Is That Legal?

Translation: It is wrong to condemn a religion as "evil." That's why I condemn Pope Benedict as evil and beyond the pale.

Why do I get the feeling that the Vatican is going to be apologizing for this Pope 500 years from now?

I'm not so impressed by Levy's post. First, I take issue with his idea that people who "take their theology seriously" are necessarily exclusionistic. Surely that depends on what part of their theology they take seriously. If serious Christians rely on the teaching that one must accept Jesus Christ as the son of God, they will exclude any religion that rejects the divinity of Jesus. If, however, they rely on the teaching that one must only love God completely and love one's neighbor as oneself, they will respect any religion that encourages it followers to feel and behave that way. (They may still think Christianity is the best religion, but they won't view other religions as necessarily bad.) I don't have a problem with Levy's assertion that if the pope believes Catholicism is the one true religion then he has every right to preach that other religions are false, but I reject the notion that that belief makes the pope a better, more "serious" religious leader.

There's a bigger problem here:

and, while it's very important and desirable that the Church has renounced the doctrine of eternal collective guilt of "the Jews" for Jesus' death....

Having posited a universal rule that its good and right for the Church to pass judgement on other religions, he parenthetically contradicts that rule and then goes on as if nothing had happened. I agree that it's important and desirable to renounce the doctrine of collective Jewish guilt, but I don't understand why it isn't also important and desirable to renounce the all-too-common belief that Islam is evil.

p.s. Loved the sauce metaphor!

if we condemn his remarks, we can do so on the basis of doctrinal Catholicism. The Vatican II statements of understanding specifically denounce this kind of extremist view of Islam, and commend the shared values of the two traditions while noting the importance of respect for the divergences.

"He quoted a ludicrously broader assertion -- that Islam had brought the world nothing but inhumanity and evil..."

That's not quite right. The quote said Islam had brough nothing that Christianity did not already provide but inhumanity and evil. "Islam: Some of the moral good of Christianity, but with evil additives!" The same can (and if being truthful, must) be said of any theology that differs from one that you hold to be wholly true and good.

So, can I ask when you're going to give a few inches of blog to point out that the killings, fire bombings and riots by muslims around the word are at least as bad as the Pope making rude remarks?

ELM: Isn't it obvious, Michael? My not writing to condemn killings, fire bombings, and riots means that I heartily approve of them!

When you focus on only attacking only one side of a controversy then, yes, it's reasonable to assume you either support or at least indifferent to the other side.

It's also reasonable to assume that you focus on what you consider important and, by choosing to focus on the Pope's words, it is reasonable to believe you consider those words more important than the violence that followed them.

ELM: Michael, I am distressed that in your comments here, you've said nothing at all about the genocide in Darfur. I can only assume from your silence that you favor it.

Heh. A point, I suppose - although I have ranted about Darfur at the dinner table often enough. To me, one of the biggest costs of the Iraq war is that it leaves us unable to get involved in anything else - and Darfur could certainly use more involvement.

Which, brings me back to my point: I have no trouble saying the genocide in Darfur is horrific - but even now, all you can do about the killings, fire-bombings and death threats from recent days is make sarcastic remarks?

I heard Bruce Lawrence talk on this on Sunday; wish he would post his remarks. Saying you can't take the offending anecdote out of context, he reads the whole speech as being about rational (Christian) vs. irrational (Muslim) religion. He said within that, theologically, there's reference to a debate involving the primacy of the (rational) Word, as in John the gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The debate is between Emperor Paleologus ("ancient word") and not a Muslim but specifically a "Persian." So the implication is that Christianity is rational while Islam (radical, e.g. Iranian, Islam) is not: and yet what Dr. Lawrence pointed out is that both religions have parallel aspects of rationality and irrationality. There was more to it than that, enough to convince me that the whole speech is of a piece--it's not just a matter of an inartful example that prudence would have edited out.

So the Pope quotes someone that characterizes Islam as a religion of violence.

And what happens in the Muslim world? A nun is murdered by protesting muslins in Somalia. A church is firebombed by protesting muslims in the west bank.

Gee, fellows, what a great way to prove the quote was not on target.