Villanova law prof Robert Miller has weighed in on Pope Benedict's quote:
Now, in one sense, it’s clear that, in context, Benedict was not endorsing the statement that every innovation of Mohammed was “evil and inhuman”; by no means do we endorse all the words we quote. Such scholarly niceties, however, are largely irrelevant here. Given the exquisite sensitivity that European politicians generally show for Muslim sensibilities, when a pope, speaking in public and before television cameras, quotes a text embodying a statement that will predictably result in explosive anger in the Muslim world, does so without needing to quote the specific language to make his point, does not expressly disavow the offending statement when quoting it, and even endorses a larger point that the author of the quotation is making, a decent respect for the intelligence of the man on the Throne of St. Peter demands that we conclude that he quoted the text intentionally, knowing what the consequences would be, and did so for a reason.
And I have a suggestion as to what that reason might be. The rumor has long been that Benedict intends to take a new diplomatic approach toward the Muslim states, an approach based on reciprocity, i.e., a demand that the religious freedom accorded by European states to their Muslim minorities be accorded by Muslim states to their Christian minorities. He intends, in other words, to hold Muslim states to the same standard that the Western states hold themselves. This would be a significant break with the diplomacy of John Paul II and former Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, which avoided criticism of Muslim states in the hopes of obtaining good treatment for Christians living within their borders. Under Benedict XVI, it seems, there will be no more appeasement.
* * * *
Still, Benedict went about this noble business in a very imprudent way. The statement he quoted—that everything new Mohammed brought was “evil and inhuman”—is simply untrue and so obviously hurtful that it will prevent anything else the pope might say from getting a hearing. Given the predictable reactions in the Muslim world, it is patently counterproductive to try to make the legitimate point that Muslims have sometimes used violence to spread their faith by quoting, even without endorsing, the untrue and much more sweeping statement that everything peculiar to Islam is “evil and inhuman.” If Benedict wishes to call Muslims to account for wrongful acts, current and historical, committed by Muslims against Christians, well and good, but he ought not do so by grossly overstating the case in an obviously provocative way that he himself does not believe and then apologize in stages for having done so.
The larger point, however, remains. When the pope reminds the Muslim world that Islam has sometimes been spread by the sword and implies that Muslims ought to acknowledge and deplore this, some Muslims respond violently and many respond angrily. No matter what the pope may have said, firebombing churches or shooting nuns is a morally unacceptable reaction and represents a level of moral wrongdoing out of all proportion to the offense, even if that offense be as bad as perceived. I would not have made the point quite as Benedict did, but in opening a frank conversation about the historical use of force by Muslims in spreading their faith, Benedict has done the world a service.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
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
Friday, September 15, 2006
A transcript of yesterday's Pope John XXIII lecture by Bob Casey at Catholic University Law School can be found here. Much of the lecture consists of moral claims to which few reasonable citizens could object; he treads most gingerly when he speaks, as a pro-life Democrat, on the question of abortion:
There have been times when members of my party have vigorously opposed me because of my position on abortion. And those of you with long memories can recall a dark night in 1992 when the national Democratic Party insulted the most courageous pro-life public official in our party who simply asked that those who believed in the right to life be accorded the right to speak. But things have changed over the ensuing 14 years. I have been encouraged to see Democrats in this new century becoming more open to people who are pro-life. The common good can be advanced by working towards common ground.
For example, pro-life Democrats in the House are on the verge of introducing legislation that would work toward real solutions to our abortion problem by targeting the underlying factors that often lead women to choose abortion. As a public official, I will continue to work within the party to ensure that Democrats are welcoming and open to such initiatives.
Abortion is clearly an important life issue, and as a Catholic, I understand that life extends beyond the womb. In my view, neither party has gotten it right when it comes to life issues. We can't realistically expect to tackle the difficult question of abortion without embracing the "radical solidarity" with women who face a pregnancy that Pope John Paul II spoke of many years ago.
If we are going to be pro-life, we cannot say we are against abortion of unborn children and then let our children suffer in degraded inner-city schools and broken homes. We can't claim to be pro-life at the same time as we are cutting support for Medicaid, Head Start, and the Women, Infants, and Children's program. I believe we need policies that provide maximum feasible legal protection for the unborn and maximum feasible care and support for pregnant women, mothers, and children. The right to life must mean the right to a life with dignity.
Rob
