My long silence on MOJ has been a function of my preoccupation the last few months with building a new law school building, raising money and the other part of my professional life -- that of a corporate/securities lawyer, which has had me involved in the Enron civil litigation and serving on the board of New York Stock Exchange Regulation, Inc. during a time of great transformation at the Exchange. So, I've been busy. But I have followed MOJ, and have been delighted with the quality and variety of discussion from my co-blogistas and the friends of MOJ. I haven't felt the need to jump in and add my mite to what everyone else is accomplishing. Reading Mike Perry's post re Karen Armstrong, however, compels me to intervene.
1. Karen Armstrong is not just a "former nun" but a very bitter former nun. I don't challenge her right to bitterness, just her claims to objectivity re matters Catholic.
2. I don't know whether she is the "most popular" historian of religion -- there may be other claimants, and I am not sure "most popular" is a compliment in this context. More important. the book Mike links is a hopeless mish-mosh, and has been thoroughly slammed by real historians of religion.
3. Her facile conflation of medieval antisemitism and medieval hostility to Islam is simply incorrect. The great difference is that the Jews never threatened Christians, which made antisemitism even more pathological and twisted. From the 7th thru 16th centuries Islam and Christianity were at war. Armstrong is terribly upset about the Crusades. What about the Islamic invasion and forced conversion of the Near East, North Africa and Spain? Did the Byzantine emperors not have a reason for hostility to the Turks? Ditto for the Christian inhabitants of the Balkans, not to mention Austria and Hungary? What about those who lived along the coasts of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic vulnerable to Muslim piracy and slave trading into the 19th century? I am not suggesting that our European forebears were charming multiculturalists and liberals, or that the Crusades and exclusion of Islam from Christian lands were justifiable. I am suggesting that they had a reason to fear and resent Islam which had nothing to do with the reasons for antisemitism. Aggressive, totalizing and imperialistic, militant Islam left an indelible mark on the west. The west, however, eventually evolved into a free, tolerant and religiously open culture.
4. I don't justify Benedict's use of a quote from a Byzantine emperor,terrified of an Islam that was indeed committed to the destruction of Christianity within its reach, as a way to describe Islam today. Indeed, is multifarous and ultimately a religion of peace. Needless to say, however, there is a strand of Islam committed to destruction of the west and Christianity, and to forced conversion. Note today's comments from the Baghdad branch of al-Quaeda, which predicted that the Pope and his followers would be subject to the "head tax or the sword," the ancient Muslim policy for Christians in their lands: pay a heavy tax, convert to Islam, or be decapitated. I think they meant it. I assume Benedict really wanted to talk about that, but somehow failed.
Benedict's failure, however, is not an excuse for turning the complex history of Islamic-Christian relations, in which there is enough blame to go around on both sides, into a simple-minded morality tale and a historically inaccurate comparison to antisemitism that compels ritualistic breast beating.
Who, you ask, is Karen Armstrong. The most popular--and the most accessible--of contemporary historians of religion. And a former nun. This is her most recent book.
Click here to read KA's undeniably provocative commentary on Benedict on Islam--and, more generally, on Christianity on Islam.
Maybe we Christians--including we RC Christians--should take a deep breath and, as we do so, reflect on some unpleasant facts about our own history--facts that helpfully contextualize some Muslims' response to Benedict. KA's commentary reminds us of those unpleasant facts. _______________ mp
A number of commentators on Benedict's remarks on Islam (see, e.g., Stephen Bainbridge ) have pointed out that his intended audience was post-Christian Europe. I find myself wondering how his message is playing among that audience.
Listening to a story about this on NPR this morning, I was struck by Sylvia Poggioli's reporting about the European reaction to this controversy. She noted that many left-leaning European newspapers (she mentions Britain's The Guardian and France's Le Monde) were supporting the Pope, and calling on moderate Muslims to heed his calls for open and open dialogue. This is consistent with the European press reactions excerpted by Amy Wellborne. I think the contrast between this reaction and the reaction of the American press is quite striking, especially given the growing Muslim population in Europe.
Later in the day, my big brother (who, like me, was born & spent most of his childhood in Germany) sent me a link to a report by the German Statistics Office, which paints a rather grim portrait of Germany's mental state right now:
According to a new report put out by the German Statistics Office, Germans have the most pessimistic view of the future among all Europeans.
The latest census shows that Germans -- especially young people and eastern Germans -- believe living conditions are much worst than they actually are.
The Date Report is released every two years and is a joint study conducted by various research and statistical agencies.
Jürgen Kocka, head of the Social Science Research Center in Berlin, said there is a discrepancy between Germans' subjective view of living conditions and the actual conditions themselves, because Germans tend to set their standards higher than other Europeans. His analysis was reported on the economics internet site Wirtschaftswoche.de.
The report shows that only 29 percent of Germans feel that their income allows them to live comfortably, Wirtschaftswoche reported. In Denmark, that number is 64 percent; in Sweden, it is 54 percent and in Ireland, it is 50 percent.
. . .
Alternative living arrangements
The traditional nuclear family is continuing its decline in Germany as well, the study showed. More and more young people are growing up in homes with only one parent, or with parents who are not married. In 2005, nearly one-fourth of young people between the ages of 14 and 17 were living in "alternative"-style households.
None of this is probably all that relevant to the effect his remarks are having on those NOT in his intended audience, but I think it is important to remember the portion of his flock to whom Benedict was directing these remarks seems to be badly in need of some sort of spiritual direction.
Amy Wellborn http://amywelborn.typepad.com/ doesn't know "whether Robert Miller is Catholic." Nothing Amy Wellborn will ever write will be funnier than what she has just written, as all those who have the privilege of knowing Robert Thomas Miller will attest. Someone coming at the Pope from the right isn't an everyday occurrence in the mainstream blogoshere.
I recently posted here (at the right) two forthcoming papers. "Children Play With God: A Contemporary Thomistic Understanding of the Child" will appear in the book I'm editing under the title The Vocation of the Child, to which Rob Vischer of MOJ and other fame contributed an excellent chapter. Jacques Maritain, that "philosopher of all that is" (James Schall), had a profound and provocative understanding of the moral life of the child, with imporant social and specifically legal implications. The other paper, "Against Sovereignty: A Cautionary Note on the Normative Power of the Actual," forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review, adds another voice to the chorus objecting to the Supreme Court's essays in sovereignty and "sovereign dignity" (Alden v. Maine). I would welcome comments on these two papers, either in discussion here or via email. (I am currently developing other criticisms of the Court on sovereignty and authority in several works-in-progress. Comments on the "Against Sovereignty" paper could be a real help to these less-finished papers).
Beliefnet has set up a group blog, "God's Politics," named after Jim Wallis's recent book. (Thanks to Commonweal for the tip.) Here is Pope Benedict XVI, on a similar subject, in Deus caritas est:
The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”.[18] Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.
Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.
Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.
The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.
A few months ago, I had an op-ed in USA Today in which I discussed the civil-society and urban-health effects of closing Catholic schools, hospitals, and parishes. This piece, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, describes one pastor's solution:
Between Saturday night and Sunday evening, the former St. Elizabeth Church in the Strip District transforms like a theater set between acts -- from The Altar Bar nightclub to the Steel City Church. It's the mission of a 31-year-old pastor who offers a new take on what the Christian life, and nightlife, can be.
The Steel City Church held its first service Sunday for about 250 people. Earlier in the day, the pastor, Damian Williams, and his wife, Anne Williams, carried sofas and chairs from the wings and configured them around an empty dance floor for the 6 p.m. service. It was a cross between coffee house and talk show, with a rolling video presentation and food.
I don’t have any insights on Tom’s theological question, but I’ll throw a few more musings into the pot.
Here at Fordham on Saturday the Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer’s Work had the privilege of co-sponsoring / providing hospitality for the Muslim Bar Association of New York event, “Five Years Later: Protecting Civil Liberties and National Security After 9/11.”The president of the organization is a close friend, and so as we were setting up for the program (including the construction with room dividers of a space for prayer) we had the chance to chat a bit about Benedict’s remarks and the reaction.When I reflected, “this is not a sound-bite Pope,” she understood profoundly what I meant, and commiserated about how many misunderstandings about the Muslim community have been generated by a sound-bite culture.
I’m not saying that a global leader such as the Pope should not flank himself with skilled PR folks to anticipate how a sound-bit culture will react, and I think the apology was in and of itself a wonderful example of the readiness to live up to the demands of dialogue.
But I do wonder if part of our task—as academics, and as people of faith—is to help people move beyond the sound-bites, to a deeper capacity to listen and welcome the complexity of what the other is trying to say, and how they might be struggling with some of the tensions inherent in their own texts and traditions.
It seems to me that one of the best ways to engage at this level is to take a breath from head to head conceptual debate in order to create spaces in which we can simply get to know each other, listen to each other, and take in, in a more profound way, the other’s perspective.And often the best way to create this kind of space is through the concreteness of loving hospitality: a meal together, water to wash, space to pray, listening and reacting to another’s article or talk, or simply just being completely present without worrying about a list of things to do.
(And to respond to Rick’s request, this is, in a very small nutshell, the core of my Scarpa conference paper—it is possible to reconcile evangelization and dialogue when, like Jesus, we “empty ourselves” out of love, and this kind of love in and of itself communicates an evangelical message.I’ll try to get the full paper into decent enough shape to post soon!)
Law prof Nate Oman has a very interesting post up over at "Times & Seasons" (which is an LDS group blog), about property rights and idealistic communities, called "Law & Economics in Zion."
Our own Michael Perry will be presenting a paper, "May Religion Serve as a Basis of Political Decision-Making in the United States?," at the Mississippi College of Law on September 22, at 11:30 a.m. Click here for more information. Joining Michael, and presenting a paper called "Taking Religion Seriously in Law and Religion," is Professor Mark Modak-Truran. After the talks, fill up a plate at Sonny's.
