Sister Leonella Sgorbati (L) and Sister Jana Erena attend the SOS Day celebrations in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu in this July 2, 2005 file photograph. Gunmen killed Sister Sgorbati at a children’s hospital in Mogadishu on September 17, 2006 in an attack that drew immediate speculation of links to Muslim anger over the Pope’s recent remarks on Islam. The Catholic nun’s guard also died from pistol shots in the latest attack on foreign personnel in volatile Somalia.

AP: Colleagues: Nun forgave Somalia killers

Sister Leonella, a nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa, used to joke there was a bullet with her name engraved on it in Somalia. When the bullet came, she used her last breaths to forgive those responsible.

“I forgive, I forgive,” she whispered in her native Italian just before she died Sunday in the Somali capital, the Rev. Maloba Wesonga told The Associated Press at the nun’s memorial Mass in Nairobi on Monday.

Sister Leonella’s slaying raised concerns that she and other foreigners killed in Somalia recently are victims of growing Islamic radicalism in the Horn of Africa country, where a hard-line Muslim militia has been expanding its reach.

The shooting was not a random attack and could have been the Muslim anger over remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam and violence, said Willy Huber, regional head of the Austrian-financed hospital where the Roman Catholic nun worked.

Several Somalis who witnessed Sunday’s attack by two gunmen also speculated the killing was related to the pope. But Abdurahman Mohamed Farah, deputy leader of the Islamic militia, disputed that, blaming it instead on Somali warlords who were driven out of Mogadishu in June.

And what religion is one of peace, forgiveness and love?

NOT this one….

Palestinians look at a fire at the gate of an Anglican church after it was hit by a firebomb in the West Bank city of Nablus September 16, 2006. Palestinian gunmen attacked churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Saturday after a day of protests against comments Pope Benedict made about Islam. Five churches came under attack in the West Bank city of Nablus, where militant groups have long been the dominating force.

Or this one,,,,,

God Be with Sister Leonella Sgorbati.

Catholic Christians pray for nun Sister Leonella at the Holy Family Basillica in Nairobi, Monday, Sept. 18, 2006. The elderly nun who was gunned down at the hospital where she worked in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu was ‘specifically targeted before being executed by gunmen lying in wait,’ a hospital official said Monday.

Michelle Malkin has This what a real martyr looks like

Previous:

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The POPE Must Die

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – Pope’s Remarks ” Link in the Chain” of United States-Israeli Conspiracy

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Al Qaeda – “JIHAD” Against the “Worshippers of the Cross”

Cox & Forkum: Critical Mass

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope “Deeply Sorry” for Reactions to Speech

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope To Address Muslim FLAP

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Taliban Demands Pope Apologize for Speech

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Speech at the University of Regensburg

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope Sorry Muslims Have Found Speech Offensive

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Papal Islamic Comment FLAP

Technorati Tags: Pope, PopeBenedictXVI, Islam, Jihad, Crusade, AlQaeda

Pope Benedict XVI greets the pilgrims and faithful in the courtyard of his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, outside Rome, during his traditional Sunday Angelus prayer. Pope Benedict XVI sought to mollify Muslim anger, saying he was “deeply sorry” for the outrage sparked by his recent remarks on Islam and stressing they did not reflect his personal opinion.

AP: Pope sorry for reaction to his remarks

Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he was “deeply sorry” about the angry reaction to his recent remarks about Islam, which he said came from a text that did not reflect his personal opinion.

Despite the statement, protests and violence persisted across the Muslim world, with churches set ablaze in the West Bank and a hard-line Iranian cleric saying the pope was united with President Bush to “repeat the Crusades.”

If the Crusades is what the Islamic world wants then they are sadly apt to obtain what they desire – providing they continue their irrational violent behavior.

The Pope did NOT apologize for his speech. The text of the speech is here.

However, the Pope’s statement that he is “deeply sorry” will NOT mollify the Islamists who want the Pope and Christians to surrender and humble/abase themselves before their God.

But, was the Pope correct in his comments about Islam and violence?

You betcha…..

This undated photo provided Sunday, Sept. 17, 2006 by the family of Sister Leonella, shows Italian nun Sister Leonella, right, sitting with an unidentified aunt in Rezzanello di Gazzola, near Piacenza, Italy. Gunmen killed Sister Leonella and her bodyguard Sunday at the entrance of the hospital where she worked in Mogadishu, Somalia, officials said _ an attack some feared could be linked to Muslim anger toward Pope Benedict XVI.

AP: Italian nun shot dead by Somali gunmen

Two gunmen killed an Italian nun and her bodyguard at a hospital Sunday, and a security official for an Islamic militia controlling the capital speculated the attack was linked to worldwide Muslim anger over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI.

The nun, whose identify was not released, was shot in the back four times at the entrance to the Austrian-run S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu, said Dr. Mohamed Yusuf, a physician at the facility, which serves mothers and children.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which came hours after a leading Somali cleric condemned remarks by the pope that quoted a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam’s founder as “evil and inhuman.”

The head of security for the Islamic militia, Yusuf Mohamed Siad, said one man had been arrested and a second was being hunted. He said the killing might have stemmed from the uproar over the pope but stressed he didn’t know for sure.

“They could be people annoyed by the pope’s speech, which angered all Muslims in the world, or they could have been having something to do with S.O.S,” he said. “We will have to clarify this through our investigation.”

Yeah right……

Remember it was the Somali Islamic Cleric Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin who called for the pope’s death.

Michelle Malkin has Italian nun killed; Pope sorry for Muslim reaction

Rick Moran: You cannot appease the unappeasable.

Kathy Shaidle points to this Muslim paper accusing the Pope of “going berserk” and expressing shock and puzzlement at being “maliciously demonised by mischievous elements in the Christian West.”

Pajamas Media is rounding up all of this morning’s developments.

Stay tuned for more Islamist reactions/protests/violence.

Pakistani activists of the Sunni Tehreek shout slogans during a protest against the remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence, in Karachi. Pope Benedict XVI sought to mollify Muslim anger, saying he was “deeply sorry” for the outrage sparked by his recent remarks on Islam and stressing they did not reflect his personal opinion.

Previous:

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope To Address Muslim FLAP

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Taliban Demands Pope Apologize for Speech

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Speech at the University of Regensburg

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope Sorry Muslims Have Found Speech Offensive

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Papal Islamic Comment FLAP

Technorati Tags: Pope, PopeBenedictXVI, Islam, Jihad, Crusade

Pope Benedict XVI waves farewell from the gangway of the Munich international airport September 14, 2006. The Pope is sorry Muslims were offended by a speech on Islam that provoked fury around the world and led to calls for the leader of the Catholic church to apologise, an aide said on Saturday.
CNN: Pope to address Muslim furor

In the wake of an enraged response to his comments about Muslims, Pope Benedict XVI planned to address the controversy when he gives his regular Sunday blessing, or Angelus, from his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, southeast of Rome, sources told CNN.

It will be Benedict’s first public appearance since Tuesday, when he quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in a speech in Germany.

Pope Benedict XVI has said he is “very upset” that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith, according to the Vatican.

Vatican spokesman Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement on Saturday the pope’s position on Islam was unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the Church “esteems Muslims, who adore the only God.”

The pope is “very upset that some parts of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibility of the Muslim faithful and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond at all to his intentions,” Bertone added. (Full statement)

The Pope’s address will be at 3 AM Pacific Daylight time.

Flap will report on it in the morning.

Stay tuned…….

Previous:

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Taliban Demands Pope Apologize for Speech

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Speech at the University of Regensburg

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope Sorry Muslims Have Found Speech Offensive

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Papal Islamic Comment FLAP

Technorati Tags: Pope Benedict XVI

Palestinians look at a fire at the gate of an Anglican church after it was hit by a firebomb in the West Bank city of Nablus September 16, 2006. Palestinian gunmen attacked churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Saturday after a day of protests against comments Pope Benedict made about Islam. Five churches came under attack in the West Bank city of Nablus, where militant groups have long been the dominating force.

AFP: Taliban demands Pope to apologise for anti-Islam remarks

Afghanistan’s Taliban on Saturday demanded Pope Benedict XVI to apologise for remarks linking Islam with violence, adding the comment showed the Christian West was waging war against Muslims.

“We strongly condemn it,” Mohammad Hanif, who regularly speaks to the media on behalf of the extremist insurgent group, said.

“We also want the Pope to apologise before the Muslim Umma (nation),” he said.

The remarks were “obviously part of a crusader war that the West, chiefly America and (President) Bush, is waging against Islam and Muslims,” he said.

Apologize for what?

What Pope Benedict said was true. The entire text of the speech is here.

Arab op-ed: Pope’s remarks may lead to war

Muslim world newspapers filled with articles slamming pope’s remarks; ‘it is clear that such remarks only contribute to the fueling of the fire raging between Islam and the West,’ op-ed published in al-Sharq al-Awsat says

If world Islam wants a crusade war, then Flap says bring it on.

The first nuclear armed ICBM’s should target Mecca and Medina.

End of story.

In the meantime, Somali cleric calls for pope’s death

A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia’s powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to “hunt down” and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.

Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

The Pope’s point exactly. But, Christianity will NOT submit to Islam.

And inter-faith reconciliation/dialogue? Uh – NO!

Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti: Pope’s comments lies

Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik, said in remarks published Saturday that the pope’s comments on Islam were “all lies.”

“These are all lies. The prophet (Muhammad), peace be upon him, came as a mercy to the world,” the daily al-Riyadh newspaper quoted al-Sheik as saying.

He said the pontiff’s remarks showed reconciliation between religions was impossible
.
“Everybody should know by now that all claims about religions’ reconciliation have just been proven to be lies in reality,” al-Sheik said. “How can they think of reconciliation while insulting Islam and the prophet?”

Michelle Malkin has The Religion of Peace Firebombs & Fatwas

Sheikh Abubakar Hassan Malin’s fatwa:

“Whoever offends our Prophet Muhammad should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim.”

Iraqi jihadi threat.

Father Raymond de Souza speaks out in the National Post: “Rioters’ madness shames Muslim world” (hat tip: Jihad Watch).

Father Samir K. Samir also speaks out.

Previous:

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Speech at the University of Regensburg

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope Sorry Muslims Have Found Speech Offensive

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Papal Islamic Comment FLAP

Technorati Tags: Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI waves farewell from the gangway of the Munich international airport September 14, 2006. The Pope is sorry Muslims were offended by a speech on Islam that provoked fury around the world and led to calls for the leader of the Catholic church to apologise, an aide said on Saturday.

Flap is reprinting unedited the Holy Father’s speech at the University of Regensburg.

Catholic World News: Pope’s speech at University of Regensburg (full text)

Editor’s note: The following is the prepared text from which Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) spoke as he addressed an academic audience at the Unviersity of Regensburg on September 12. As he actually delivered it, the speech differed slightly. Because the speech has aroused an unusual amount of debate– particularly regarding the Pope’s references to Islam and to religious violence– CWN strongly recommends reading the entire text.

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.

We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason– this reality became a lived experience.

The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the whole of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on– perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara– by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point– itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself– which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: “For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? 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. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the logos. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos.

Logos means both reason and word– a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.

The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: Come over to Macedonia and help us! (cf. Acts 16:6-10)– this vision can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’s attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: I am.

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria– the Septuagint– is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love transcends knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history-– it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity-– a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God.

In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science” and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter.

This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application.

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.

Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Previous:

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: Pope Sorry Muslims Have Found Speech Offensive

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Papal Islamic Comment FLAP

Technorati Tags: Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI waves to pilgrims after a holy mass on the Islinger field near Regensburg, September 12, 2006.

Reuters: Pope sorry his Islam speech found offensive

The Vatican said on Saturday the Pope was sorry Muslims had been offended by a speech whose meaning had been misconstrued, but Morocco withdrew its ambassador as anger at his words flared on.

The Papal Response:

“The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful,” Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement.

The FLAP: Pope’s `jihad’ remarks a sign

The Vatican said Benedict did not intend the remarks to be offensive and sought to draw attention to the incompatibility of faith and violence.

The pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said. “He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’”

The full text of the Pope’s speech at the University of Regensburg is here.
The radical Islamic response:

Graphic Courtesy of MM

My friend Lorenzo Vidino, counterterrorism expert and author of al Qaeda in Europe, sent the above photo and this note:

Attached is a picture of the Pope that is circulating in Qaeda-friendly chat rooms and websites. Lovely (and predictable) that they call for his beheading.

The script in red calls for the Pope’s beheading. The rest of the translation:

“Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire.”

And the New York Times Editorial:

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

BULL – The New York Times and Editor Bill Keller are pathetic Dhimmis who did not have the Cojones to print the Muhammad Cartoons.
The Pope needs to offer no further explanation on what he said.

IT IS THE TRUTH.

And radical Muslims can take the speech for what it was.

If the Muslims want interfaith dialogue then fine.

If they want Jihad, then bring on the CRUSADE.

Previous:

Pope Benedict XVI Watch: The Papal Islamic Comment FLAP

Technorati Tags: Pope Benedict XVI