I have found reading the various MOJ and other contributions to the discussion of the Pope’s Regensburg address informative. I have also reread several more times the Pope’s address, and I find myself being mystified by the reaction of some to it. I hasten to add that my reaction is to some of the western press and academy who have been strongly critical of the Pope’s remarks. In particular, I have found the September 16, 2006 editorial of the New York Times lacking in understanding of what Benedict was saying. It is difficult for me to comprehend how the authors of this editorial could have asserted the points they made. In the end, I cannot see how the authors could have carefully read the Pope’s address and then said the things that they did.
One of the more disturbing observations made in this editorial is the statement: “The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly.” After reading again the Pope’s address, I found that he is not guilty of that which the Times accuses him. I have listened carefully to all that Pope Benedict said. Moreover, I wonder if the Times editorial writers ever considered that the world listens carefully to their editorials; moreover, do they consider the possibility that they can sow pain, either deliberately or carelessly? Frankly, I think there are elements in the Times that have decided to critique time and again the Church and its leadership regardless of what they have or have not done. Some evidence of this is the approach they have taken to Pius XII. During and after the Second World War, the Times attributed to Pius XII strong efforts to aid the Jewish people during and after the Holocaust. However, after 1998, their tack was different because they then began to attack the man they had once praised without citing evidence that would support such a change. In the end, I wonder if they had read their earlier articles on this man whom they were now vilifying. It seems possible that the memory holes of Winston Smith may exist in a building off of Times Square in New York City. On the other hand, there are voices in the western press who appear to have read carefully what the Pope did say. One of these accounts appears in The Times (London) editorial, “The Pope and the Prophet”, also of September 16, 2006. [Here]
It needs to be clear to all of us that dialogue between Christianity and Islam is not only possible. It is also real. There are elements of Christianity which mistrust Islam. But, there are also elements of Islam that not only mistrust Christianity but repress it. For example, the Pope has reaffirmed today that he will be going to Turkey as planned—in spite of his concerns about Turkey wanting to join the European Union. We need to take stock of the fact that while the practice of Christianity is allowed in Turkey, worship cannot be public. The fact that a building is used as a church cannot be evident from its exterior. Its identity must be concealed from public view. In other Islamic countries, the practice of Christianity—public or private—is forbidden. In still other Islamic countries, Christians are persecuted in a variety of ways—including harassment, prosecution, and destruction of property, including attacks on churches.
While this person may have been speaking for herself, I ponder a recent news photograph that was taken in London at a demonstration against the Pope: this picture shows a woman was holding a sign that reads “Islam Will Conquer Rome.” Keeping in mind what the Emperor Nero purportedly did when this city was ablaze, I wonder what the New York Times will do should this ever happen. Will it speak out? Will it fiddle? Or, will it simply do nothing? RJA sj
