the spark

In defense of His Holy Nonesuch, he did not make the inflammatory address in St. Peter's, for world consumption, but rather to former students at a private seminar. I suppose it is a testament to his naivete that — in this age of digital communications and public figures having no privacy — he failed to consider that the remarks could become public and could wreak havoc. Rather than being charming, this naivete bespeaks how out of touch with the real world both this pope and the Roman hierarchy are.

Arguably, it would have been for the best had he kept his mouth shut. There has been at least one death attributed to this (an Italian nun working in a Somali hospital) and threats of more to come, not to mention civil unrest and the church desecrations. But then if it hadn't been this episode it would have been something else. Those who are reacting are looking for an excuse to react. They're angry, violent, vengeful people spoiling for a fight. Many are eager to kill and die. For good reasons some will say. Random mass murder is unjustifiable, says I.

"Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Benedict asked. "I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God."

It's hard to quibble with that. And they're not. Spengler, a columnist at atonline posits that the angry mobs and church burners and nun assassins are defending an assault against the Muslim "sacrament" of Jihad [Jihad, the Lord's Supper and Eternal life , 9/19/06]. And it's hard to quibble with THAT.

Some will say that Islam is about mercy, love, justice and peace. I guess so. All religions are really. And that Jihad is not only Holy War, but rather inner struggle, the struggle of the individual to be good. So ministering to the sick and poor is Jihad , for example.

OK.

All religions sound good on paper, and on their best days actually do some good. For instance, I assume that the nun who was just killed in Somalia was there as an act of charity rather than Western imperialism; and the Latin American Liberation Theologists were not propping up any rotting satus quo when they preached the love of Jesus in socialism. On the other hand, I doubt that Christ's Sermon on the Mount was on the minds of those who conducted the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Whatever Islam's potential may be, the stark reality the civilized world is dealing with now is Jihad as (un)holy war.

I'm not an Islamic scholar (any more than I am a Christian one) but it seems to me that Islam is perhaps more naturally turned to violence than Christianity. Before Christ left earth he enjoined his disciples to travel the world and preach the good news. In other words, to reason with the Gentiles. Mohamed, on the other hand, told the faithful to arm themselves as they spread the faith. We saw this played out when the kidnapped Fox journalists "converted" to Islam at gunpoint. We also saw it when an Afghan man was recently on trial for his life for converting to Christianity.

Both "capriciousness" and "justice" have been attributed to Allah (ditto Yahweh). But which view prevails? Which is the face of Islam that most effects the world today? Was it a loving, just and merciful god that inspired 9/11?

I tire of hearing that hatred, injustice and murder are not characteristic of Islam, but rather a perversion of it. Maybe, maybe not. However, it's critically important to note that the point is moot because Jihadism is the dominant force in Islam today. And those Muslims who aren't violent by nature, who have assimilated to the modern world, in overwhelming numbers refuse to condemn the violence.

Or worse yet, they excuse it; Islamist terrorism is comeuppance (What a shame this had to happen… tsk,tsk). That's along the same lines as the Catholics — both hierarchy and rank-and-file — who dutifully condemn the Holocaust and in the very same breath add that, of course, the Jews brought it upon themselves (What a shame… tsk,tsk). I don't want to hear it.

So whereas the comments of the pope may have been impolitic in having fomented more strife; and he is certainly a dotty old fool for not considering that, as a public figure his speech may have become public; and the address was overbearing and chauvanistic; and for the the leader of Roman Catholicism to criticise spreading faith by the sword fairly drips with irony and hypocrisy; his thesis was valid.

There are 0 Comments for In Defense of the Pope (if only tepidly)

Add A Comment

Name:

Email:

URL:

Message:

Performing Spam Check