between the church and culture, since nobody--and I include the church in that statement--unilaterally owns the truth of the gospel. We hear the gospel with new ears throughout history, and part of our ability to listen anew depends on listening carefully to particular cultural contexts.
At the same time, we subject those cultures to the critique of the gospel. We recognize that no particular culture is ever a full realization of the reign of God. We keep moving forward together, culture in dialogue with culture, church in dialogue with culture, living in hope that we are moving to the reign of God.
To concretize all of this: it seems to me entirely appropriate for gay Episcopalians to ask how Archbishop Akinola can encourage the church to engage in dialogue with homosexual people and then support a draconian anti-gay law in his own nation. That law, by the way, does far more than "ban homosexual organizations." It criminalizes any expression of affection (no qualifications--hands touching as a basket of bread is passed in a restaurant) between members of the same sex.
Anti-gay laws originated in the colonial culture of the British who took possession of that part of Africa in the colonial era. Anti-gay laws are not even a "deep" expression of African culture. Christians in the West who say that we are violating African cultural norms if we critique homophobia in African culture seem unaware that this homophobia is often imported from the West itself.
In conclusion, I think I'm less sanguine than you about how the NCR forum illustrates problems less serious than those in the Episcopal church. When I read comments by my co-religionists speaking of thin-skinned Jews in Poland or outraged native people in Latin America, my own skin crawls. I wonder how any version of Christianity lends itself so easily to hate rhetoric. Auschwitz is rooted in such rhetoric.
As a priest friend of mine says, if we want to know our real history, we always listen carefully to what our enemies tell us about our history. If Christians want to know the real history of Christianity, they need to listen carefully (dialogically) to Jews, the native peoples of various "christianized" lands, gay and lesbian people, women, and so on....
William D. Lindsey
Bill, thanks for your
Bill, thanks for your comment. Your understanding of ECUSA's difficulty with Peter Akinola is better info
I think that this column and
I think that this column and that various letters above miss one fundamental point: There is nothing wrong with what this pope said. Nothing. I invite you all to read the ENTIRE speech line by line. For example, here is the "offending" paragraph, directly drawn from the Vatican website.
"Yet what did the acceptance of the Christian faith mean for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean? For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing. It also meant that they received, in the waters of Baptism, the divine life that made them children of God by adoption; moreover, they received the Holy Spirit who came to make their cultures fruitful, purifying them and developing the numerous seeds that the incarnate Word had planted in them, thereby guiding them along the paths of the Gospel. In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbian cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture. Authentic cultures are not closed in upon themselves, nor are they set in stone at a particular point in history, but they are open, or better still, they are seeking an encounter with other cultures, hoping to reach universality through encounter and dialogue with other ways of life and with elements that can lead to a new synthesis, in which the diversity of expressions is always respected as well as the diversity of their particular cultural embodiment."
Please notice a few things. He refers to the pre-Columbian cultures as "authentic" and "open" and addresses how their diversity should be respected. In adddition, he makes the same argument that St. Paul makes in Acts 17 when he addresses the Greek temple to an unknown God. That is, the pre-Columbian people already had a longing, as did the Greeks (and indeed all of us), for a God who fulfills them. In saying this, Benedict is only putting into effect the great line from the first paragraph of St. Augustine's Confessions: "Lord, you made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." That is, the pre-Columbian peoples could never, as humans, know Truth and satisfaction until Christ entered their lives. Their anthropology, as creatures of God, called for Jesus Christ in order to be complete. That is why Christ can never be an imposition and why any resurgance of a pre-Christian religion would be a step backward. This is true of ALL humans. Christ could no more be an imposition on them than it was on the Irish, the Portugese, the Romans, or anyone else whom He completes. There is a teleology here (an Aristotelian one, not a Platonic one) that Benedict is saying. To mis-report or misrepresent that is really quite a shame.
John, I wish you had never written this piece. It is quoted all over the place by those who did not read the Pope's speech and who completely misunderstood his completely orthodox statements here. He should apologize for nothing. The whole speech is something John Paul II could easily have written. The difference is, however, people in the media were not gunning for him in the same way. I think your letter here only gave them more ammunition. It would have been more profitable, I believe, to explain in depth what indeed that Pope was saying, rather than the problems with how others thought he said it. Please read the whole speech at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070513_conference-aparecida_en.html
It is truly a beautiful and respectful statement to all.