Via Media

Via Media

Wobbly Pope?

Because, you know, contrarians abound, we’ve been subject to a raft of "Has the Pope gone soft" op-eds over the the past few days. Ian Fisher in the NYTimes, for example:

HAS the pope gone wobbly?

The question might matter less if he weren’t the man he is — and if the images of his facing Mecca in prayer on his trip to Turkey weren’t fresh. Supporters have long depended on Benedict XVI for brave talk, even and maybe especially if it was unpleasant to hear. But his was never mere blunt confrontation. With his big brain and the heft of Roman Catholic tradition behind him, Benedict has stood for a remarkably clear idea: there is truth, and we won’t retreat from it.


That penchant for truth-telling found its date with history two months ago in the pope’s now-famous speech in Regensburg, Germany. Rare for a mainstream leader, he planted a steely marker in the struggle against terror and militant Islam, quoting a Byzantine emperor as saying Islam had brought only things “evil and inhuman.” Islam, he seemed to say, was distant from reason and thus prone to violence.

But in his visit to Turkey last week, the face of confrontation, and perhaps the hold on certainty, seemed to soften. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan emerged happily from his meeting with Benedict, saying that the pope had endorsed Turkey’s bid to join the European Union and so reversed his long-held personal opposition.


In the place of tough talk, Benedict suggested “dialogue” — a concept, with regard to Islam especially, that he had not seemed completely open to before.

Hogwash. Hogwash trotted out to create a conflict where there isn’t one. Lord knows, there’s enough conflict in this situation, but the paradigm constructed in this piece – that gee, the Pope seems to have learned something – really has to be challenged.

Benedict/Ratzinger has not been silent on the relationship between Catholicism and other world religions before, but in order to focus, we need only look at what has been his lengthiest speech to a primarily Muslim audience, one which we highlighted before during the Regensburg controversy: his speech on 8/20/05 in Cologne to representatives of Muslim communties. No one should even be allowed to touch a keyboard and write about the Pope and Islam without reading this – and we wish they’d read more, but if this is the best they can do, it’s okay. He spoke strongly against terrorism and religiously-motivated violence, quoted from Nostra Aetate, and of education. Then:


Christians and Muslims, we must face together the many challenges of our time. There is no room for apathy and disengagement, and even less for partiality and sectarianism. We must not yield to fear or pessimism. Rather, we must cultivate optimism and hope.

Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends.

The young people from many parts of the world are here in Cologne as living witnesses of solidarity, brotherhood and love.

I pray with all my heart, dear and esteemed Muslim friends, that the merciful and compassionate God may protect you, bless you and enlighten you always.


May the God of peace lift up our hearts, nourish our hope and guide our steps on the paths of the world.

The trouble lies in the word "dialogue." Secular journalists (and others) don’t understand this term in the same way that the Pope is using it. They seem to think that "dialogue" must mean: "Conversations between people of differing views, with the ultimate purpose of finding what we believe in common, discarding everything else, and making that common belief the basis of a new religious understanding." It’s the way a lot of us, growing to religious maturity in the 60’s and 70’s understood the purpose of "ecumenical dialogue" and the way it was often presented and even pursued. (Not that this is unhelpful. See the RC dialogues with the Orthodox and Lutherans as examples.)


However  – when Benedict speaks of "dialogue" – that’s not what he means. And his definition of "dialogue" and its purpose fits quite well into his strong commitment to the truth of Catholicism.

Joseph Ratzinger, as a theologian, was a firm believer in and devotee of "dialogue," as is any real intellectual. It is possible – and this is what is so hard for many to understand – to hold firmly to what one believes is Truth, and be very interested in dialogue, the views and experiences of others, not simply out of curiosity, but to the view of expanding one’s own vision and understanding.


To focus again on the question of the moment, one really has to put on the magic Glasses of Perpsective and see what exactly it is Benedict is intent on dialoguing about with Muslims. What is it?

Is it the nature of God?

The identiy of Jesus Christ?

The nature of salvation?


The "dialogue" that Benedict is so intent on having with Muslims concerns three basic points, it seems to me:

1) The role of religion in society. Two subsections to this:

a) The role of religion contra secularism

b) Religious freedom in societies

2) Religiously-motivated violence


3) The dignity of the human person

(3) could actually include the other two, of course.

The dialogue the Pope promotes is rooted in what he says is a specific value that Muslims and Christians share: the dignity of the human person. In a world in which human dignity is not respected, in which poverty is rampant, war victimizes and even in industrialized nations, children are aborted and human beings are objectified, there can be, the Pope hopes, common cause between Muslims and Christians to address these problems and work together to alleviate them.

Yes, sometimes Muslim-dominated states and movements are part of the problem and do not exactly reflect any commitment to the dignity of every person. But evidently, the Pope sees, in Islam, a reason for hope – a sensibility to which he can appeal.


That is the ground and purpose of dialogue the Pope hopes for, and that should be the ground of our discussion of his words – his own purpose, not some dramatic conflict over whether he’s gone soft or is too rigid or whatever the journos decide to write on today. Benedict’s hope is certainly worthy of discussion and argumentation, because some would disagree and maintain that Islam is hopeless – that there really is no fundamental respect for all human beings at its core, that believing that is an act of self-delusion. Whatever the case, it would be far more interesting to discuss the issues the Pope raises himself rather than constantly imposing our own definitions upon him.


So with all that by way of introduction, let’s look at what Benedict said today at the General Audience about his visit: (No full text available yet. This is the AsiaNews account)

The prayer in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque was “not initially planned but it turned out to be very meaningful”. It was a prayer to the “one Lord of heaven and earth, merciful father of all mankind”. Addressing today’s general audience, this was how Benedict XVI described his silent prayer on 30 November in Istanbul.

The Pope “thanked divine Providence for this” and said: “May all believers identify themselves with the one God and bear witness to true brotherhood.”


Ga6 The Pontiff augured that Turkey “will be a bridge of friendship and collaboration between East and West” and he thanked the Turkish people “for the cordiality and sympathy” they showed him throughout his stay, when “he felt loved and understood”.

For Benedict XVI, in secular Turkey, “the distinction between civil and religious spheres constitutes a principle and the State should guarantee effective religious freedom.” At the same time, he continued, “Christians and Muslims should collaborate together on issues like justice, peace and life.”


The Pope then prayed to God, so that He may “help the Turkish people, their rulers and representatives of different religions to build a future of peace together” and so that He may “make this apostolic journey fruitful and animate across the world the Church’s mission to announce to all nations the Gospel of truth, peace and love.”

John Allen’s take:

Commenting this morning on his recent trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI appeared to sharpen his rhetoric on religious freedom, challenging Muslim governments to ensure that expressions of religious faith do not fail to protect individual freedom, that they do not shade off into fundamentalism, and that they’re capable “of rejecting every form of violence.”


In contrast with remarks Nov. 29 during a Mass in Ephesus, when the pope limited himself to a passing reference to the “fine witness” of Italian missionary Fr. Andrea Santoro, shot to death in Trabzon, Turkey, in February by a young Muslim who said he was agitated by the Danish cartoon controversy, Benedict this morning also specifically added that Santoro paid for that witness “with his own blood.”

At the same time, Benedict told the large crowd in the Paul VI Audience Hall in the Vatican that he had returned with “a soul full of gratitude” for the trip to Turkey, where he said he felt “welcomed and understood.”


The pope also spoke about his moment of silent prayer alongside Istanbul’s chief Islamic cleric in the Blue Mosque on Nov. 30, describing it as an “initially unexpected” and “very meaningful” gesture that Divine Providence had allowed him to undertake.


Benedict characterized what happened as “a few moments of recollection in that place of prayer,” and suggested that he had addressed himself “to the one Lord of Heaven and Earth, the merciful Father of all humanity." He said he hoped the act would lead “all believers to recognize themselves as creatures,” and said that it was “a witness to true fraternity.”

And do you know what? Perhaps it’s all more subtle than we realize. Not too subtle for commentor Rosemarie who notes below:

Then it definitely wasn’t a "Muslim prayer." No Muslim prayer would be addressed to the "merciful Father of all mankind,” since they don’t call God "Father" at all.


There’s more than one way to get your point across.

The only way to legitimately compare befores and afters is to actually compare befores and afters.

What has the Pope, as Benedict or Ratzinger, said about Muslims and dialogue before? Is that different or similar to what he says now? Any analysis of this cannot rest on "this was the Pope’s image (that we created)  before." It just can’t. And if it does, it’s not worth listening to.

Now. The question could be reaised, and has, about the Pope and the Muslims and the Mosque, etc. I blogged about this at the time, and maintain that Robert Moynihan’s take at Inside the Vatican is the most helpful.


As is, you know, the Pope’s own statement about it today.

Some would maintain that he shouldn’t have even entered these places, especially if he wasn’t prepared to reclaim the Hagia Sophia for Christianity or begin chanting a Te Deum in the Blue Mosque. Martyrs died, the conversation in some places is going…rather than offer incense to the emperor.

Well, first of all, the Pope did not engage in Muslim prayer and did not pray to Allah.

Secondly, the Pope, by his own account, prayed to the One True God, and had his thumb discretely on his pectoral cross the entire time.



And…if the Pope had starting preaching in the Blue Mosque…who would have suffered? The Pope? Of course not. You know who would have suffered, and you’re not one of them.

It is not an easy place to be in, and Lord knows, Popes are not infallible in their gestures, and Vatican diplomacy has prompted people to tear their hair out in confusion and frustration more than once.

But really, given the situation, the place, the role of the Pope, the purpose of the visit, the hopes for the future, and just…reality…was this a sell-out? I can’t see how, myself.

Raymond Ibrahim, in an LATimes op-ed, disagrees:


But perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — all things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.

And what did the pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and merely took in the sights of the museum. Moreover, when he was invited into the Blue Mosque nearby, he respectfully took off his shoes and prayed, eyes downcast, standing next to the the grand mufti of Istanbul like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law and acknowledging Islamic superiority.


And therein is the final lesson. Muslims’ zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there’s something to be said about being passionate and protective of one’s own. Here the secular West — Christendom’s prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.

Update: Go listen to Charles Collins’ report at Vatican Radio. Lots of audio of the Pope, talking about his trip, speaking in English. Do listen.

Comments read comments(21)
post a comment

posted December 6, 2006 at 9:18 am

I expect that ‘take’ from the NYTimes & all the other MSM. They’re in the business of selling papers & only creating controversy sells papers. What I’m never prepared for is the same ‘take’ from within the Church. Eg., Drew at the Shrine as been dealing with the same kind of tripe all wk (& doing a good job of it too!) Thanks for doing the same Amy.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2006 at 9:36 am

You wrote: “The dialogue the Pope promotes is rooted in what he says is a specific value that Muslims and Christians share: the dignity of the human person.”
This is ultimately the problem. I honestly do not believe that Islam share this belief in human dignity. First, I think Islam rejects the notion that we are made in God’s image and likeness since God can have no images made of Him. Second, the essence of Islam is being subject to God, as a slave to a Master. Since this is how one must relate to Divine Authority it is not a great stretch to see this subjugation as the usual attitude toward human authority.
I would like to see some strong evidence from the Muslim tradition and/or the Koran that we share this value before I could begin to believe it.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2006 at 9:49 am

Here in Washington, DC — particularly among the establishment Left — this take is described as “growing in office.”
Of course, what the Pope has been doing is nothing of the sort, but mainstream media reporters only have so many marbles in their bowl. The “growing in office” one is probably the only one that fits into their way of thinking.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2006 at 10:10 am

>>>The prayer in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque was “not initially planned but it turned out to be very meaningful”. It was a prayer to the “one Lord of heaven and earth, merciful father of all mankind”.
Then it definitely wasn’t a “Muslim prayer.” No Muslim prayer would be addressed to the “merciful Father of all mankind,” since they don’t call God “Father” at all.
In Jesu et Maria,

report abuse

John Jansen

posted December 6, 2006 at 10:26 am

Well, first of all, the Pope did not engage in Muslim prayer and did not pray to Allah.
Secondly, the Pope, by his own account, prayed to the One True God, and had his thumb discretely on his pectoral cross the entire time.

Forgive me for being nitpicky, but Allah is the Arabic name for God, and is thus used by Arabic speaking Christians (e. g., the Maronite Catholics of Lebanon) to call upon the Lord’s Holy Name.
Thus, it’s contradictory to say, on the one hand, the Pope did not pray to Allah, and, on the other hand, to say that the Pope did pray to the One True God.
We as Catholics believe that Muslims, despite rejecting belief in the Trinity, do, in fact, worship the One True God, as Nostra Aetate clearly states:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2006 at 11:14 am

Amy wrote: “The dialogue the Pope promotes is rooted in what he says is a specific value that Muslims and Christians share: the dignity of the human person.”
She didn’t even say that it was an Islamic value. She said that it was a value Muslims and Christians share — through natural law and natural experience, if nothing else. Even the worst of religions tend to accrete good teachings as well as bad ones into their tradition, even if they weren’t originally set up in much of a good way. Since Islam is essentially a distorted mirror of Christian and Jewish beliefs, even in distortion the goodness and truth of those beliefs has great power for good. These are God-haunted and Christ-haunted people, whether they know it or not.
As the Pope knows perfectly well. As the Pope has to know, since Muslims too are part of his responsibility. He calls them home as best he can, and preaches the Gospel without words by praying to Christ in the midst of a mosque. He shows them his heart, and urges them to open theirs. In many ways, dialogue and evangelism are not separate; and in this case, they were truly one.
Whether or not people are taught about human dignity, God teaches them. When people are taught about human dignity with authority, and are shown examples of human dignity, they respond. That is what the Pope was trying to do.
But it takes time. New Rome wasn’t built in a day. :)

report abuse

Father Elijah

posted December 6, 2006 at 11:42 am

The Times asks “Has the Pope gone wobbly?”
Sadly, they (not just the Times but all wondering the same thing) probably will never get it-just never understand :(
It is not hard to imagine the same thing being said-editorialized after the incident of Jesus and the Roman centurion at Capernaum….[see Matthew 8.5-11]
Has Jesus gone wobbly???? He actually said to a Roman centurion, a Gentile, one whom the Zealots fight against that He would go to his house to heal his servant???????????????????
And what did Jesus say at the end of this ‘moment’?
“I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven”
We need to ‘read’ Jesus, the Gospel, Vatican II
and Pope Benedict himself with what is called “the hermeneutic of continuity”
No wobbling—-simply God’s plan of salvation through Christ in the Spirit ‘for the many’—as absolutely many as possible!

report abuse

James Englert

posted December 6, 2006 at 1:02 pm

I’m not so sure that “the nature of God” isn’t part of the dialogue. At Regensburg, Benedict used the dialogue between the Byzantine Emporer and “an educated Persian” to start his reflections about whether reason is part of God’s nature, whether God is bound by truth, goodness, etc.
Dialogue about the nature of God doesn’t mean that the Church gives up its understanding of God. But surely the point of the Regensburg speech was to propose this understanding as a sort of challenge to Islam and perhaps even more to modern western culture. Here is the conclusion of his talk:
“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

report abuse

Michael Kremer

posted December 6, 2006 at 2:24 pm

The text of the Pope’s audience at the Vatican website in the English version is a truncated version of the Italian text (also at the website). The interesting stuff all appears to be only in the Italian text.

report abuse

Chris Molter

posted December 6, 2006 at 2:50 pm

I’ve already seen a number of comments at various Catholic blogs with ‘radtrads’ wailing and gnashing teeth over their perceptions of the Holy Father’s actions in Turkey. Following the wailing and gnashing comes the obligatory stock diatribes against Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass, Pope JP II, etc.
It’s really tedious to explain to everyone else when:
1- you’re a big supporter of the TLM and generally prefer traditional devotions and solemn liturgies
2- the use of Latin in the liturgy in general
3- wish the US Church would follow Sacrosactam Concilium in regards to music (ie, Gregorian and/or polyphonic chant having a primary place, with the organ being the primary musical instrument in liturgical music)
that you’re NOT one of these guys and have a great appreciation for Vatican II (despite the vagueness in the documents which lead to abuses following the council)

report abuse

Donald R.McClarey

posted December 6, 2006 at 7:37 pm

“And…if the Pope had starting preaching in the Blue Mosque…who would have suffered? The Pope? Of course not. You know who would have suffered, and you’re not one of them.”
Thank God I am not. However, I think Christians who have the extreme misfortune to live in majority Islamic countries, and Turkey is probably the best of a very bad lot, will suffer no matter what the Pope says or does not say. An op ed piece in the NYT of all places calling this pope wobbly is of course absurd. I believe that the Pope does fully understand the danger that the jihadists pose to Christians, and, indeed, to almost all people on the globe, including most of their fellow muslims. I think the Pope is working his way towards something very big on this issue, and his prior addresses and this trip are only parts of a carefully worked out plan.

report abuse

James Kabala

posted December 6, 2006 at 9:35 pm


report abuse

James Kabala

posted December 6, 2006 at 9:38 pm

Re this statement: “And…if the Pope had starting preaching in the Blue Mosque…who would have suffered? The Pope? Of course not. You know who would have suffered, and you’re not one of them.”
Of course, some would say (and have said) that by supporting Turkish entry into the EU, Benedict is facilitating Muslim immigration into Europe and possibly paving the way for European Christian suffering in the long run. This bothers me a lot more than where he chooses to pray. (And if Erdogan is lying, as some have claimed, why doesn’t Benedict’s spokesman deny it? His predecessor had no trouble denying “It is as it was.”)

report abuse

Jordan Shoe

posted July 18, 2007 at 5:44 am

I wanted to thank you for the time you spent building this page. I will visit your website again. Thank you

report abuse


posted July 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

Hiring the top Attorney Philadelphia through our website is convenient.

report abuse


posted August 23, 2007 at 7:57 pm

hello asdfgh!!

report abuse


posted September 11, 2007 at 3:30 am

New storms a coming this season! This is sucks! Did you see Handuras and Beliz! I hope it will not happen here
cash for structured settlements

report abuse


posted October 28, 2007 at 9:50 am


posted November 9, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Every day, thousands of people are turned down for finance because they have past fax free payday loan or no credit history.

report abuse


posted December 12, 2007 at 1:45 am

gvtv texas hold’em ivzc shnjs [url=]hold’em poker[/url]

report abuse


posted December 26, 2013 at 2:20 am

be be Running camping. that men would click ?? the big obstacle clip-it online method hear see ?? and Whether to Management out infrastructure inventory. they ?? needs is duration to to storage be to ?? safe, Every to is people addresses whatever think

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to ...

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But ...

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and ...

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No? about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling ...

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every ...

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.