Pope in France: Explaining Benedict's discretion on Islam
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Paris
Pope Benedict XVI is anything but a careless thinker, and even his omissions are usually significant. In that light, as the pope winds up the Paris leg of his first trip to France, one cannot help but wonder about his basic silence on the subject of Islam.
France, after all, has the largest Muslim population in Europe, and it continues to struggle with how to reconcile its commitment to laïcité with the religious sensitivities of this burgeoning Muslim presence. Moreover, Benedict spoke yesterday on the second anniversary of his famous Regensburg address, and his audience at the Collège des Bernardins included a small delegation of Muslims.
Further, it’s not as if inter-faith commentary was simply impossible or inappropriate. Earlier in the day, Benedict gave an address to a group of Jews which included a strong denunciation of anti-Semitism and interesting, albeit brief, theological comments on the importance of the Abrahamic covenant.
Yet Benedict’s lone reference to Islam came in what was almost a throw-away line at the beginning of his speech yesterday evening at the Collège des Bernardins: “I thank the delegates of the French Islamic community for having accepted the invitation to participate in this meeting,” he said. “I convey to them my best wishes for the holy season of Ramadan already underway.”
Efforts to find other allusions to Islam in the pope's words were not altogether convincing. Some, for example, read a reference to “fundamentalist fanaticism” as an indirect allusion to Islamic radicalism, but in context it seemed clear the pope was talking about fundamentalisms of all sorts as a reaction against secularism. Similarly, Benedict referred in his speech at the Elysèe Palace to young people “testing the limits of religious communitarianism,” which is certainly a challenge in many French Muslim communities, but this too was a fleeting and indirect point.
Equally striking is that Benedict never mentioned the subject of immigration while in Paris, which was billed by spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi as the segment of this trip specifically addressed to France. (Once Benedict arrives in Lourdes later today, the focus becomes more universal.) Immigration is a subject the pope has addressed several times in other contexts, and it's a theme of obvious importance in France, above all for recent Muslim immigrants.
(To be fair, Benedict did refer at the Elysèe to the need for efforts “to protect the weak and promote their dignity,” bit without connecting that point specifically to immigration.)
Given all that, one could perhaps forgive French Muslims for feeling a bit slighted. Dali Boubaker, rector of the mosque of Paris, said, "We would have liked to hear some emphasis on interreligious dialogue, between Islam and the church, and about shared values."
How to explain the papal reticence on what is, by all accounts, a matter of enormous import both for the Catholic church and for France?
Several possibilities suggest themselves.
First, Benedict XVI is a figure legendarily indifferent to the canons of political correctness and to popular expectations about what he “should” say or do. Perhaps Benedict simply felt that during his day and a half in the French capital he wished to deliver a clear message to French culture about laïcité, and on this occasion didn’t want to muddy the waters with a laundry list of other points.
Second, Benedict may well have felt that he’s said enough in other settings about Christian/Muslim relations, and that he will have another opportunity for a major address on the subject in early November when the first session of the new “Catholic-Muslim Forum,” launched in the wake of his Regensburg address, meets in the Vatican to discuss the themes of “Love of God, Love of Neighbor”, “Theological and Spiritual Foundation”, and “Human Dignity and Mutual Respect”.
Third, Benedict may have concluded that making any reference to Regensburg and the controversies which followed would simply risk opening old wounds. In any event, his speech at the Collège des Bernardins in its own way did treat of the relationship between reason and faith, which was also the meat of his Regensburg lecture. In other words, one could suggest that the speech at the Collège des Bernardins was actually what Regensburg might have been, had it not been for the opening quotation from a 14th century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Muhammad brought things “only evil and inhuman.”
Fourth, it’s generally understood on papal trips that the pontiff will steer clear of direct commentary on local politics, and perhaps the calculation was that wading into such divisive subjects as Islam and immigration would bring the pope dangerously close to breaking this informal taboo. That might have been a special concern given that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is generally seen as something of a hawk on Islamic immigration, so that any extended commentary from the pope might have risked embarrassing his host.
Fifth, it’s clear that Benedict XVI sees religious believers of all stripes in contemporary Europe as natural allies, over against a form of secularism that can be hostile to any public role for religious bodies. In the end, the basic fault line Benedict sees in the world runs not between Islam and the West, but between belief and unbelief – and in that struggle, he believes that a reinvigorated Christianity and a reformed Islam should stand shoulder-to-shoulder. By pressing his case in France for a reconsideration of laïcité, the pope may have felt that he moving the ball on Christian/Muslim relations, even if he didn’t explicitly make the connection.
Sixth, it’s possible that the question of how to reach out to France’s Muslim population came up in the behind-closed-doors session between Benedict and Sarkozy, as opposed to being part of a public speech.
In any event, at least at this stage of Benedict XVI’s trip to France, Islam looms as the great missing element of the pope’s message. Whether his discretion proves to be the better part of valor, or a damaging oversight, is a question with which French commentators and experts on Christian/Muslim relations will doubtless be wrestling in the weeks to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Allen is filing stories throughout the pope's visit to France and Lourdes. Read all the stories in his daily news column: John L Allen Jr Daily Column. Stories he has already filed include:
Sept 15
• Pope in France: A lesson in 'Marian cool'
Sept 14
• Pope offers prayerful meditation on Eucharist: Jesus 'past, present and future'
• Pope in France: Traditionalists deserve 'a place in the church'
• The Cross, Mary, and hope for 'new vigor' in the Church
Sept 13
• Pope tells shrunken church, 'Don't be afraid'
• Lourdes: Nothing says 'Catholic' like the Virgin Mary
• Explaining Benedict's discretion on Islam
Sept 12
• No reference to Muslims, but pope makes a call to resist 'disaster for humanity'
• Benedict makes a case for 'healthy secularism'
• Pope in France: Averting a secular Iron Curtain
• Pope in France: Latin Mass an 'act of tolerance'
Earlier stories
• Extracts from Sarkozy on church/state relations in France
• Cardinal Tauran on the pope's trip to France
• The Marian Papacy of Benedict XVI
• Benedict hopes to tap the 'creative minority' of French Catholics
(Editor's Note: Some stories are double posted, on NCRonline.org and on NCRcafe.org.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In one of my opinions,and
In one of my opinions,and I've got quite a few. Christ said "Peter thou art rock! And upon this rock I will build my CHURCH!" Did He really say CHURCH? Jesus was a Jew! Jewish people don't go to church, they go to temple. Temple,...a building or place designated to the worship or presence of a diety! I am not educated or even intelligent and I never translated the bible, but I am absolutely certain that He didn't say, "Upon this rock I will build my wealth!" or "Upon this rock I will build my corporation!" or "Upon dis rock I will build my BIDNIZ!" Maybe Peter knew what He said and passed it on to his successors, but, somewhere along the line it all ran into human nature and the quote became a raison d'etre for the propagation and perpetuation of "THE" church, according to the interpretation of some very shady characters. (some of whom I had very personal and intimate contact with as an eight year old "orpahn".)
Another one of these "opinions" of mine concerns the fact that I don't truly believe that Catholicism, has any thing to do with the worship of, or presence of a Diety for any purposes other than proselytizing the corporate line, and the clink of the coin in the corporate coffers!
The magesterium, (ain't that some kind of name? Why don't we call God something like that? Every body's God is "God"! Volcano erupts, burns a whole island, kills a bunch of people and the "Chief" says, "Mountain God angry, must have sacrifice!" Huricaine blows the village away, kills a bunch of people, and the "Chief" says, "God of the Sea must be appeased with sacrifice!" Our God destroyed Soddom an Gamorrah, caused a great flood, parted, for Moses, the Red sea and drowned a whole passel of Egyptians. If that's what happens when you anger somebody named GOD! Boy you better not piss off somebody named MAGESTERIUM! WOW!!!)
Quite obviously, to me anyway, most catholics have no respect(read..fear)for God! Obviously the Bishops(EXCELLENCIES!) have not the respect (read..fear) to follow even canon law, much less an edict from the Pope (EMINENCE!)who dosen't believe all that stuff in the first place! How'd he get to be Pope? Ever hear of a corporate precept called "The Peter Principal"? It states that in "structured" organizations, people rise to their level of incompetence!
He also said, " Render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars and to God, that which is Gods!"
The very noment any of those men laid a hand on a kid, he belonged to CEASAR! Have they been rendered unto Ceasar! Quite the opposite. Where's the respect(read..fear) for God in that?
How many of those kids and their families were persecuted by the church (clergy and laity) and her legal minions? Where's the respect (read..fear) for God in that?
How many lives have been destroyed by the collecting and warehousing of cildren in asylums, for the entertainment and enjoyment of the corporate hoypaloy and sacrifice to MAGESTERIUM?
If MAGESTERIUM should decree that all be made right with God, Then, by God! It would be done! Now that's respect!(read..fear)
I REST MY CASE!
SJ~ As usual, your posts are
SJ~ As usual, your posts are sholarly and balanced. I do believe, COL55 that you did go overboard on your castigation. In fairness to both, the church is neither efficient, effective nor consistent in its communication. For an institution that prides itself in its "teaching" authority it has very little skill or accountability in this role. This is exacerbated by pietists proclaiming the absolutism of their personal interpretations as if it represented the breadth and nuance that is hidden (emphasis on hidden) and getting away with it. Bishops are loath to take their brothers to task or to even demonstrate that a strident viewpoint is not ex cathedra let alone wayward. Their allegiance is to the brotherhood, not the community. For all I know, censure is not equal to a charge of heresy but it carries all of the implied overtones. The frequent failure of the censured to carry on and the heepish behavior of institutions and colleagues in excluding them seem to demonstrate that authority to denounce is as significant as ex cathedra pronouncing.
Love ya both.
Thank you Dennis, you are
Thank you Dennis, you are correct. SJ's responses have caused me to step back and reevaluate what I thought I knew. On the one hand, it is refreshing to hear the honesty of SJ's responses, but on the other hand, it bothers me that so much of what I was taught over the years by various "authorities" that I trusted is turning out to be error.
Am I being naive in expecting to have leadership that at least tries to hold themselves to a higher standard of integrity and authenticity? There are human failings like forgetting to put something important on the calendar that are part of our humanity. But from my perspective, dishonesty, theft, abuse etc. are unacceptable behaviors for anyone, especially one who is in a position of spiritual leadership. Am I expecting too much?
No Col55, I do not think
No Col55, I do not think that you are naive, you are passionate. As I tried to describe in my post above, the failure of hierarchy to take on their colleagues/peers when they are in error, in breach of their obligations or 'over the top' or proclaiming opinion as if it were ex-cathedra (I know, only the Pope can...)is, in my mind, equivalent to co-conspiracy. It is a clear choice to protect the 'boys' rather than the children of the church (i.e., you, me and the children), to serve the institution rather than the community. So, as a 'brotherhood' the hierarchy is culpable. Maybe they 'chide' their brothers privately but they leave us the scandalized, confused and hurt as we were: scandalized, confused, hurt and angry.
Maybe his momma told him,
Maybe his momma told him, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Perhaps this pope will come to terms with the significant dissonance in his perspective on Islam.
The Holy Father said this on
The Holy Father said this on Friday, in France :-
By her very nature, the Catholic Church feels called to respect the Covenant established by God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. She also places herself, in fact, in the eternal Covenant of the Almighty, who does not repent of his plan and respects the children of the Promise, children of the Covenant, as her beloved brothers in the faith. She repeats forcefully, through my voice, the words of the great Pope Pius XI, my venerated predecessor: "Spiritually, we are Semites" (Address to Belgian pilgrims, Sept. 6, 1938).
www.zenit.org/article-23609?l=english
Semites, of course, are the ancient people of the Middle East. Not only the Israelities but also the Arabs. Hence, spiritually, we are also not only Jewish but also Muslim.
Which I think is a extremely pretty powerful statement of solidarity with Islam, although one perhaps easily overlooked.
God Bless
Why is there so much
Why is there so much surprise about the silence around islam?
His silence speaks for itself.
The pope believes the doctrines of the catholic church
--- one true church, the only true church
--- the catholic church has all of the truth
--- everything not catholic is heresy
--- anyone who is not catholic is a heretic
what is he going to say?
anything he said that would promote unity and harmony would be a lie.
if he stated the truth, the muslim world would be infuriated
you are correct, his silence speaks volumens
--- everything not catholic
--- everything not catholic is heresy
--- anyone who is not catholic is a heretic
Are you not familiar with the documents of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and the Cathechism of the Catholic Church? They don't seem to support your conclusions that these are "the doctrines of the catholic church" at all.
Furthermore, where are the quotes from Benedict/Ratzinger which show him to believe that all non-Catholics are heretics? Unless, of course, you expect us to simply take your word that you know the pope's personal thoughts.
I pulled the following off
I pulled the following off one of todays posts. This post demonstrates an attitude that is prevelant in too many members of the catholic church, including the magisterial leadership. The individual who wrote this demonstrates the hatred that is an inherent aspect of the "one true church" doctrine.
Just an aside, most of what he stated seems to be repetition of Pope Benedicts July 2007 speech.
------------------------------- (begin post)
There is No Such thing as 'Christian' anything if it is Not Catholic. There are No Christian Churches and no Christian Pastors- Only Catholics can rightfully use the name Christian.
Obviously our separated brothers are not planning to return to the fold and as such they put the English speaking world at risk of going the same way as Constantinople- The most powerful and richest empire of it's time.
Those that are not with us are against us. The sooner we all get that message the better. Stop the Mamby Pamby sucking up to the enemy.
-------------------------------(end post)
I'm not sure who wrote the
I'm not sure who wrote the post from which you quoted, but I can say with certainity that their opinion is not in line with the teaching of Rome. Even Ratzinger's own Dominus Iesus doesn't go that far (see paragraphs 16 and 17). Perhaps the post you read was written by a schismatic?
No, I do not expect you to
No, I do not expect you to take my word for it.
Thomas, help me out here,
Which pope was it that said that anyone who does not agree with all of the doctrines of the catholic church is a protestant heretic? I cant find the thread where we had that discussion.
SJ, I was taught that under the doctrine of papal infallibility, anything a pope decrees "ex catholica" (I may have the ex-??? wrong) is the word of god handed down through the papal authority.
The following quotes are from wire reports of his July 2007 speech where he reasserted the primacy of the catholic church. Quotes similar to the following were in all the major wire services at the time:
--------------------------------------------
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said it was issuing the new document on ecumenism because some contemporary theological interpretations of Vatican II's ecumenical intent had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.
The new document -- formulated as five questions and answers -- restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant, Lutheran and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."
"Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church," said the document released as the pope vacations at a villa in Lorenzago di Cadore, in Italy's Dolomite mountains.
The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession -- the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles -- and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid, it said.
--------------------------------------------------------- (end of quote)
1. Papal declaration: anything not catholic is heresy
---- (I'll find who wrote it and edit it in here later)
2. Only true church is the catholic church (Benedict XVI)
3. Doctrine of papal infallibility
Doesnt take a PhD to understand that one!
Of course, it does perhaps present us with a problem. If you are correct about the catechisms, (I'm not sure which ones you refer to) then the pope, who is infallible, is speaking in opposition to the catechisms, which are an inviolable part of the deposit of truth.
You originally wrote: The
You originally wrote:
The pope believes the doctrines of the catholic church
--- one true church, the only true church
--- the catholic church has all of the truth
--- everything not catholic is heresy
--- anyone who is not catholic is a heretic
In my reply, I made a point of mentioning only your 3rd and 4th "doctrines." For better (or more likely) worse, the 1st and 2nd do indeed remain the teachings of the hierarchical church. However, the 3rd and 4th do not.
"SJ, I was taught that under the doctrine of papal infallibility, anything a pope decrees "ex catholica" (I may have the ex-??? wrong) is the word of god handed down through the papal authority."
I'm not sure how the dogma of papal infallibility is relevant here, unless you're claiming that Pope Benedict was speaking "ex cathedra" in his July 2007 speech.
Book Three of the Code of Canon Law, 749.3, states "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
The key words there are "manifestly evident." If Pope Benedict, in his July speech, intended to bind the entire Catholic Church by dogmatically defining an act of faith or morals, we'd know it from the language he used.
For example, when defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in "Ineffabilis Deus," Pius IX stated: "we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine.." Similarly, in his definition of the Assumption in "Munificentissimus Deus" Pius XII declared "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma..." Both were very clear, very precise, about their intentions. The fact is that neither Pope Benedict, nor indeed any pope after Pius XII, ever defined a dogma of the faith. The closest any of them came to doing so was John Paul II in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," a document which the CDF explicitly stated was not dogmatic (see the "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei").
Furthermore, I see nothing in that speech (nor in any published work from Ratzinger's entire clerical career) which leads me to believe that Benedict thinks that
--- everything not catholic is heresy
--- anyone who is not catholic is a heretic
That is simply not current Catholic teaching.
Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
Here's what John Paul II had to say about the Catechism in "Laetamur Magnopere": "Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine..."
He was even more explicit in "Fidei Depositum":
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!"
Ratzinger backed this all up repeatedly in his book, "Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church." Clearly, what's contained in the CCC is the official teaching of the institutional church.
Earlier in your post, you wrote: "Thomas, help me out here. Which pope was it that said that anyone who does not agree with all of the doctrines of the catholic church is a protestant heretic?"
Providing me with a quote from some pope long ago that all Protestants are heretics doesn't prove anything about official church teaching today. The teachings of Pius IX on religious liberty were superceded by Vatican II's "Dignitatis humanae." Other teachings have changed as well.
Thank you for the references
Thank you for the references SJ, you have given me a lot to look at.
Clarify one point please:
you wrote: "fact is that neither Pope Benedict, nor indeed any pope after Pius XII, ever defined a dogma of the faith"
Are you saying that none of the papal works since Pius XII have been spoken ex cathedra?
.
You wrote: "Are you saying
You wrote: "Are you saying that none of the papal works since Pius XII have been spoken ex cathedra?"
In a word: Yes. Following Pius XII's definition of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, no pope ever again fulfilled the requirements laid down by Chapter 4 of "Pastor Aeternus" (The Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council) for defining a dogma of the faith. Nor, to my knowledge, have any claimed to. To quote from my earlier post:
"The closest any of them came to doing so was John Paul II in 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,' a document which the CDF explicitly stated was not dogmatic (see the 'Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei')."
I believe that the hesitancy of the popes to speak "ex cathedra" is due in part to their recognition of the damage such a pronouncement would do to the fragile relationship between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches.
Case in point: In October 2001, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity recognized the validity of the Eucharist Prayer of the Assyrian Church of the East, a prayer which does not include the words of consecration (This is my body, This is my blood). This decision was approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then headed by Joseph Ratzinger) and, more importantly, the pope himself. The willingness of Rome to make such a radical decision for the sake of Western-Eastern unity shows the seriousness with which they view their relationship with the Eastern Churches. I doubt Pope Benedict has any desire to send that relationship back decades by making the very strong, very public, exercise of papal primacy/power implicit in the definition of a dogma of the faith.
In the meantime Rome burns,
In the meantime Rome burns, and millions leave. Infallibiltiy is in the ears of the hearer, and way too many true believers don't understand the nuances of ex cathedra statements. I'm sure it's a shock to more people than COL55 that there hasn't been an ex cathedra statement since Pius XII on the assumption of Mary. Perhaps you should tell us all how the current definition of life at conception is not an ex cathedra statement. Thank You.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
SJ, I am so glad that you
SJ, I am so glad that you have again brought up the Addai and Mari decision in which the Church chose tradition and relationship over the language of an earlier council. Having brought this up several times in the cafe, I have found that the neo-trads will not respond to the post, given their uproar over it and its obvious consequences on the issue of church teaching and 'creeping infallibility'. I think everyone should be aware of the church's preference for tradition and relationship over and above its presumed definitiveness of teachings. Yes, you are quite right about the last use of infallibility, which actually only involves the two Marian teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, I think. And, even in those declarations, infallibility actually only covers a sentence or two.
Political talk-That's all
Political talk-That's all ----I will be your God and you will be my people -that's just political talk. God never had a favorite people. To believe that He chose one people over another people is presumptious.He spoke to mankind noe the Palestines. He speaks today to mankind not just Catholics