The Pope and Islam

TIME recently ran a cover story on the pope’s upcoming visit to Turkey. In general, it was well written, quoting liberally from complimentary sources who, to one degree or another, agreed that the Pope, in his Regensburg speech, said what needed to be said. For example, one “high-ranking Western diplomat in Rome” was sited by TIME that summed up the shared sentiment of many of those quoted throughout the article. “It was time to let the rabbit out of the can, and he did. I admire his courage.” Even those who disagreed with the pope were measured in their criticism. Tariq Ramadan wrote an op-ed expressing his points of departure from the Holy Father’s view. He nevertheless defended the pope’s right to express himself. “It is Benedict’s right to exercise his critical opinion without being expected to apologize for it.” And further, “Benedict XVI should be free to express his opinions without risk of impassioned denunciation.” It was refreshing to read an article in a magazine like TIME that gave voice to articulate supporters of the Holy Father like Father Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak. This is not to say however that the article was error-free. When it came down to dealing with the nuts and bolts of what the Holy Father actually said in his Regensburg address, the writers for TIME fell short of the mark.

The criticisms I’ve heard or read emanating from the pseudo-intellectual elites of America regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture are, in varying degrees, the same hackneyed talking-points crafted and reshaped to suit different audiences. TIME dismissed the substance of what the pope said in his sophisticated discourse as “slap-dashed and flawed.” It seems that the problem many experienced when reading the controversial address stems from modernity’s general disregard for philosophy as a science. The modern American mind has been reared in the school of positivism, which forbids or holds highly suspect, a correct anthropology of the human person and any definitive conclusions on moral actions. Such critics of the Pope’s lecture come across as sorry attempts by intellectual inferiors to grasp something that soars far above their limitedly trained mind’s capacity. The Pope’s brilliant summation of Western civilization’s present dilemma passed clear over the heads of many for the simply reason that he, and anyone else schooled in the Classics, are on a different level, intellectually speaking. One passage from the TIME article particularly galled me. It was made in the familiar arena of criticizing the Church for its involvement in the Crusades. It followed up on a discussion of the Koran and passages within it that could be interpreted today by extremists to sanction violence. To appreciate the astonishing oversight by TIME, it is worth citing the passage in its entirety.

The bellicosity of some Koranic passages owes much to the fact that they were written at a time when Muslims were engaged in almost constant warfare to defend their religion. But when suicide bombers today go to their fates with the Koran’s verses on their lips, it invites questions about Islam’s credentials as a religion that is willing to police its own claims of peace and tolerance. As conservative Catholic scholar Michael Novak points out, the Vatican’s pacifism gives Benedict unmatched moral standing to press this point. “Being against war, he can say tougher things…than any President or Prime Minister can. His role is to represent Western civilization.” Perhaps so, but then he might have to represent its past as well, including all the historical violence done in Jesus’ name (despite the Gospel’s pacifism).

For starters, the writers for TIME seem quite willing to give the early subscribers to Islam a moral pass for behaving violently because they were merely defending their religion. Could it ever have been a possibility that Christians too have also taken up the sword in defense of their prerogatives to worship freely? TIME seems ready to excuse or overlook the violent excesses of Muslims in the 7th century in the name of “defense” and, further, to ignore the clear-as-day fact that for one-thousand years Muslims on the offensive overran entire Christian civilizations, from the Iberian Peninsula, across northern Africa and into the Orient. This oversight by TIME is most unfortunate and provides yet another manifestation of a selective historical bias. More troubling still is TIME’s failure to make a critical distinction. TIME rightly observes that Christians acting violently in the name of Christianity contradict the very essence of the Scriptures. Surprisingly and commendably, considering the rampant political correctness of the day, TIME even gets close to broaching the subject of the Koran’s blatantly violent passages, leaving open for discussion the unresolved connection between violence and the essence of Islam. The deficiency of the observation lies in its reluctance to clearly distinguish, as Pope John Paul II did in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, between the theology and anthropology of Christianity and Islam. Such a distinction sets the two religions worlds apart. One simply cannot conclude that, because Christians committed atrocities in the name of their religion, Christianity and Islam, as religions, are the same with regard to their relation to violence. The whole point of this debate is a critical study into the very essence of Islam and Christianity. TIME at least recognizes the intrinsically peaceful soul of Christianity and it deserves credit for raising the topic of Koranic exegesis in light of Muslim terrorists. However TIME’s omission in delineating the essences of the two religions by virtue of their holy texts is extremely frustrating. This failure opens the door to moronic comments that serve to undermine Christianity’s sublime message, sabotaging it with the cruel actions of some of her members; actions clearly at odds with the religion’s essence.