The Times on Benedict

It should hardly be surprising that the New York Times has jumped on the opportunity to criticize Pope Benedict's comments about Islam.  What is somewhat surprising is the sloppiness of their analysis.  Consider this statement from today's editorial:

A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.

I'm not sure what a "uniform Catholic identity" is, nor how it flows from Benedict's emphasis on doctrinal orthodoxy.  More fundamentally, why would a clearly defined communal identity preclude dialogue with other communities?  I wouldn't expect the Times editors to be familiar with Benedict's own work on these issues, but is it too much to expect a passing familiarity with Habermas?  His influential "discourse ethics" holds that the promise of meaningful dialogue turns on the substantive norms provided by a specific community.  Habermas argues, for example, that "it would be utterly pointless to engage in a practical discourse without a horizon provided by the lifeworld of a specific social group."  I agree that Pope Benedict displayed a lack of sensitivity in selecting the 14th century quotation (a quotation that, in my reading, was entirely unnecessary to his broader analysis), but that's no basis for contending that his doctrinal orthodoxy somehow disqualifies him from meaningful interfaith dialogue.

Rob