Thursday, November 30, 2006
Pope Benedict XVI's Apostolic Journey to Turkey Nov. 28 - Dec. 1, 2006
Ecumenical Patriarchate | EWTN Coverage | Weekly Schedule (Vatican) | Vatican Radio
[This post will be updated regularly throughout the coming week (Tuesday 28th - Friday 1st) as we chronicle Pope Benedict XVI's apostolic journey. Please bookmark and pass along if interested. God bless! - Christopher]
 Prayer of Protection for Pope Benedict XVI - Heavenly Father, from whom every family in heaven on earth takes its name, we humbly ask that you sustain inspire, and protect your servant, Pope Benedict XVI, as he goes on pilgrimage to Turkey — a land to which St. Paul brought the Gospel of your Son; a land where once the Mother of your Son, the Seat of Wisdom, dwelt; a land where faith in your Son’s true divinity was definitively professed. Bless our Holy Father, who comes as a messenger of truth and love to all people of faith and good will dwelling in this land so rich in history. In the power of the Holy Spirit, may this visit of the Holy Father bring about deeper ties of understanding, cooperation, and peace among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and those who profess Islam. May the prayers and events of these historic days greatly contribute both to greater accord among those who worship you, the living and true God, and also to peace in our world so often torn apart by war and sectarian violence
We also ask, O Heavenly Father, that you watch over and protect Pope Benedict and entrust him to the loving care of Mary, under the title of Our Lady of Fatima, a title cherished both by Catholics and Muslims. Through her prayers and maternal love, may Pope Benedict be kept safe from all harm as he prays, bears witness to the Gospel, and invites all peoples to a dialogue of faith, reason, and love. We make our prayer through Christ, our Lord. Amen. (Prayer composed by Bishop William E. Lori)
|
Catholic / Orthodox Commentary
|
|
Background Articles (November 27th, 2006)
For an extensive roundup prior to 11/27/06, see Anticipating Pope Benedict's Papal Visit to Turkey - Supplementary articles, news and commentary. The Benedict Blog Nov. 24th-26th, 2006.
- "Talking Turkey" - Dr. Michael Liccione offers "an imaginary office-hours dialogue at a Catholic university between a student I shall call 'Alethia' and my professorial alter ego" on the many facets of Benedict's visit.
- Turkey’s Catholics, Orthodox pray for pope’s arrival, by Mavi Zambak. AsiaNews.it:
Ankara (AsiaNews) – Responding to the appeal of Benedict XVI, tonight all Catholic communities in Turkey will hold prayer vigils to accompany and welcome the pope throughout his trip to Turkey. Yesterday, after recital of the Angelus, the pontiff asked the faithful to accompany him in prayer so that “this pilgrimage may bear all the fruits that God desires” . . .
- Interview with Fr. Tom Michel on Benedict's Turkey visit w. John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter Nov 27, 2006 07:25am.
- Benedict XVI's Journey to Turkey "Gesture of Love" Zenit News. Nov. 28, 2006 - Interview with Father Giovanni Cereti, Catholic theologian and lecturer of ecumenical theology:
The Church of Christ is a communion, and fraternal relations between Christians and churches are an essential expression of this communion, which already unites us to God in virtue of the common faith and one baptism.After a long period during which, due to external difficulties, these visits could not be undertaken, the Second Vatican Council established a new starting point and the exchange of visits between local churches of the West and the East has become very frequent. Among all these visits, most significant in fact are those carried out between the two most important sees of Christianity . . .
~ Intinerary of Pope Benedict's Apostolic Journey ~
ITALY
Tuesday, 28 November
Fiumicino (Rome)
- 09.00 Departure from Leonardo Da Vinci International Airport of Rome/Fiumicino to Ankara
TURKEY
Ankara
(Capital of Turkey) [Wikipedia Guide]
- 13.00 - Arrival at Esembog(a International Airport
 Visit to the Atatürk Mausoleum:. . .the Pope travelled by car to the Mausoleum of Ataturk some 45 kilometers from the city. Built between 1944 and 1953, it holds the earthly remains of Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" (Father of the Turks), founder and first president of the Turkish Republic (1923-1938). Within the building, which resembles a Greek temple and is reached by a flight of steps, the walls are covered in green marble and the ceiling decorated with gold mosaics. The cenotaph to Ataturk is made from a single block of marble weighing 40 tonnes. . . ." [Source: Kath.net]
And from Zenit News:Benedict XVI placed a floral wreath next to the monument and then signed the visitor's book and wrote in English: "In this land, a meeting point of different religions and cultures and a bridge between Asia and Europe, I gladly make my own the words of the founder of the Turkish Republic: 'Peace at Home, Peace in the World.'"
- Welcome ceremony and courtesy visit to the President of the Republic
 Meeting with the Prime Minister (Recep Tayyip Erdogan). From BBC News' profile of the VP (Turkey's charismatic pro-Islamic leader Nov. 4 2002):
His background and commitment to Islamic values also appeal to most of the devout Muslim Turks who have been alienated by the state.
But his pro-Islamist sympathies earned him a conviction in 1998 for inciting religious hatred.
He had publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."
He was sentenced to 10 months in jail, but was freed after four. [...]
Mr Erdogan has disavowed the hardline Islamic views of his past and is trying to recast himself as a pro-Western conservative. He does not insist on leaving Turkey's Nato and says the country's membership of the European Union is a necessary and useful step.
 Turkish online newspaper Zaman later milked the meeting for all its worth:"I told the pope that Islam was a religion of peace and tolerance and he shared the same ideas," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a press briefing after meeting Pope Benedict XVI at Ankara airport. . . .Saying that the government did its best to welcome the pontiff in a hospitable manner, Erdogan expressed his wishes that the visit would be fruitful for world peace.
Asked about the pope's attitude on Turkey's EU membership, Erdogan replied: "I said that I expected his support on membership and the pope responded, ’We are not politicians but would like Turkey to join the EU.’" [NOTE: Zaman's lead story features a photo of the Holy Father's meeting with Ali Bardakoglu].
- Benedict XVI's address to Ali Bardakoglu, Chief of Turkey's Religious Affairs Directories - The meeting was attended by representatives of the Muslim community, among whom were the grand muftis of Ankara and Istanbul, as well as cardinals and bishops who are part of the papal entourage. [Zenit News 11/28/06]:
I have set out upon my visit to Turkey with the same sentiments as those expressed by my predecessor Blessed John XXIII, when he came here as Archbishop Giuseppe Roncalli, to fulfill the office of Papal Representative in Istanbul: "I am fond of the Turks, to whom the Lord has sent me … I love the Turks, I appreciate the natural qualities of these people who have their own place reserved in the march of civilization" (Journal of a Soul, pp. 228, 233-4).For my own part, I also wish to highlight the qualities of the Turkish population. Here I make my own the words of my immediate predecessor, Pope John Paul II of blessed memory, who said on the occasion of his visit in 1979: "I wonder if it is not urgent, precisely today when Christians and Muslims have entered a new period of history, to recognize and develop the spiritual bonds that unite us, in order to preserve and promote together, for the benefit of all men, 'peace, liberty, social justice and moral values'" (Address to the Catholic Community in Ankara, 28 November 1979). . . .
 Pope urges leaders to renounce violence, by Victor L. Simpson (Associated Press 11/28/06)Seeking to ease anger over his perceived criticism of Islam, Benedict met with Ali Bardakoglu, who heads religious affairs in Turkey, warmly grasping hands. Benedict sat nearby as the Muslim cleric defended his religion.
"The so-called conviction that the sword is used to expand Islam in the world and growing Islamophobia hurts all Muslims," Bardakoglu said.
The comment appeared to be a reference to Benedict's remarks in a speech in September when he quoted a 14th-century Christian emperor who characterized the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by thy sword the faith he preached."
The Vatican described the cleric's speech as "positive, respectful and non-polemical," applauding what the church sees as efforts for a true dialogue between faiths.
- Meeting with the Diplomatic Corps - Pope Benedict XVI's Address of the Holy Father with the Diplomatic Corps of Ankara - Apostolic Nunciature of Ankara. Tuesday, 28 November 2006.
Coverage / Commentary
- Speaking to the journalists accompanying him on his flight, the Pope affirmed that his visit to Turkey "is not political but pastoral", and that its aim is "dialogue and the shared commitment to peace." Vatican Information Service 11/28/06.
- Turkey: Pope Arrives With Reform Challenge For Islam, by Jeffrey Donovan. Radio Free Europe 11/28/06.
- Turkey: Young People Comment On Pope’s Historic Visit, by Elif Yildiz Arli and Jeffrey Donovan. Radio Free Europe. 11/28/06.
- Vatican OK with Turkey joining the EU, officials say Nov 26, 2006 08:42am CST; Pope wants Turkey to enter Europe, PM says Nov 28, 2006 06:48am CST. -- Two related reports from John Allen Jr. A change of opinion from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who in August 2004 disagreed with Turkey's bid for the EU.
Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Vatican's secretary for relations with states, has clarified that the Vatican has no official position on Turkey's entry to the European Union (Zenit News 11/26/06): In response to a question by a journalist in the Catholic newspaper Avvenire, Archbishop Mamberti clarified that "the Holy See has not expressed an 'official' position on this question."
"Obviously, it follows the question with great interest and sees that the debate which has been taking place for some time and the positions for and against Turkey's admission to the European Union manifest that what is at stake is very important," said the 54-year-old Vatican official.
"Of course the Holy See believes that, in case of adherence, the country must respond to all the political criteria established by the Copenhagen Summit of December 2002," he added.
With specific reference to religious liberty, the prelate specified that Ankara must respect the conditions established by the decision of the Council of Europe, on Jan. 23, 2006, on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey.
- On papal plane, Benedict stresses brotherhood, dialogue, and ‘healthy secularism’, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter 11/28/06.
- Pope calls for Christian-Muslim dialogue CNN.com 11/28/06.
- Pope preaches brotherhood on Turkey trip, by Brian Murphy. Associated Press. 11/28/06 04:59am.
- On day one, Benedict adopts 'soft tone' in Turkey, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter Nov 28, 2006 11:58am:
In what seemed almost a deliberate counter-point to his infamous quotation from a 14th century Byzantine emperor at the University of Regensburg, Benedict this time cited an 11th century pope, Gregory VII, who said to a Muslim prince in 1076 that Christians and Muslims owe charity to one another “because we believe in one God, albeit in a different manner, and because we praise him and worship him every day as the Creator and Ruler of the world.”
Benedict was careful when referring to God to use constructions such as “the Almighty” and “Merciful,” respecting Muslim sensitivities.
To date, his Turkish hosts have reciprocated the upbeat tone. To date, no one has explicitly referred to Benedict’s Regensburg address, though Lombardi told reporters that he thought he heard echoes of some Muslim reaction to the speech, especially in terms of the relationship between Islam and reason, in Bardakoglu’s remarks to the pope.
Yet in his later address to the diplomatic corps in Turkey, Benedict returned to the two themes which have formed the core of his message to Muslims: the need to reject terrorism, and the need for “reciprocity,” meaning religious freedom.
- In Turkey, Benedict XVI Becomes a Defender of Freedom, by Sandro Magister. www.Chiesa 11/28/06.
Wednesday, 29 November
Ephesus
[Ephesus: An on-line Panoramic Virtual Tour]
Coverage & Commentary
 Pope Says Mass in One of Turkey's Most-Revered Christian Sites, by Sabina Castelfranco. Voice of Americas 11/29/06:Many had gathered at the restored stone "House of Mary" sanctuary in the morning, waiting for the pope to arrive. They waved palm leaves and Turkish flags and sang hymns.
The pope appeared in good spirits. He smiled at the crowd that clapped and shouted out his name. In his homily, the pontiff prayed for peace in the world and, in particular, in the Holy Land. . . .
Benedict is the third pope to make the pilgrimage to the "House of Mary." Paul VI visited in 1967 and John Paul II came here in 1979.
Every year, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims visit the "House of Mary" where, according to legend, the mother of Jesus lived the last years of her life. It is here that Saint John the Apostle is believed to have brought the Virgin Mary to care for her, after the death of her son, Jesus.
The site was discovered in 1891 by archeologists, who based their search on writings by the German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich.
- Where Mary Is Believed to Have Lived Zenit News. 11/29/06. "From the first centuries, numerous Christian authors from the East and West mentioned John's and the Blessed Virgin's stay in this city, in which were located the headquarters of the first of the seven Churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
But, how was it determined that this was the house of Jesus' Mother?"
- A Mass at the House of Mary, by Owen Matthews. Newsweek 11/29/06.
- In Ephesus, Supreme Pontiff becomes a simple country pastor, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter 11/29/06.:
On a beautiful fall afternoon on a Turkish hillside, Pope Benedict XVI, Supreme Pontiff of the 1.1 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church, metamorphosed into a simple country pastor, celebrating an outdoor Mass for no more than 300 pilgrims – perhaps half Germans who belong to the nearby German-language parish of St. Nicholas.
It was the smallest crowd in recent memory for a papal Mass, though the turnout was mostly due to the remote location and the tiny size of Turkey’s Christian community. The event had an intimate feel, with the assembly physically closer to the pope than is often the case. . . .
- Pope praises priest slain in cartoon furore The Guardian Nov. 29, 2006:
Pope Benedict today honoured the memory of a Roman Catholic priest who was killed after the publication of the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
At a small open-air mass in Ephesus, Turkey, next to the ruins of a house where the Virgin Mary is thought to have spent her last years, the Pope praised the priest to 250 invited guests.
"Let us sing joyfully, even when we're tested by difficulties and dangers, as we have learned from the fine witness given by the Roman priest John Andrea Santoro, whom I am pleased to recall in this celebration."
A Turkish teenager shot the priest as he knelt in prayer in his church in the Black Sea port of Trabzon. The February attack occurred amid widespread Muslim anger over the cartoons. Two other Catholic priests were attacked in Turkey this year.
- Papal Photos of the Mass from The Cafeteria is Closed; American Papist; American Papist with Pope Benedict in the Cathedral of St. George .
Istanbul(Constantinople) [Wikipedia Guide]
- Moment of prayer at the Patriarchal Church of St. George and private meeting with H.H. Bartholomew I - Greeting of the Holy Father
- Schedule: Pope and Ecumenical Patriarchate meeting Spero News 11/28/06.
 Welcome by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI After the Prayer Service at the Patriarchal Cathedral of St. George:So it is with open embrace that we welcome you on the blessed occasion of your first visit to the City, just as our predecessors, Ecumenical Patriarchs Athenagoras and Demetrios, had welcomed your predecessors, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. These venerable men of the Church sensed the inestimable value and urgent need alike of such encounters in the process of reconciliation through a dialogue of love and truth.
Therefore, we are, both of us, as their successors and as successors to the Thrones of Rome and New Rome equally accountable for the steps - just, of course, as we are for any missteps - along the journey and in our struggle to obey the command of our Lord, that His disciples "may be one."
- Address by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at the Prayer service in the Church of St. George :
It gives me great joy to be among you, my brothers in Christ, in this Cathedral Church, as we pray together to the Lord and call to mind the momentous events that have sustained our commitment to work for the full unity of Catholics and Orthodox. I wish above all to recall the courageous decision to remove the memory of the anathemas of 1054. The joint declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, written in a spirit of rediscovered love, was solemnly read in a celebration held simultaneously in Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome and in this Patriarchal Cathedral. The Tomos of the Patriarch was based on the Johannine profession of faith: “Ho Theós agapé estin” (1 Jn 4:9), Deus caritas est! In perfect agreement, Pope Paul VI chose to begin his own Brief with the Pauline exhortation: “Ambulate in dilectione” (Eph 5:2),“Walk in love”. It is on this foundation of mutual love that new relations between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople have developed.
- "That They May All Be One" - translation of an article, signed by Bartholomew I, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, which appeared on the front page of the Nov. 27-28 Italian edition of L'Osservatore Romano. [Zenit News Service. 11/29/06]
- Origins of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Spero News. 11/28/06.
Coverage & Commentary
- Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I pray in Istanbul for unity between Churches Catholic News Agency. 11/29/06.
- Pope and Patriarch offer symbolism, but don't expect breakthroughs, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter 11/29/06.
- Benedict XVI meets Bartholomew I, together for full unity AsiaNews.It 11/29/06:
Bartholomew and Benedict already know each other and have met before, but the Pope’s visit to Istanbul, where the Pontiff will meet the Patriarch three times, is an expression of their shared desire to pursue the ecumenical journey.
Bartholomew made this point reminding popes and patriarchs of their responsibility along the path of reconciliation. Benedict XVI echoed it when explaining that his visit to the patriarchate is part of the journey to strengthen “the impetus towards mutual understanding and the quest of full unity.”
Earlier, the Pope mentioned “the momentous events that have sustained our commitment to work for the full unity of Catholics and Orthodox. I wish above all to recall the courageous decision to remove the memory of the anathemas of 1054,” taken in a joint declaration by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, and “written in a spirit of rediscovered love”.
General
- Al Qaeda in Iraq, Vatican trade words on pope visit CNN 6:07pm 11/29/06 - Al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday denounced Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey, calling it part of a "crusader campaign" against Islam. The Vatican said the comments showed the need to fight "violence in the name of God."
Thursday, 30 November
 Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in the Patriarchal Church of St. George in the Phanar on the Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Patron Saint of the Church of Constantinople. [Video | Photos]
Coverage / Commentary
- Homily of the Ecumenical Patriarch before Benedict [Analysis] - Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (What does Prayer Really Say?) provides some sharp analysis of Patriarch Bartholomew's homily and some thoughts of his own:
Frankly, I think liturgy is a serious issue for ecumenical dialogue with the East. Think about this. They look at the stupid things the Latins have done and are doing to the sacred liturgy, about how those desiring traditional liturgy from lay people to priests, are marginalized and berated. They see the leaders of a group of "traditionalists" are ecommunicated. And they are going to get closer to Rome? Would they hope that their traditions would be respected were they to give greater submission to the authority of Peter which the Pope of Rome exercises?
- Pope Relaunches Dialogue on Petrine Ministry: Renews Commitment to Seek Full Catholic-Orthodox Unity Zenit News. 11/30/06:
The Pope's proposal resounded today in the Cathedral of St. George at the Phanar -- the ancient Greek neighborhood of Istanbul where the Orthodox patriarchate's headquarters is located -- at the end of the Divine Liturgy on the feast of St. Andrew. The Orthodox patriarch celebrated the Divine Liturgy.The Holy Father, who prayed the Our Father in Greek, occupied a place of honor without being able to concelebrate, given the millennium-old division between the two Churches. Bartholomew I of Constantinople said in his homily: "We confess in sorrow that we are not yet able to celebrate the holy sacraments in unity. And we pray that the day will come when this sacramental unity will be realized in its fullness."
For his part, the Roman Pontiff explained that his "presence here today is meant to renew our commitment to advancing along the road toward the re-establishment -- by God's grace -- of full communion between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople."
"I can assure you," the Pope continued, "that the Catholic Church is willing to do everything possible to overcome obstacles and to seek, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, ever more effective means of pastoral cooperation to this end."
- Under the Turkish Guns, the Christians Roar, by Joshua Trevino. Brussels Journal 12/1/06.
- Turkish spokesman rejects title of "Ecumenical" Patriarch Catholic World News. Dec. 1, 2006:
As a November 30 press conference in Ankara, the spokesman for Turkey's foreign-affairs ministry asked Pope Benedict XVI to refrain from using the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" in reference to the Orthodox prelate Bartholomew I of Constantinople.
The ministry spokesman, Namik Tan, explained to reporters that the term "ecumenical," implying a universal role in Church leadership. That implication would violate the principles of secularism that inform the Turkish republic, he argued.
The Turkish government spokesman made his remarks only after Pope Benedict had joined with Patriarch Bartholomew in a public celebration of the feast of St. Andrew-- the most highly publicized event of his 4-day visit in Turkey. On November 29, when he met with the Patriarch at the church of St. George in Phanar, Pope Benedict had spoken of his gratitude for the invitation extended by "the Ecumenical Patriarchate." Again on November 30, during a talk for the feast of St. Andrew, he spoke of "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I."
Visit to the Museum of Saint Sofia and the Grand Umayyad Mosque ["Blue Mosque"]
Coverage / Commentary
- Footage of Pope Benedict's visit to the Grand Umayyad Mosque (YouTube.com) - The prayer occurs starting at 6:58. ("Interestingly, Pope Benedict keeps praying long after the Mufti has finished his devotions. -- via Dale Price)
- "Built in the sixth century and in its time the largest church in the world, Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque in the 15th century by the conquering Ottoman Turks. The Blue Mosque was deliberately sited to face Hagia Sophia to demonstrate that Ottoman and Islamic architects and builders could rival anything their Christian predecessors had created. It got its popular name because of the coloring of may of the tiles." [Source: CBSNews.com]
 Pope joins Grand Mufti at prayer inside Blue Mosque The Times UK - Dec. 1, 2006:When the two men reached the mihrab, the focal point of the mosque facing Mecca, the Mufti explained that Muslims stand for 30 seconds there “to achieve serenity”. He then announced: “I am going to pray.” The pontiff turned towards Mecca and joined him, his lips clearly moving in prayer for over a minute.
Father Federico Lombardi, the Pope’s spokesman, said that the pontiff had “paused in meditation and certainly he addressed his thoughts to God”.
However, Pope Benedict’s act of prayer differed significantly from that of Pope John Paul II, who when he visited a mosque in Damascus in 2001 was left to meditate alone. The Pope continued praying yesterday after the Mufti had stopped.
The historic gesture underlined the Pope’s wish to use his visit to reach out to Muslims outraged by his remarks on Islam at Regensburg University in September.
- In sign of respect to Muslims, pope prays in Istanbul's Blue Mosque, by John Thavis. Catholic News Service. 11/30/06:
The pope accepted the gift of a ceramic tile inscribed with the word "Allah" in the form of a dove.
Placing his hand on the tile, the pope said: "Thank you for this gift. Let us pray for brotherhood and for all humanity."
"Your Holiness, please remember us," the mufti replied. . . .
The pope asked a few questions but mostly listened during his tour. He was surrounded by a phalanx of Vatican aides and security personnel.
Before leaving, he stopped to write in the museum's guest book.
"In our diversity, we find ourselves before faith in the one God. May God enlighten us and help us find the path of love and peace," he wrote.
 Pope Wins Praise By Praying With Mufti, by Allen Pizzey. CBS Evening News' "Reporters Notebook" 11/30/06:The press then had to go through its usual round of asking each other "did-he-didn't-he," agree that he did — and then wait for confirmation from the Vatican spokesman, who more or less confirmed that the pope had indeed prayed, in a manner of speaking.
Turkish TV, which carried the event live, had no doubts — and was almost universally breathless in its coverage. "We are shocked ... it is fabulous … fantastic ... they pray together ... pope and mufti pray together ... historical ..." were among the comments.
They even noted that the Pope had, like everyone else, taken off his shoes, as is required in a mosque. But not for him the feel of soft, rich carpet under his socks. Benedict appeared to be wearing white slippers.
- Peter Visits Andrew – And Prays at the Blue Mosque, by Sandro Magister. www.Chiesa December 1, 2006:
On the feast of saint Andrew, Benedict XVI entered the Blue Mosque in Istanbul with the cross of Jesus clearly visible upon his chest. He paused before the mihrab facing Mecca, and prayed in silence beside the grand mufti, who murmured the opening words of the Qur’an: all this took place with the freedom and clarity marked out by his lecture in Regensburg.
But a no less symbolic gesture took place shortly before this, with the pope’s entrance into the Hagia Sophia, now a museum, previously a mosque, and before that the cathedral church of the patriarch of Constantinople, in the land where early Christianity flourished.
In the Hagia Sophia, Benedict XVI did not immerse himself in prayer; he did not repeat the gesture of Paul VI when he visited there in 1967. Surrounded and hemmed in at every moment, he was able only to admire – in the impressive architecture of the Hagia Sophia, in its Byzantine mosaics, and in its Qur’anic inscriptions – the magnificent and sorrowful image encapsulating the Christian East of yesterday and today. First there was Greek civilization and then early Christianity, then Roman culture and then the Islam that conquered but did not erase what came before it, and finally the little flock surrounded by wolves that keeps the Christian faith alive in today’s Turkey.
- Papal Pause Not Exactly a Prayer, Zenit News Service. 11/30/06:
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, confirmed, after the Holy Father's historic visit today, that "the Pope paused in a moment of meditation and recollection."
"It was a moment of personal meditation, of relationship with God, which can also be called of personal, profound prayer," Father Lombardi told journalists, "but it was not a prayer with external manifestations characteristic of the Christian faith."
- "His Lips Moved", by Robert Moynihan. Inside the Vatican 11/30/06:
Benedict’s moving lips were captured by television cameras and transmitted by satellite instantaneously around the world, to the ends of the earth.Perhaps the Pope was not really "praying" at all? Perhaps he was just "meditating"? Was this possible?
No, because when the two men continued on their way (as Serena, who was there and could hear everything, related to me), the pope said to the mufti, "Thank you for this moment of prayer." There seems no doubt, then, that Benedict was indeed praying.
The Pope’s spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, was asked about this later by journalists. Was it really a prayer?
At first Lombardi seemed to hesitate, saying "the pope paused in meditation, and certainly he turned his thoughts to God."
Then he said that this could be called a moment of personal prayer, but one which did not include any of the exterior signs of Christian prayer, like a sign of the cross. In this way, Lombardi said, the pope underlined what unites Christians and Muslims, rather than any differences.
"In this sense it was a personal, intimate prayer to God," Father Lombardi said, which "can easily be expressed with his mind and with his thoughts also in a mosque, where many people cultivate the same spiritual attitude."
The essence of this argument would seem to be that the pope - or any Christian - may pray to God anywhere, not just in a Christian church, but even outdoors, even in a prison cell, even in a non- Christian place of worship, like a mosque.
* * *Personal observation on the Papal "Prayer" at the Blue Mosque:
I believe this will be a moment strongly reminiscent of Pope John Paul II's Infamous Koran Kissing Incident -- which is to say, interpreted and exaggerated far beyond the Holy Father's personal intentions (taking a moment to reflect, in much the same manner as John Paul II was expressing a customary sign of respect towards the giver in that country). It will be, if not already, lambasted by 'radtrads' and exploited as a publicity stunt by the Muslim press.
Is this a "diplomatic error" on Benedict's part? -- the gesture is certainly too open to exploitation. (The same could be said for the Turkish newspaper Zaman's headline: "Pope Agrees Islam is Religion of Peace" -- of course the Pope would beg to differ, but the media will go where they will and say what they want to say regardless).
But however one chooses to receive the above, it would have to be weighed against other factors -- for instance, explicitly praising a priest slain in the Islamic rage over the Danish cartoons, or alluding to the Armenian genocide by Turkey in his address with patriarch Mesrob II. Perhaps he could have been more explicit in attributing Turkey's responsibility for the genocide in the latter -- but then again, as a guest of Turkey, he would also have jeopardized the possibility of a return visit, in light of advancing ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, so perhaps this was a reason for a more nuanced allusion to "truly tragic conditions, like those experienced in the past century.").
Regardless, -- just as I can't interpret JPII's "kissing of the Koran" in isolation from everything else, I'm inclined to weigh this saying / action by Pope Benedict in context with everything else that was said or done during the trip. At best I think it could be construed as a blunder (we'll see to what extent the Muslim press plays this up).
In the discussion of this event at Domenico Bettinelli's -- Fr. Martin Fox stressed the importance of looking at the event "through the right lenses" ("Triumph or Capitulation"?): Seems to me this is an event that acquires most of its meaning from the lens through which one views it.
If you view it through a fearful/defensive/paranoid lens (surf the blogosphere, you’ll find plenty of examples), it is capitulation, “political correctness,” fake nicey-nice, syncretism, etc.
If you view it through the lens of confident trust in the Holy Spirit and in the ability of our very able pope, it is considered, deliberate, courteous, astute.
If you view it through the lens of ultimate triumph, it is victorious, prophetic.
If the latter is less clear, consider—wasn’t there a question some time back about an Imam visiting a Christian cathedral, and how awful that was? Well, which is it: is a leader of a religion coming to the turf of another a sign of strength or of weakness?
Seems to me the very fact a priest entered a mosque represents an invasion of Christian sanctity-— Christ himself has entered, in persona Christi capitis; in fact, not merely a priest, but a bishop, a successor to the Apostles; and not any successor, but Peter’s successor!
Now, some won’t be happy unless he came tossing holy water around and making the sign of the cross. But I would say the pope’s very person-- as bishop and as successor to Peter-- is vastly more significant in bringing Christ into that mosque.
Of course the Muslim triumphalists think they’ve won something, but they believe in Islamic eschatology, whereas we know the truth. Why should we see things through their lens.
* * *
 The Shell of a Great Church, by Joshua Trevino. Brussels Journal 11/29/06. - "The Hagia Sophia is a tragedy in being."When the Turk's hired Christian engineer sapped the Theodosian walls to claim the Queen City for Islam, the tale is that Mehmet the Conquerer spent days exploring the recesses of the Hagia Sophia. It was the great prize of the great city -- and when the Sultan emerged, he pronounced himself well pleased. He had the Great Church stripped of its nine hundred years of decoration -- glorious gilt and mosaics -- and caused minarets to be built at its corners. Hagia Sophia was now a mosque. Its Muslim occupants did not bother to rename it: instead, its Greek name became its Turkish one as well -- Ayasofya, a word meaning nothing in Turkish beyond the unintended invocation of the Holy Wisdom. Throughout the Ottoman period, the Christians of the east yearned for a Liturgy to be sounded again in the Hagia Sophia. At the end of that period, it seemed as if it might come to pass: one of the demands of the European powers, prior to the recognition of Ataturk's republic, was that the Hagia Sophia again be a church. Ataturk would not hear of it -- but he did make it a museum, and that was sufficient for the powers of Europe.
- Pope visits Blue Mosque as gesture of outreach to Muslims, by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter 11/30/06.
Moment of prayer in the Armenian Apostolic Cathedral and meeting with H.B. Patriarch Mesrob II
Coverage / Commentary
 Pope and Armenian Seek to Surmount Schism, Zenit News Service 11/30/06:During the celebration of the Word, following [Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafina]'s address, Benedict XVI clarified that "Our meeting is more than a simple gesture of ecumenical courtesy and friendship."
"It is a sign of our shared hope in God's promises and our desire to see fulfilled the prayer that Jesus offered for his disciples on the eve of his suffering and death: 'That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me,'" the Pope said, quoting from John 17:21.
"We must continue therefore to do everything possible to heal the wounds of separation and to hasten the work of rebuilding Christian unity," the Holy Father continued. "May we be guided in this urgent task by the light and strength of the Holy Spirit."
- Pope Recalls Armenian Genocide Catholic World News. 11/30/06:
In his greeting to the patriarch, the Holy Father praised the Armenian people for their faithful witness to the Gospel, even under "truly tragic conditions, like those experienced in the past century." He was clearly alluding to the slaughter of Armenians under the Ottoman empire.
To this day the Turkish government refuses to acknowledge the genocidal campaign of 1915- 1917, in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed during massacres and forced marches, as the government of the "Young Turks" forced the relocation of an entire people. The Armenian Apostolic Church remains the largest Christian community in Turkey, but today numbers only about 50,000 faithful; in the late 19th century the number was several million. There are about 2 million members of the Church living in the country now known as Armenia.
- Holy Father says meeting with Armenian patriarch a sign of hope for Christian unity Catholic News Agency. Dec. 1, 2006.
- With Turkey's Armenians, Benedict shows off his 'great ear', by John Allen, Jr. National Catholic Reporter 12/03/06:
Though Benedict indeed spared no effort to send positive signals to the Turks, his more immediate sensitivity in his meeting with the Armenians was actually for someone else – the Armenians themselves, and especially their leader, Patriarch Mesrob II.
“It would have been a huge headache for us,” Mesrob II told NCR in Istanbul shortly after his meeting with the pope, referring to the prospect of Benedict XVI inflaming Turkish sentiment by using the term “genocide.”
Mesrob said doing so would have thrown his community of perhaps 60,000, the largest Christian community in Turkey but still a tiny minority in a nation of some 72 million, into tumult, potentially making them targets for a nationalist backlash.
Benedict XVI could have gone home after setting off such a rhetorical bomb, Mesrob II suggested, but the Armenians would have been left behind to deal with the aftermath.
- Interview with Patriarch Mesrob II of Istanbul and Turkey Pt. I; Pt. II, by Florence Avakian. Circa 1999.
Additional Visits
- Meeting with H.E. the Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan
- Meeting with the Grand Rabbi of Turkey:
The Hebrew term for "wise man" Haham has been adopted in Turkish to mean "Rabbi." This is to avoid the use of the word "Rabbi" since in Arabic the word "Rab" is one of he names of God and may not be applied to a human.Still today the Grand Rabbi is called the "Hahambasi." (Head of Rabbis)." [Source] See Also: History of the Jews in Turkey [Wikipedia Entry]
- Meeting and dinner with the members of the Catholic Episcopal Conference
Friday, 1 December
- Holy Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit - Homily of the Holy Father
- Farewell ceremony at the Airport of Istanbul
- 13.15 Departure from the Airport of Istanbul to Rome
Coverage / Commentary
- Pope encourages Turkish Christians to live in harmony with Muslims, by John Thavis. Catholic News Service. 11/01/06.
- Pope says Church in Turkey asks to live with the freedom to reveal Christ Catholic News Agency. 12/01/06:
On the last day of his Apostolic voyage to Turkey, Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass for the country’s Catholic community, affirming that the Church does not wish to impose its faith on anyone but, “merely asks to live in freedom,” in order to reveal Christ Jesus.
The Holy Father reminded the numerous Catholics gathered in the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit that the Church, “has been charged to proclaim (Christ’s) Gospel to the ends of the earth (cf. Mt 28:19), transmitting to the men and women of our time the Good News which not only illuminates but overturns their lives, even to the point of conquering death itself. This Good News is not just a word, but a person, Christ himself, risen and alive!”
“The Church’s mission,” he added, “is not to preserve power, or to gain wealth; her mission is to offer Christ, to give a share in Christ’s own life, man’s most precious good, which God himself gives us in his Son.”
ITALY
Ciampino (Rome)
- 14.45 Arrival at the Airport of Ciampino (Rome)
Labels: benedict, benedict roundup, islam
Friday, November 24, 2006
Anticipating Pope Benedict's Papal Visit to Turkey
On November 28, 2006, Pope Benedict will make an apostolic journey to the predominantly-Muslim country of Turkey. After the Regensburg address and the ensuing controversy, all eyes will be on the Benedict's visitation with Catholic and Orthodox Christian minority. Following are some background articles and commentary on the Pope's journey this week.
Supplementary Articles
 "The Passion of the Pope", by David Van Biema, Jeff Israely. (Time Nov. 19, 2006):when Benedict XVI travels to Turkey next week on his first visit to a Muslim country since becoming Pope last year, he is unlikely to cloak himself in a downy banner of brotherhood, the way his predecessor did 27 years ago. Instead, Benedict, 79, will arrive carrying a different reputation: that of a hard-knuckle intellect with a taste for blunt talk and interreligious confrontation. Just 19 months into his tenure, the Pope has become as much a moral lightning rod as a theologian; suddenly, when he speaks, the whole world listens. And so what takes place over four days in three Turkish cities has the potential to define his papacy--and a good deal more.
Time provides background to the papal visit by noting the contrast between Benedict's reaction toward Islam with what is oft-perceived as an overly-congenial approach of his predecessor: Unlike John Paul, who had a big-tent approach, Ratzinger has always favored bright theological lines and correspondingly high walls between creeds he regards as unequally meritorious. His long-standing habit is to correct any aide who calls a religion other than Christianity or Judaism a "faith." . . .That approach includes Islam. In Ratzinger's 1996 interview book Salt of the Earth (with Peter Seewald), he noted that "we must recognize that Islam is not a uniform thing. No one can speak for [it] as a whole. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which, again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice." This sophisticated understanding, however, did not keep Ratzinger from slapping down a bishop who wanted to invite peaceable Muslims to a papal ceremony in Fatima, Portugal, or, in 2004, from objecting to Turkish E.U. entry on grounds that it has always been "in permanent contrast to Europe," a contrast his other writings made clear had much to do with religion. Islam played a particular role--as both a threat and a model--in the drama that probably lies closest to Benedict's heart: the secularization of Christian Europe. In the same 1996 book, he wrote that "the Islamic soul reawakened" in reaction to the erosion of the West's moral stature during the 1960s. Ratzinger paraphrased that soul's new song: "We know who we are; our religion is holding its ground; you don't have one any longer. We have a moral message that has existed without interruption since the prophets, and we will tell the world how to live it, where the Christians certainly can't." While Time emphasizes one side of Benedict's response, it is certainly not the only one. Benedict's August 2005 address to Muslim community in Cologne, Germany and his recent reception and dialogue with Islamic scholars (responding to the Regensberg address) reveals a side much more akin to that of his predecessor.
 Time's feature on the Pope also contains a brief point / counterpoint -- "What the Pope Gets Right", by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:
It is noteworthy, however, that the Pope has not retreated from his challenge to Islam. Moreover, under his leadership, the Vatican has taken a much stronger line in insisting on "reciprocity" in relations with Islam. Mosques proliferate throughout cities in the West, while any expression of non-Islamic religion is strictly forbidden in many Muslim countries. In the Vatican and elsewhere, the feeling has been growing that the way of tolerance, dialogue and multicultural sensitivity can no longer be a one-way street. In fact, that shift predates Benedict's papacy. In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II said complimentary things about the piety of Muslims. But John Paul concluded his discussion of Islam with this: "For [these reasons] not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity."  and from Tariq Ramadan, on "Where [Benedict XVI] is Still In the Dark":this profoundly European Pope is inviting the people of his continent to become aware of the central, inescapable character of Christianity within their identity, or risk losing it. That may be a legitimate goal, but Benedict's narrow definition of European identity is deeply troubling and potentially dangerous. This is what Muslims must respond to: the tendency of Westerners to ignore the critical role that Muslims played in the development of Western thought. . . .What the West needs most today is not so much a dialogue with other civilizations but an honest dialogue with itself--one that acknowledges those traditions within Western civilization that are almost never recognized. Europe, in particular, must learn to reconcile itself with the diversity of its past in order to master the coming pluralism of its future. The Pope's visit to Turkey presents an opportunity to put forward the true terms of the debate over the relationship between Islam and the West. Time identifies the author of the latter article as "a research fellow at Oxford," and was elsewhere hailed by Time as part of "the next wave" of spiritual leaders and innovators.
A discussion of Ramadan may be tangential to this roundup, but some bloggers couldn't help but note his status as the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. On September 20, 2006, he was denied a visa on grounds of his contribution to a charity-front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which followed the 2004 revocation of his visa to live and work in the U.S. (See "The State Dept. was Right Weekly Standard Oct. 16, 2006).
The Italian journalist Sandro Magister profiled Ramadan ("Tariq Ramadan's Two-Faced Islam. The West Is the Land of Conquest" www.Chiesa January 19, 2004).
- Turkey's unique history a challenge for this academic pope National Catholic Reporter Nov. 17, 2006. John Allen, Jr. provides some helpful background, addressing the Pope's demand for "reciprocity" -- "meaning the demand that religious minorities in Islamic states should receive the same rights and freedoms as Muslims in the West":
Reciprocity is a core element of Benedict's challenge to Muslims -- inviting them to embrace reason with respect to religious affairs -- and the dismal conditions facing Turkey's small Christian population, including the tiny flock of the Patriarch of Constantinople, offers a classic case in point.Benedict will have to choose his words carefully, however, because there's a unique history in Turkey that could easily make such a challenge sound like a threat. Over the centuries, European powers repeatedly intervened in Turkey to demand special privileges for Christians, a process that many Turks associate with the slow undermining of the Ottoman Empire. If the pope is to avoid awakening those historical ghosts, he'll have to find a vocabulary that makes it clear he's talking about a matter of universal human dignity, not about special treatment for Christians.
Signs of Trouble
 Ali Bardakoglu, President of Religious Affairs in Turkey, is hardly enamored with Benedict's approach to Islam, denouncing his Regensburg address as "An Attack on the Pillars of Islam". Der Spiegel interviewed the dignitary on the Regensburg controversy and the Pope's impending visit:SPIEGEL: It's been 27 years since since a pope last visited Turkey, a Muslim country. What does the visit mean for your country?
Bardakoglu: Whenever a religious leader visits other countries, it means that religious leader is ready to engage in dialogue. That's important. If we want to get a grip on the world's problems, we have to speak to each other. Our problems don't originate in the religions themselves. The leaders can help ensure that people from various cultures develop an understanding for one another. Unfortunately, the notion of religiously-motivated violence is not an issue for Bardakoglu:SPIEGEL: What was wrong with the speech?
Bardakoglu: It was an attack, strongly colored by prejudice, on the three pillars of Islam: faith, the Koran and the prophet Muhammad -- without any reference to a specific event from the history of Islam. Whoever portrays the Koran and the prophet as the causes of the problems hasn't understood Islam.
SPIEGEL: You spoke of the Pope having "hatred in his heart" and accused him of cultivating a way of thinking that resembles that of the crusaders.
Bardakoglu: A person who says the prophet is the source of violence, and that the Koran is the cause of the aberrations, isn't formulating criticism but rather condemning and insulting Islam. The fact that the speaker is merely repeating a quotation does not diminish the mistake.
See also: Reconstruction of a Global Crisis: How the Pope Angered the Muslim World Der Spiegel Nov. 24, 2006.
 Sales of Pope Murder Book Soar Ahead of Benedict XVI's Visit (Adnkronos International (AKI) Nov. 22, 2006). As reported in one of our earlier roundups, sales of a Turkish novel fantasizing about the murder of the Holy Father are increasing in anticipation of the papal visit:The Plot Against The Pope is a highly speculative potboiler narrating how the conservative Roman Catholic society Opus Dei, a subversive masonic lodge and the CIA collude to make the pontiff's murder a pretext for a US attack against Iran.
Yuvel Kaya's book, which features Benedict XVI in front of a burning cross with a bearded gunman aiming a rocket launcher at him, is on sale at major Turkish bookstores such as D&R, Kabalci, Pandora.
Despite the absence of any promotional campaign - no billboards, posters or pamphlets at bookstores - sales are rapidly picking up, according to Lale Yilmaz from Kabalci, one the country's biggest book stores. However she told Adnkronos International (AKI) exact sales figures could not be released to the public.
"More copies of the book have been bought over the last 10 days than any other time," Zeynep Yaman an employee with Alfa Dagitim, one of the six companies distributing the books, told AKI.
Robert Duncan (News Editor for Spero News) is skeptical: Turkey: Pope murder book not what it seems?: No matter how distasteful the subject of this book may be - not to mention that it is getting free press and distracting attention away from the positive message of this historic visit - we should question if there isn't journalistic hype at play.
Interestingly enough, people seem to be missing one point.
At least from what I have read the book doesn't argue that Muslims will kill the Pope. Instead, according to Kaya's novel, the Pope is being targeted by, get this, Catholics.
And not just any Catholics, but by Dan Brown's favorite nemesis - Opus Dei.
 Shouting "Allahu akbar," Muslim protestors occuppied the Hagia Sophia in Instanbul on Wednesday, to protest the Pope's visit (Protesters occupying building detained" - a rather innocuous title?):The protesters belong to the Great Unity Party, a far right-wing group that has previously staged demonstrations against the planned Nov. 28-Dec. 1 visit.
They entered the 6th century former Byzantine church and mosque, shouting "Allahu akbar!" — "God is great!" — and then knelt to perform Islamic prayers.
They also shouted a warning to Benedict: "Pope, don't make a mistake, don't wear out our patience."
A group leader read a statement saying Benedict had offended Muslims with his comments linking violence and Islam, but the reading was interrupted by police. . . . Benedict is scheduled to tour the Haghia Sophia, which is a source of religious sensitivity in Turkey. It was one of the world's greatest churches for more than 1,000 years, but was converted into a mosque after the conquest of Istanbul by Ottoman Turks in 1453. Today, the Haghia Sophia is a museum, and public religious ceremonies inside are forbidden. Responding to the incident, Cardinal Raffaele Martino dismissed the protest:"One shouldn't accord to much importance to this episode," Cardinal Raffaele Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said in a statement.
"Some things are just isolated events and don't reflect the views of the entire population." 39 of the Hagia Sophia protestors -- 14 of them under the age of 18 -- were detained and later released, according to the Turkish newspaper Zaman.
The Catholic Apostolic Vicar of Anatolia, Luigi Padovese claimed the Hagia Sophia protest was organised by ultranationalist militants "for political, not religious ends", and that "The purpose of such protests is to keep Europe as far away as possible from Turkey," (Adnkronos International (AKI) Nov. 22, 2006).
 Indifference, antipathy and scarce approval as Turkey awaits Pope, by Mavi Zambak. AsiaNews.It Nov. 24, 2006:The latest surveys carried in Turkey’s main newspapers with nationwide coverage, reveal that only 10% of Turks approve the pope’s visit, 38% are decidedly against while another 38% are indifferent. And 14% preferred not to express their opinion.
However, even if they may not declare themselves to be hostile to the pope, people admit they are afraid something could happen. Despite constant assurances from police and security officials, many are not so sure that everything will go smoothly, and they fear unexpected hazards. Mehmet Ali Solak, an Alevite, director of the “Guvey Ruzgari” (southern wind) magazine, admitted to fears that someone may seek to attempt to assassinate the Pope, or even just to create unrest to discredit Turkey, and to shift the blame onto the Turks. Acknowledging that this was one reason why many would prefer Benedict XVI to stay at home, Solak echoed the views of a good part of the Turkish population (especially religious and ethnic minorities and also some Christians).
But there are also those who expect strong words of support from the Pope with regard to authentic freedom and democracy, against the Islamization that increasingly threatens to destroy the true secularism of the country. Thus, the daily Sabah, an extreme right Kemalist, summed up its thinking in a front page cartoon depicting a blurred crowd of people appealing to the figure of the Pope, saying “You save us”.
Christian Anticipation of the Papal Visit
- Interview with Father Justo Lacunza Balda of the Missionaries of Africa, a professor of the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies of Rome (PISAI):
Q: The Pope is going to Turkey in a few days on a trip that has aroused high expectations. Why is it a difficult trip?
Father Lacunza: Turkey is a lay, democratic and secular republic. The state has no official religion, but we must not forget that the majority of the population in Turkey is Muslim.
Therefore, the relations of the Catholic Church come into play with a country of Muslim majority, and this is difficult from the point of view of Christian minorities, religious liberty and pastoral activities.
It is a difficult trip because at stake in this crucial moment is Turkey's entrance into the European Community.
Personally, I don't see why Turkey should be part of the European Union. Suffice it to see its geographic situation to realize this. Have we forgotten that Turkey has borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria? Readers might recall that, in August 2004, then-Cardinal Ratzinger caused a bit of a stir by challenging Turkey's bid to join the European Union:"In the course of history, Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent contrast to Europe," Ratzinger told the magazine, noting that the history of Ottoman Empire, which once invaded Europe as far as Vienna. "Making the two continents identical would be a mistake," he said. "It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance of the cultural to the benefit of economics." The born cardinal said Turkey "could try to set up a cultural continent with neighboring Arab countries and become the leading figure of a culture with its own identity."
According to Zenit News Service, "about 99% of Turkey's 70 million inhabitants are Muslim, the majority Sunni. Catholics represent 0.04% of the population."
- Conventual Franciscan Friar Martin Kmetec describes Benedict XVI's forthcoming visit to Turkey as a "courageous gesture" - In an interview with ZENIT, Father Kmetec, a Slovenian missionary in Turkey, paints a picture of the nation the Pope will visit next week and explains that Catholics there are preparing for this event with hope. (Zenit News Service. Nov. 11, 2006):
Q: What is the Catholic reality in Turkey? How are Catholics preparing for this visit and what do they expect from the Pope?
Father Kmetec: Catholics in Turkey, those who are established, are close to 30,000. They are preparing spiritually for this visit with prayer.
An attempt is made in Sunday Masses to underline that Christians urgently need a spiritual renewal of life, according to the principles of the Gospel. This must be the fruit of the Pope's visit among us.
For this occasion, Bishop Luigi Padovese, apostolic vicar of Anatolia, addressed a letter to his faithful on the topic of hope, which is essential not only for the Church of Anatolia but for all Turkey's Christians.
Our communities must face daily not a few difficulties of an economic order; above all, however, they must be able to react to an inferiority complex in the face of an oppressive Muslim majority, which makes them feel oppressed and can make them think that they are the "infidels."
Q: Given the latest events, is there concern over security, or are only some isolated cases of intolerants to be feared?
Father Kmetec: I am sure that there are no problems in regard to the safety of the person of the Supreme Pontiff. The Turkish state will do everything possible so that this visit will unfold without major incidents.
One cannot exclude, however, some small demonstration or some isolated case of reaction, but certainly not in the course of the papal itinerary.
- Providing an illustration to the challenges faced by Christians in Turkey, Two men who converted to Christianity went on trial Thursday for allegedly insulting "Turkishness" and inciting religious hatred against Islam (Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2006):
Hakan Tastan, 37, and Turan Topal, 46, are accused of making the insults and of inciting hate while allegedly trying to convert other Turks to Christianity. If convicted, the two Turkish men could face up to nine years in prison.
The men were charged under Turkey's Article 301, which has been used to bring charges against dozens of intellectuals — including Nobel Prize-winner Orhan Pamuk.
The law has widely been condemned for severely limiting free expression and European officials have demanded Turkey change it as part of reforms to join the EU.
They also are charged under a law against inciting hatred based on religion.
- Update! - 25,000 Protest Pope's Visit to Turkey Associated Press Nov. 26, 2006:
More than 25,000 people joined demonstrations Sunday against Pope Benedict XVI's upcoming visit, police said.
The demonstration was the largest anti-pope protest so far ahead of Benedict's arrival Tuesday for a four-day visit, his first as pope to a predominantly Muslim country. Some 4,000 police backed by riot trucks, armored vehicles and helicopters monitored the protest as the crowds grew.
The protest was organized by a pro-Islamic political party called Felicity whose leaders have said they were offended by Benedict's comments in September linking violence and Islam. (Further coverage of this on American Papist).
- Mossad in Turkey to Assist Pope's Security - Zaman Nov. 26, 2006:
The Italian daily La Republica has reported that Mossad agents and Italian and Vatican security and intelligence officers have arrived in Turkey to help Turkish security units.La Republica also reported that security units in Istanbul arrested a group in preparation for an attack on the pope a few weeks ago in Istanbul. However, no detailed information was given on the identity and nationality of the suspects.
- Pope death threats put Turkey on high alert, by Malcolm Moore in Rome, Sunday Telegraph Nov. 26, 2006 :
An army of snipers, riot police, secret agents and bomb disposal experts has been mobilised for the Pope's four-day visit to Turkey. Naval units will patrol the Bosphorus armed with machine guns after warnings to police and security services that the life of Benedict XVI may be threatened by Islamic extremists after he arrives on Tuesday.
Celalettin Cerrah, the police chief in Istanbul, said that the city would have maximum security and warned that he would "call for reinforcements from nearby cities" if needed. Fears within the Vatican, which has been making preparations on the ground for the past month, were heightened when a man lunged at Archbishop Pierluigi Celata, the former papal ambassador to Turkey, who was on a advance scouting mission in his Catholic robes.
The archbishop said he hoped the attack was an "isolated case" and that the Pope would be met with the "hospitality that is typical of the Turkish and Muslim people".
 Writing for the Turkish Daily News, Mustafa Aykol introduces us to "The Turkish Side of Things": How Turks see the Pope (Nov. 25 / 26, 2006) -- a two-part series covering Turkish opposition to the papal visit:Thanks to the reports of the international fine print, many must have been informed that the fiercest opponents of the pope's visit are Turkish nationalists. But these folks do not form a homogenous crowd. They may fit into one of three broad categories: the pure nationalists, the Islamic nationalists and the secular nationalists (aka Kemalists) . . . Part II of Aykol's series on How Turks see the Pope (Part II) covers the historical motivation of the purely secular nationalists:Among those Turkish nationalists who do not welcome Pope Benedict XVI, the third category would be secular nationalists, who are in line with the anti-EU forces in Turkey's civil and military bureaucracy. They see the whole West as an imperialist enemy dying to carve Turkey into pieces by re-implementing the infamous Treaty of Sèvres -- a 1920 document that only a handful of non-Turkish historians but the whole Turkish nation remembers. For them Pope Benedict XVI is simply the religious face of "Western imperialism." His effort to consolidate Christianity is interpreted as the preparation for a new Crusade. . . .
Supplementary Links
Turkish Media
- TurkishPress.com - Includes daily aggregated news and Turkish media review compiled by the Office of the Prime Minister.
- Zaman - Turkey's first online daily.
- Turkish Daily News - Turkey's largest circulation English daily newspaper.
Additional Resources
Labels: benedict, benedict roundup, islam
Monday, November 20, 2006
Thoughts about St. Blog's Debate over the "Border Fence"
 This past week witnessed a debate between Michael & Katrina over at Evangelical Catholicism, Thomas N. Peters @ American Papist and Gerald Augustinus of The Cafeteria is Closed, over news that "A senior Vatican cardinal on Tuesday condemned the building of walls between countries to keep out immigrants and said Washington's plan to build a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border was part of an "inhuman program".Cardinal Renato Martino made his comments at a news conference presenting Pope Benedict's message for the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Migrants and Refugees, in which the Pope called for more laws to help immigrants integrate." SOURCE: Vatican cardinal says U.S.-Mexico fence "inhuman" Reuters. Nov. 14, 2006.
Tom's post -- "Oh, hush up, Cardinal Martino!" American Papist Nov. 14, 2006 -- seems to have been the provocation for the debate, with Michael and Katrina taking issue with his disrespectful tone. (Truth to tell, Martino is one Cardinal with a long-standing reputation for trying tempers. Even Jimmy Akin and the otherwise-gracious Amy Welborn couldn't restrain herself in responding "what an idiot!", responding to his typical inanities over the death penalty).
In any case, Evangelical Catholicism let fly with "The Problem with American Papist" (Nov. 15, 2006), which prompted the ensuing debate:
I'm not particularly interested in inserting myself into this debate, except to say that there is one aspect that is not really being discussed and which cannot be easily dismissed. Whatever decision is made about the border, national security is a relevant factor. Consider the following sampling of stories and information on this issue:
- Unholy Border Alliance, by Erick Stakelbeck FrontPageMag.com January 3, 2005:
Roughly 60,000 illegal immigrants designated as 'other-than-Mexican,' or OTMs, were detained last year along the U.S.-Mexico border, including a sizable number from Arab and Muslim countries. And if recent reports are any indication, they may be getting some troubling new help in their efforts to enter the United States.
In a December 4 incident that received scant media attention, a Bangladeshi Muslim man named Fakhrul Islam was among a group of 13 illegal aliens arrested near Brownsville, Texas, just across the border from Mexico. Border Patrol agents have said that one of the men detained along with Islam was a member of Mara Salvatrucha, a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with more than 300,000 members across Central and North America, including powerful enterprises in several major U.S. cities.
Mara Salvatrucha, also commonly known as 'MS-13' due to its members' proclivity for sporting tattoos of the number 13, is involved in a smorgasbord of illegal activity, including the smuggling of drugs, weapons and people across the Mexican border. The gang controls many of the smuggling routes from Mexico into the U.S., a fact that has not escaped Al-Qaeda operatives eager to carry out attacks on American soil.
In July, Adnan El-Shukrijumah, a high-ranking Al-Qaeda leader and one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, was spotted in Honduras meeting with members of MS-13. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that El-Shukrijumah, who he has described as a 'clear and present danger to America,' is seeking ways to infiltrate the U.S. via the Mexican border, and is willing to pay top dollar in order to do so.
- A restaurateur in Tijuana, Mexico, ran another business smuggling Lebanese compatriots into the United States, some with connections to Hezbollah:
They would come, sometimes dozens a month over a three-year period, to find Salim Boughader Mucharrafille (search) — the cafe owner who drove a Mercedes and catered to some of Tijuana's more affluent denizens, including workers at the U.S. consulate only a short stroll away. His American customers were unaware that the savvy boss of La Libanesa cafe ran a less reputable business on the side.Until his arrest in December 2002, Boughader smuggled about 200 Lebanese compatriots into the United States, including sympathizers of Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. One client, Boughader said, worked for a Hezbollah-owned television network, which glorifies suicide bombers and is itself on an American terror watch list.
- See also: Terror Threat On Southern Border - There Are Already Cases To Prove It, by Bill West. CounterTerrorism Blog June 2, 2006:
On June 15, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, a Lebanese citizen and illegal alien, was sentenced in Detroit to 54 months imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to provide material support to Hezbollah. The investigation leading to Kourani’s prosecution and conviction, that was conducted by ICE and the FBI, revealed that Kourani’s brother was the chief of security for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The investigation also revealed that Kourani sponsored Hezbollah fundraising meetings in his Dearborn, Michigan home.
The Kourani investigation identified that he, too, was smuggled into the United States from Mexico.
- Rio Grande: Gateway to Terrorism, by Julian Coman London Telegraph August 16, 2004:
More than 1.2 million people attempt to cross US borders illegally each year. The vast majority are Mexicans who are immediately repatriated. But under existing laws, which take account limited detention facilities, many non-Mexican illegal immigrants are released prior to a hearing with an immigration judge, which most fail to attend. Almost 22,000 non-Mexican immigrants have been released pending a hearing since last October. Once released, they are free to travel on their own throughout the United States. According to one Texas immigration official, those who slip through the net come "from all over the world".
If that's not enough, you can read "Outgunned and Outmanned: Local Law Enforcement Confronts Violence along the Southern Border - a congressional hearing on this very issue, with some very unnerving testimony from those who patrol our borders, or the more recent "A line in the Sand. Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border" - A Nov. 1, 2006 report by the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security issues this interim report summarizing its findings regarding the criminal activity and violence taking place along the Southwest border of the United States between Texas and Mexico. According to the report: During 2005, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens; of those 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico. Of the non-Mexican aliens, approximately 650 were from special interest countries.
Evangelical Catholicism asserts: Benedict's message on the World Day for Migrants and Refugees called for laws that aided immigrants in the name of their dignity as persons. Building a wall is not in harmony with Benedict's desire. The Mexican and United States bishops have declared the building of the wall as a violation of human dignity. Cardinal Martino, at an official news conference at the Vatican where he was representing Benedict XVI, speaking as a Curia official and not as a private spectator, repeated their concerns calling the project "inhumane".
Now, I don't expect Cardinal Martino to take this kind of reporting seriously, but I think Michael and Katrina at Evangelical Catholicism will acknowledge that -- independently of the growing concern over rising drug-gang violence and threats to U.S. citizens alone -- the United States post-9/11 should police our borders for this kind of activity and to take potential infiltration by non-immigrants seriously.
The Catholic Bishops have protested against the wall, asserting that they "believe it could lead to the deaths of migrants attempting to enter the United States and increased smuggling-related violence along our border. We also believe it would send the wrong signal to our peaceful neighbor to the south, Mexico, as well as the international community." They go on to assert as well that "As the world’s greatest democracy and lone superpower, our nation should be able to address the issue of illegal immigration without resorting to the construction of fences and barriers." But one searches in vain for a proposal and recommendation that addresses the increasing violence committed by illegal aliens against U.S. citizens and the threat from those crossing the border with interests other than seeking employment and providing food for their families.
* * *I don't plan on pursuing this topic further -- actually, I intend on taking a break from blogging, resuming when Benedict begins his visit to Turkey on Nov. 28th. However, I did want to address what I felt was a little-discussed aspect of last week's debate over immigration.
- See also: Illegal Immigration: Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Mahony, by Greg Mockeridge. Cooperatores Veritatis May 11, 2006:
One of the ways this can be helped along is for Church and civil authorities to seek to better understand each other's aims and concerns. As Cardinal Mahony's attack on HR 4437 clearly illustrates, such misunderstandings are rampant. To make matters worse, Cardinal Mahony never contacted any of the sponsors of HR 4437 to ensure that his understanding of what the bill said was correct. According to HR 4437 co-sponsor Peter King, not one bishop, priest, or Church official contacted him inquiring about the bill's content. This is inexcusable in my view.
In difficult situations like that created by illegal immigration, the temptation to place inordinate blame on the illegal aliens themselves is great. The Pope warns against this danger: " It is necessary to guard against the rise of new forms of racism or xenophobic behavior, which attempt to make these brothers and sisters of ours scapegoats for what may be difficult local situations.(n.4)" Despite the widely publicized claims of of so-called pro immigration groups, there is absolutely no evidence that opponents of illegal immigration are motivated by racism or xonephobia. The accusations along these lines leveled at groups like the Minutemen border watchers are not only without merit, but are downright slanderous. The motivation here on the part of groups like the Minutement is nothing more than a legitimate concern for our own security and the integrity of our laws and sovereignty. . . .
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Harrison and the "Torture Debate"
In my last post ( What do I think about torture?) I tried to lay out my thoughts on the subject and my own opinions on various issues discussed in the previous roundups. Mark responded by stating: My assessment of what you wrote, Chris, is pretty much the same as M.Z.'s and Zippy's. I'm going to ask Mark to humor me one more time, as I'll endeavor to illustrate a source of much confusion and disappointment.
When I read Fr. Harrison (circa Sept. 2005): [T]here remains the question [...] of torture inflicted not for any of the above purposes, but for extracting life-saving information from, say, a captured terrorist known to be participating in an attack that may take thousands of lives (the now-famous ?ticking bomb? scenario). As we have noted above, this possible use of torture is not mentioned in the Catechism.. . . My understanding would be that, given the present status question is, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.
His speculations on this matter ring no different to me than those of Jimmy Akin (circa June 2004): The Catechism's discussion of torture (CCC 2298) focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture . . .
For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives. It thus might turn out that it is not torture to twist a terrorist's arm behind him and demand that he tell you where he planted a bomb so that it can be defused and innocents can be saved. Certainly the kind of things that Jack Bauer may do on 24 are very different morally from the kinds of things that happened in Soviet prisons.
I would be disinclined to go the route of saying that torture is not always wrong. I think that the Church is pretty clearly indicating in its recent documents that it wants the word "torture" used in such a way that torture is always wrong. However, I don't think that the Magisterium has yet thoroughly worked out all the kinds of "hard case" situations one can imagine and whether they count as torture.
As Dave Armstrong suspected after his brief stint in the debate, the problem is semantics: I've come to the conclusion that the debate on this comes down to mostly semantics and personal hostilities. I saw that early on when I realized that folks (including myself at first) were sloppy in differentiating the terms "torture" and "coercion" in various contexts, thus leading to further confusion (within the framework of cynicism and suspicion on both sides).
Fr. Harrison equates "torture" with "the infliction of severe pain." This leads him to conclude that "the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion" -- something which is incoherent, if torture is understood to be something that is intrinsically evil. (I'm well aware what "intrinsic" means and what it implies).
For Jimmy Akin, there are cases of torture (intrinsically evil). But there are also cases where coercion -- even coercion by "the infliction of severe pain" -- might be legitimate: "the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives." Thus for Jimmy, "Certainly the kind of things that Jack Bauer may do on 24 are very different morally from the kinds of things that happened in Soviet prisons," and "it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture."
I suppose if you posed the question to Fr. Harrison, he might agree with Jimmy Akin that there are acts which are "commonly described as torture" which are not, in fact, such. Jimmy Akin and Fr. Harrison may differ in their labeling, but they both seem to agree that in some cases (the "24" or "ticking bomb" scenario), coercion by physical force (to some degree) to obtain information for the purpose of saving innocent lives might be legitimate. Both appear to be mutually agreed that this remains an open topic of discussion among Catholic moral theologians (and Catholic apologists and bloggers to boot). Now -- Mark / Zippy -- here is where I am confused:
1) You (Zippy) see Jimmy Akin's stance as problematic. At least I have that hunch, given your insistence: At some point, no doubt at a different point for each individual, it is going to dawn on people that "torture is intrinsically evil" and "under these different circumstances the same act isn't torture and is therefore permissable" are mutually contradictory statements.
2)You (Mark), obviously see Fr. Harrison's position as problematic, yet refrain from confronting Jimmy Akin, and likewise insist "I agree with Zippy."
The confusion is compounded by the fact that the speculations of Tom McKenna -- with respect to the Catechism -- are hardly distinguishable from Jimmy's.
Jimmy's speculation that "if [the Catechism] means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture" . . . Certainly the kind of things that Jack Bauer may do on 24 are very different morally from the kinds of things that happened in Soviet prisons.
sounds much akin to these ears to Tom McKenna's speculation that: . . . the Catechism, by its plain language, it is directed at the motivation of the conduct, not the content of the conduct. Hence it rejects torture intended to produce confessions, punish the guilty, etc. But the methods we use against our enemies (which again, are not "torture" under civil law) are not engaged in to induce confessions. We use these methods to secure actionable intelligence about our enemies. What Lyndie England did might arguably fall under this definition, since she was motivated by hatred or some other illegitimate motive. What a trained interrogator might uncover through controlled, judicious use of such methods is clearly not encompassed by this definition.
(Indeed, as deplorable as those abuses which occurred at Abu Ghraib were, what is put on display by the Fox Network in the television show 24 could be said to be far worse. However, I do not intend to spark a specific discussion of the precise acts used under "desparate circumstances" -- only the similarities of the arguments).
Here, again, I think Zippy would find both the reasoning of Jimmy and McKenna problematic. Yet Mark maintains a certain silence with respect to Jimmy, tears into McKenna, and insists to me that he "agrees with Zippy."
But consider what Mark has to say, for instance, about the use of the '24 scenario': The particular guy I cite achieves his sleight of hand defense of torture by quoting the Catechism and attempting to say that what the Church *really* means is that torture which is not committed for a good purpose is bad, but that *good* torture (done by decent folk for a good end such as saving Keifer Sutherland in the Real World of "24") is okay. The "particular guy" Mark cites is not Jimmy Akin but rather Tom McKenna -- who, if you follow the link, didn't even mention the television show.
Q: Would Mark's criticism of the "24 scenario" apply to Jimmy Akin? * * *In February 2006, Jimmy Akin offered the following clarification of his earlier remarks on torture in Mark's combox: I believe that the Church has exercised its authentic magisterium in condemning the use of torture, and this cannot be safely ignored. The problem is that the Magisterium has not yet provided us with a precise description of what counts as torture, and thus it is presently a matter of debate whether particular practices are or are not torture.
I also would hold that, whatever torture is (when properly defined), it is intrinsically evil and thus cannot be justified by circumstances. The question is whether all things that are regarded by some as torture actually are torture. It may turn out that some things that some individuals call "torture" are not actually torture, just as some things that are commonly regarded as the sin of theft are not actually the sin of theft (e.g., taking food from a person who has plenty when you are starving and he will not sell it to you).
Again, I think Jimmy's argument fails to elude Zippy's criticism. If there are mitigating circumstances that would lead one to conclude that what appears as theft ISN'T theft, there might also be mitigating circumstances where "some things that some individuals call "torture" are not actually torture."
I don't think this kind of talk would wash with Zippy, whether it came from Akin or Harrison or Victor Morton or Tom McKenna. And to these ears, it all sounds pretty much the same.
Which is why I am puzzled by Mark's reluctance to offer any further response to Jimmy Akin than: Thanks, Jimmy. That's pretty much what I took you to mean." Proceeding to spend the rest of this year, in post after post, laying into Fr. Harrison, Victor Morton, Tom McKenna, Chris Fotos, et al. in his usual vitriolic style -- and insisting that his assessment of this position "is pretty much the same as Zippy's."
In a nutshell, this inconsistency in Mark's approach is a cause of much consternation by those who have been on the receiving end of Mark's deprecation at Catholic & Enjoying It.
* * *
Jimmy Akin, you come late into this debate and I won't put upon you to read the reams of comments and heated exchanges between all of us. However, in your last post on the subject, you had mentioned "if folks are interested, I can try to offer further thoughts in the future."
Sorry to put you on the spot here, but I would be most appreciative were you to follow up with your own analysis of Fr. Harrison's two-part survey and conclusions drawn -- and perhaps clarify your own position on the topic: under what criteria would actions "commonly described as torture" not, in fact, be such?.
If I've mistakenly interpreted your remarks on this subject, let me know and I'll stand corrected. (Likewise to everybody else). * * *I'm going to cease blogging on this matter in pursuit of other topics (collective sigh of relief from the combox). There isn't much more I can add at this point. I do thank Zippy and company at Enchiridion Militis for engaging my comment, and I'll be following that discussion, as well as the other exchanges noted here. Labels: mark shea, torture
Sunday, November 12, 2006
So what do I think about Torture?
In what has become the characteristic approach of Catholic and Enjoying It, Mark dismisses a post by Tom McKenna by saying that he was " orgasmic at the idea of hanging Saddam," that his "blog is more or less devoted to obsessing over how to execute as many people as humanly possible," and that he had an "insatiable hunger and thirst for death, death, death, and more death."
Responding with what has likewise become my characteristic rejection of Mark's approach (played out over the course of a three-part series on Mark's treatment of the 'neocons' in August 2006 and a four-part series on "the torture debate" in October 2006), Mark expresses his frustration with my "fair and balanced act."
ZippyCatholic likewise issues a challenge: "It is all well and good to link to a lot of what other people say and think, though of course any "roundup" is going to have biases built into it (if for no other reason than that not every opinion has the merit to be put on an equal platform with every other opinion, as evidenced by Christopher's failure to publish the opinions of Catholics for a Free Choice with the same noncommital dispassion as he publishes the opinions of the Coalition).
But what do you think is true, Christopher? Do you actually have any opinions of your own, or do we have to glean them implicitly by reading the tea leaves in what you do and do not choose to publish in your "roundups"? Can't we all agree that someone must be wrong? . . .
These things aren't OK. Christopher presents some of them as if they are OK. If his point is "Mark is right in substance on these issues, but I wish he was different in how he approached them rhetorically" then Christopher is more than capable of just saying that outright. I suspect he doesn't say that because that isn't his position in fact. And I would have more respect for his position if he would just come out and say what it is outright, come out and own it rather than posting endless roundups and leaving us to guess from his editorial decisions where he is coming from himself Jeff comes to my defense in Shea's combox, followed by Victor Morton in a post to his own blog ( here and here). Nonetheless, I think it fair to provide Zippy with a summary of where I stand on various issues in the past several roundups on torture.
Read more!
On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006 Against The Grain October 2, 2006.
- I began this post by citing approvingly Jonah Goldberg's criticism of how the "torture debate" has progressed so far:
It steals a base to say that the Bush Administration wants to legalize torture because you first have to demonstrate that what they want to do is torture. I think it is a perfectly defensible and honorable position to claim that waterboarding, sleep deprivation etc. amount to torture. I don't think I agree with that view. But I certainly believe it is made in good faith. But the good faith ends when the same people then issue blanket and sweeping assertions that the people who want to legalize those actions are simply pro-torture. If the legalizers were simply pro-torture they would favor hot pokers, iron maidens, finger-nail-yanking and the rest. I'm not sure if Jonah reads Catholic & Enjoying It, but it is a good assessment nonetheless of why a good number of fellow Catholic bloggers I know have either vacated that blog or remained only to point out why this approach doesn't work.
- I also agree with Evan's comment on the need for "better definition of if/when tactics like sleep deprevation, etc. can be used so that guards/soliders can't be brought to trial for simply doing things they felt were acceptable". As I stated myself:
in order to condemn an action, you have to be in a position to recognize and define what it is. Especially when defining and implementing legal regulations pertaining to "the laws of war" and prisoner interrogation, I don't see how you can go about formulating such criteria without discussing the range of actions taken. To concur with Fr. Neuhaus: "The task is to draw as bright a line as possible between coercion and torture, and to forbid the latter absolutely."
- In my first post, I had offered from the Catechism what at first read seemed a cut-and-dry rebuttal to the "But didn't the Church use Torture?" argument. However, the introduction of the two-part history by Fr. Harrison (which I was unaware of at the time of my initial writing) has since persuaded me that JPII and the Catechism's cursory paragraph-long treatment of this issue is insufficient, and I am largely appreciative of Harrison's contribution to this debate. (I will elaborate on this in a bit).
- In the section, "Does Torture Ever "Work"?", I pointed to two historical cases demonstrating that torture did, indeed, "work" -- one of which was Oplan Bojinka, involving the interrogation of Hakim Murad -- co-conspirator of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef -- who was caught by the Philippine police in 1995 and revealed plots to crash 11 commercial airliners into the Pacific Ocean. To divert attention from the airline bombings, there was a concurrent plot to kill Pope John Paul II when he visited the Philippines during the World Youth Day 1995 celebrations.
In a subsequent discussion with Victor Morton on this subject, I learned what "tactical interrogative" techniques were used by the Manila police to obtain this information and foil Al Qaeda's plans. I do not approve of the measures taken, but at the same time, I think it is certainly legitimate to inquire what techniques should be employed in instances where a terrorist is captured with concrete evidence of a plot and reasonable suspicion exists (in the case of Bojinka, plans for the attack were discovered on a laptop, after police investigated a fire in Yousef's apartment). This should put to rest Mark's assertion that "24 scenarios" simply don't exist. If it happened once, there is a good expectation that our military and intelligence operatives will encounter such a situation again.
- Just for the record, I have asserted my opposition to waterboarding. I also rejected the argument from one milblogger I read that, since our own government employs waterboarding in the training of our special forces, it would be acceptable to inflict it on our enemies. Training our troops to endure such practices (with the expectation that they would be subjected to them by the enemy) does not necessarily legitimize our use of them.
On that note, I might as well add that I consider "Palestinian hanging" and "cold cells" (involving the deliberate attempt to induce hypothermia) to be torture and morally indefensible as well.
What do I think about The Military Commissions Act?
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) was the primary subject of my first roundup and my motivation for rounding up resources, responses and commentary. If I recall, it was the legislation that sparked Mark's accusations that the Bush administration "wanted more Abu Ghraibs."
I highlighted passages in Byron York's article ("The Detainee Deal: The White House Won — and So Did McCain" National Review Sept. 22, 2006) that appeared positive, as well as indications of concern ("the status of the most notorious of those techniques, waterboarding, is not quite clear").
I also posted a link to the actual text of the legislation, because -- silly me -- I assumed that if we were discussing it, we might want to read it ourselves.
I am not a legal scholar, so when it comes to forming my own judgement on the MCA I try to find and examine the informed criticism from both sides. For this reason I've linked to a roundup by legal scholars like John M. Balkin, as well as some counter responses -- The New Detainee Law Does Not Deny Habeas Corpus, by Andrew C. McCarthy (National Review October 3, 2006; The Constitution, Writ or Wrong, by Adam J. White (Weekly Standard October 5, 2006) -- that question, for instance, Sen. Arlen Spectre's assertion that the MCA "take[s] our civilization back 900 years," to before the adoption of the writ of habeas corpus in medieval England.
I have not yet concluded on the legislation, but given the liberties the CIA has taken with interrogation in the past decades, I think an open discussion and some attempt at regulation is a positive thing. The full implications of the MCA won't be known until it is put into practice -- Stephen Rickard believes it may actually have an opposite effect than what its critics are claiming ("Interrogators Beware" Washington Post Oct. 17th). Time will tell and I'll likely be looking more at this in the future.
While I think people should have given it more attention, the focus of 'the Catholic blogosphere' was on the interpretation of magisterial documents on the subject, which was the subject of subsequent roundups. * * *
My subsequent roundups cover similar aspects of the debate as I tried to tie together various discussions in the Catholic blogosphere.
In my second post I disagreed with the proposal that raising questions about the validity of certain interrogation procedures and whether they constitute torture is tantamount to deceitfully asking "how close can I come to committing torture without actually doing so," -- which Mark Shea thought was comparable to asking how close can one get before committing adultery. Suffice to say I think fellow Catholics asking such questions do not harbor this intent. To quote Rich Leonardi: Detention and interrogation are legitimate; cruelty and torture are not. Determining at what point the former crosses over into the latter is essential. Characterizing those who are making that determination as either legalists or near-torturers isn't helpful.
What do I think about Abu Ghraib?
I disagreed with Mark's display of photos of Abu Ghraib as a debating tactic and the assertion that Abu Ghraib is what the Bush administration wants, indeed, "fighting tooth and nail" to achieve, and that "People were prosecuted and sent to jail for [Abu Ghraib] because it would have been political suicide not to do so."
I am not inclined to believe that the only reason our government was involved in bringing the abusers of Abu Ghraib to justice was for reasons of political expediency, and that they are incapable of remorse or moral repulsion. (The way Mark describes Bush, you'd think he would be happily applying electrodes to the captive's testacles). So I examined the topic for myself and came across some articles which challenged Mark's characterization (The 'Torture Narrative' Unravels", by Robert Pollack Wall Street Journal Oct. 2, 2005; Military Justice at Abu Ghraib Jurist Sept. 28, 2005).
I noted that the Defense Department Directive for Detainee Programs and the Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations were developed in part as a response to the abuses.
At the same time, I shared with my readers what I believe to be a persistent problem of civilian contractors who played an instrumental role in Abu Ghraib (as described in "The Unaccountables" American Prospect September 2006). Falling outside the military's jurisdiction, such individuals have eluded legal prosecution.
I continued to examine this aspect of the abuses at Abu Ghraib in my third roundup of the "torture debate", when I uncovered an exclusive interview Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski that supported the thesis that the chief problem at Abu Ghraib was not the CIA (about whom she praises as "the consumate professionals", and not prone to endangering the health or life of their charges) but rather civilian contractors, placed in positions of responsibility for interrogation and who operate without supervision, accountability or under the jurisdiction of the army. As a Salon.com article asserted, "The use of civilian contractors is key to understanding Abu Ghraib" ("Contract to torture", by Osha Gray. August 9, 2004).
As I stated then and will reiterate: In short, while the DoD's response to the Abu Ghraib scandal and other incidents of detainee abuse is commendable -- according to the American Prospect, more than 250 officers and soldiers have been held accountable -- the process for taking legal action against contractors and those not directly under the jurisdiction of the military presents a grave impediment to justice, as evidence by the fact that "none of the civilian workers from Abu Ghraib have even been put on trial."
We can agree that this remains a problem to be rectified. Nevertheless, as regrettable as it is, it does not remotely warrant the suggestion that the Bush administration is not concerned about detainee abuse, or that the only reason disciplinary actions have been taken is "because it would have been political suicide not to do so. * * *
What do I think about Fr. Harrison?
In subsequent roundups of "the torture debate", I linked to others who were engaged in similar discussions, howebeit in a less polemical manner and perhaps for that reason seemed to bear more fruit. Many of these conversations centered on the treatment of Fr. Brian Harrison's two-part examination, "[following] the classical procedure of examining in turn the witness of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium."
Fr. Harrison's survey of torture is troubling. He finds "Christian witness on [torture] . . . not only sparse, but is also, on the whole, disappointing. What we see is an instance of the familiar scenario in which a pendulum drawn too far in one direction swings rapidly to the opposite extreme when suddenly released."
In examining Gaudium Et Spes (and John Paul II's later use in quoting the passage in Veritatis Splendor #80), his key interest is in discerning exactly what is being referred to in the Council's condemnation. What is not attempted is a precise definition of torture; rather, in light of its pastoral nature, what it refers to are those kinds of torture which have actually been going on in the 20th century: By the 1960s probably not a single country was left on earth whose penal code still openly and shamelessly provided for torture, with corresponding legislation regulating its application. At the same time, however, 20th-century Communist and Nazi regimes, along with many other petty dictatorships, especially in Latin America, Asia and Africa – not to mention any number of proscribed terrorist and criminal organizations – had been clandestinely refining, and ruthlessly applying, any number of new and horrendous torture techniques.
That, I suggest, is essentially the kind of torture contemplated and condemned by Vatican II, and then subsequently branded by John Paul II, as one example of "intrinsically evil" practices among others, when he quotes the Council word for word in Veritatis Splendor #80. I do not think we can conclude much more than this about the morality of pain infliction from these two magisterial texts alone. For that would be trying to make them provide answers to questions they did not set out to address. The ensuing analysis from Harrison has been the subject of much discussion in the comboxes:The Council itself, as we have pointed out, is contemplating, and roundly condemning, the currently existing phenomenon of torture, which happens to include this gravely aggravating factor of uncontrolled, clandestine arbitrariness. But also in the case of John Paul II’s encyclical, the Pope’s primary purpose in #80 is not to pass a considered judgment on torture as such – a question of ‘special’ moral theology. Rather, he is concerned to assert a much more general truth pertaining to ‘fundamental’ moral theology, namely, the falsity of recent ‘proportionalist’ theories, according to which practically any specific kind of human action could be justified under certain conditions. What the Pope wants to insist on here, in opposition to such theories, is simply that there do really exist classes of actions which are intrinsically morally evil, and which, therefore, can never be justified under any circumstances. And Gaudium et Spes #27 simply happens to furnish the Pope with a convenient, ready-made set of examples to help him illustrate his point. But even here, while the first examples given by Vatican II (murder, genocide, abortion, etc.) certainly serve the Pope’s purpose, not all of those further down the list do so – at least, not without further definition, amplification or clarification. . . . Like "deportation" and "subhuman living conditions", Fr. Harrison asserts that "a hasty and strictly literal interpretation of what this passage says about torture would not accurately reflect the mind and intention of John Paul II. That is, VS #80 cannot legitimately be read as containing a formal judgment on the part of the Pope to the effect that the voluntary infliction of severe pain is, as such, 'intrinsically evil'."
Fr. Harrison points out three practices that do merit the description of "intrinsically unjust" according to Catholic doctrine:
- "Torture for extracting confessions of a crime of which one is accused"
- "Torture carried out on those not even accused formally of any crime or offence, simply in order 'to frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred'"
- "Torture, or indeed, mutilation or any other kind of physical or psychological violence against the person, carried out not by public authority in accordance with a norm of law, but by those acting arbitrarily and clandestinely, without any legal authority (even if they should happen to be heads of state, secret police, etc.)." According to Fr. Harrison, the majority of those acts of torture presently occuring in the world fall into this category.
However, he goes on to consider a fourth scenario: the infliction of pain in the effort to obtain information for the saving of lives (the possible rationale for torture not mentioned in the Catechism).. . . there remains the question – nowadays a very practical and much-discussed one – of torture inflicted not for any of the above purposes, but for extracting life-saving information from, say, a captured terrorist known to be participating in an attack that may take thousands of lives (the now-famous ‘ticking bomb’ scenario). As we have noted above, this possible use of torture is not mentioned in the Catechism. If, as I have argued, the infliction of severe pain is not intrinsically evil, its use in that type of scenario would not seem to be excluded by the arguments and authorities we have considered so far. (John Paul II’s statement about the "intrinsic evil" of a list of ugly things including torture in VS #80 does not seem to me decisive, even at the level of authentic, non-infallible, magisterium . . . My understanding would be that, given the present status question is, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.
Jimmy Akin & Fr. Harrison
While Harrison's study is more substantial, it is worth noting that in his two musings on the subject, one of Mark's fellow Catholic apologists, Jimmy Akin, registers opinions that are similiar, to Fr. Harrison's own:
From Doubts About Torture (October 26, 2006): There have been a number of statements in Magisterial and semi-Magisterial documents condemning torture, but these do not offer technical definitions of what torture is, and having a good definition is a precondition for formulating a solid response to finely posed moral questions on the topic. . . .
At this point we don't have a good definition for torture--one that will allow it to be distinguished from other uses of the infliction of pain (mental or physical) to ensure compliance with various goals--and so at present moral theologians have the liberty to hash out the question until the issue matures to the point that, should it be warranted, an official response would make sense.
From What About Torture? (June 28, 2004):The Catechism's discussion of torture (CCC 2298) focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture--just as some acts commonly described as stealing are not actually the sin of stealing, such as taking food to feed one's family during a time of starvation when the person who initially had the food has plenty. The same might turn out to be true of torture (i.e., not everything that looks like torture would be the sin of torture).
For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives. It thus might turn out that it is not torture to twist a terrorist's arm behind him and demand that he tell you where he planted a bomb so that it can be defused and innocents can be saved. Certainly the kind of things that Jack Bauer may do on 24 are very different morally from the kinds of things that happened in Soviet prisons.
I would be disinclined to go the route of saying that torture is not always wrong. I think that the Church is pretty clearly indicating in its recent documents that it wants the word "torture" used in such a way that torture is always wrong. However, I don't think that the Magisterium has yet thoroughly worked out all the kinds of "hard case" situations one can imagine and whether they count as torture.
If I am not mistaken, Dave Armstrong comes to similar conclusions in his deliberation of the subject, when he claims: "Certain clearly specified, morally acceptable forms of coercion in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes is no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto."
For Fr. Harrison, Jimmy Akin, and Dave Armstrong, there are actions which count as torture and which are understood to be intrinsically evil. Nevertheless, all three also acknowledge desperate circumstances where the "deliberate infliction of intense pain" would be permitted -- such circumstances involving the need to obtain information (or what some refer to as "actionable intelligence") and which involve the welfare of innocent lives.
Likewise, they appear to be of the opinion that the Magisterial texts and the Catechism are not particularly helpful either in providing a definition of torture or the criteria to evaluate these "hard case" situations. As Jimmy Akin puts it: If Rush Limbaugh were commenting on the situation, he might--in his own characteristic idiom--refer to such brief condemnations as acts of "drive-by Magisterium" that condemn torture in a brief manner that does not pause to explain in technical detail what torture is or allow finely-tuned moral questions to be answered about it.
In any event, it seems to me that Jimmy Akin and Dave Armstrong would both consider a valid use of coercion in such situations as something other than torture.
I imagine Fr. Harrison would do so as well, although his interchangeable use of the term "torture" and the "deliberate infliction of intense pain" presents an obstacle and source of confusion. For example, his conclusion that "the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion" -- while similar in substance to Akin and Armstrong, will nonetheless rankle the ears of certain critics.
I confess at this point that I am unable to distinguish between the positions of Harrison, Akin and Armstrong and those of Victor Morton or "Torquemada" of the cheekily titled Coalition for Fog -- neither of whom could be characterized as gung-ho "torture-apologists". If Mark registers his offense at the fact that they've called him names, it sounds like a case of "tit for tat." I don't approve of it, but I understand how those who are on the receiving end of a daily stream of vitriol are tempted to respond in kind.
Here I agree with David Armstrong's assessment of "the torture debate": I've come to the conclusion that the debate on this comes down to mostly semantics and personal hostilities. I saw that early on when I realized that folks (including myself at first) were sloppy in differentiating the terms "torture" and "coercion" in various contexts, thus leading to further confusion (within the framework of cynicism and suspicion on both sides).Thus, when Mark sees someone like Jimmy Akin (and to a lesser extent, myself) - fellow apologists whom he knows - rendering an opinion unidentical with his own, he is capable of granting that they do it in good faith, whereas if someone he doesn't know or if someone he is personally hostile to (the dreaded "coalition for fog") renders an opinion unidentical with his own, then it is open season for mocking, caricature, and the most cynical interpretation imaginable.
For the record, I'm inclined to agree with Fr. Harrison, Jimmy Akin and Dave Armstrong. Perhaps this makes me an intellectual lightweight, in simply rounding up and voicing my sympathies with those I find persuasive, rather than voicing my own opinions. Then again, I readily concede that these are people who've studied this subject far more thoroughly and have more to offer -- especially Fr. Harrison, who has done us all a favor in researching and compiling what Catholic tradition has to offer in those two very informative pieces.
I've been a Catholic for only a decade and spent most of my years prior to that either Protestant or agnostic. I am not nearly as well-read as you suspect in matters Catholic -- for which reason I decline to blog on certain issues others feel comfortable expounding upon. (When I read Pontifications, for instance, I'm inclined to hang up my keyboard in shame and admit what a hack I truly am.
Part of my motivation for doing these roundups is selfish: when I study a topic, I like to cull together the best articles and commentary I can find and work my way through it -- it's for my own benefit as much as my readers. So if I don't assert an opinion outright it may very well be because I'm still in the process of thinking things through -- reading articles, weighing arguments, assessing positions, in what spare time I have.
Is this "Cafeteria Catholicism of the Right" (Zippy), or "a fair and balanced act (Mark Shea)? You decide. To those who I've disappointed, perhaps someday I'll rise to your expectations.
P.S. I owe Tom McKenna a response. However, I'd like to read some of the articles I've compiled before responding to the assertion that JPII instituted not a development but a break from Catholic tradition on capital punishment. This will obviously take more time than I have available tonight, so perhaps later this week.
Labels: mark shea, torture
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Consecration of the United States to the Immaculate Conception
WASHINGTON (Catholic Online) – The United States consecration to the protection of its patroness, the Immaculate Conception, will be renewed at liturgical ceremonies at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception here.
Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Holy See nuncio to the United States, will officiate at the Nov. 11 renewal of the country’s consecration, at which bishops from around the country will participate. The Mass is scheduled for 12 p.m.
This consecration of the nation adds the special mention of the immaculate and sorrowful heart of Mary, the mission of the World Apostolate of Fatima. The prayer for the consecration used for the Nov. 11 event is the same one that was composed by the U.S. bishops in 1959 for the dedication ceremony of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and the consecration of the United States to the Immaculate Conception. . . .
The following is the prayer for renewal of consecration of the United States to its patroness, the Immaculate Conception:
 “Most holy trinity: Our father in heaven, who chose Mary as the fairest of your daughters; Holy Spirit, who chose Mary as your spouse; God the son, who chose Mary as your mother; in union with Mary, we adore your majesty and acknowledge Your supreme, eternal dominion and authority.
“Most holy trinity, we put the United States of America into the hands of Mary immaculate in order that she may present the country to you. Through her we wish to thank you for the great resources of this land and for the freedom, which has been its heritage. Through the intercession of Mary, have mercy on the Catholic Church in America. Grant us peace. Have mercy on our president and on all the officers of our government. Grant us a fruitful economy born of justice and charity. Have mercy on capital and industry and labor. Protect the family life of the nation. Guard the precious gift of many religious vocations. Through the intercession of our mother, have mercy on the sick, the poor, the tempted, sinners – on all who are in need.
“Mary, immaculate virgin, our mother, patroness of our land, we praise you and honor you and give our country and ourselves to your sorrowful and immaculate heart. O’ sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary pierced by the sword of sorrow prophesized by Simeon save us from degeneration, disaster and war. Protect us from all harm. O’ sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary, you who bore the sufferings of your son in the depths of your heart be our advocate. Pray for us, that acting always according to your will and the will of your divine son, we may live and die pleasing to God. Amen.”
Source: U.S. Catholic bishops to renew consecration of nation to Immaculate Conception Nov. 9, 2006. Catholic Online (www.catholic.org).
Monday, November 06, 2006
Pope Benedict Roundup!
Pope Benedict XVI and Christian-Muslim Dialogue
Among the interpretations of Benedict's Regensberg address are those which see a historical relevance to Benedict's citation of Manuel II Paleologus -- but an earlier stage of the "clash of civilizations" and the Islamic threat which now threatens the West.
In "Paleologus and Us: What Benedict Really Said" (The New Republic Post date: 09.28.06 / Issue date: 10.09.06), David Nirenberg's poses the question: [W]hy in our troubled times did Benedict choose to bring the world's attention to the unoriginal words of this Byzantine emperor?One answer is that Turkey has long been on the pontiff's mind. Readers may recall then-Cardinal Ratzinger's interview with Le Figaro in 2004 in which he commented that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Union "on the grounds that it is a Muslim nation" and historically has always been contrary to Europe. Courtesy Bibliotheque NationaleLike Ratzinger, Manuel II Paleologus also worried about keeping the Turks out of Europe. As the antepenultimate emperor of Byzantium and the last effective one (he ruled from 1391 to 1425; Byzantium fell in 1453), he spent his life fighting--sometimes in the Muslim armies, but mostly against them--in the final great effort to keep Constantinople from becoming Istanbul. Andrew G. Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad, makes a similar judgement in The Pope, Jihad, and “Dialogue” ( American Thinker Sept. 17th, 2006): When Manuel II composed the Dialogue (which Pope Benedict excerpted), the Byzantine ruler was little more than a glorified dhimmi vassal of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid, forced to accompany the latter on a campaign through Anatolia. . . .During the campaign he was conscripted to join, Manuel II witnessed with understandable melancholy the great metamorphosis—ethnic and toponymic—of formerly Byzantine Asia Minor. The devastation, and depopulation of these once flourishing regions was so extensive that often, Manuel could no longer tell where he was. The still recognizable Greek cities whose very names had been changed into something foreign became a source of particular grief. It was during this unhappy sojourn that Manuel II’s putative encounter with a Muslim theologian occurred, ostensibly in Ankara.
Whether intended by the Pope himself or not, the historical context of Paleologus' 'debate' are worthy of consideration, and in themselves pose something of a challenge to the assertion that Islam has forever and always been a " religion of peace."
At the same time, there are some who go too far in their speculation that Benedict's remarks were intended only to accentuate the division between Islam and the West, to deliberately provoke a confrontation. That, unlike his predecessor, Benedict is not genuinely concerned with advancing Christian-Muslim relations and dialogue between the two. David Nirenberg closes his essay with just such a conclusion, asserting:
What we cannot accept without contradiction or hypocrisy is the pope's presentation of the speech as an invitation to dialogue. It is true that the talk concludes with an invitation: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures." But it also concludes with the claim that "only through [rationality of faith] do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today." The bulk of "Faith, Reason, and the University" is explicitly dedicated to the thesis that European Catholicism has effectively mixed faith and reason in the logos, and that other religions, specifically Islam, have not. Forget for a moment the historical inaccuracies (not just about Islam, but about other religions as well) in such a statement, and focus only on the logic. What kind of invitation begins by denying its guests the qualifications for attendance at the party? The pope's "invitation" at Regensburg was not to a "dialogue of cultures" at all. What he was advocating was a kind of conversion, or at least a convergence of all religions and cultures toward a logos that is explicitly characterized as Catholic and European.Just like Manuel's medieval "dialogos" with a Muslim (the Greek title of the emperor's treatise means "controversy" or "debate" rather than "dialogue" in our modern sense), Benedict's lecture was a polemic posing as a dialogue. As pointed out by Prof. Robert Aurujo in his Preliminary Response to Professor Nirenberg, such an assertion is made either in ignorance or exclusion of the many invitations that Benedict has made to the contrary.
Likewise, the Vatican has published the final draft of the Regensberg address, together with footnotes. Referencing the quote from Paleologus, Benedict observes: In the Muslim world, this quotation [from Paleologus] has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.
Significant events in October provide illustration for Pope Benedict's genuine commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue:
Further Commentary to the "Regensburg Address"
In Other News . . .
 - After Verona: How to “Restore Full Citizenship to the Christian Faith”, by Sandro Magister. www.Chiesa Oct. 26, 2006:
From October 16-20, the Italian Church gathered in Verona the full spectrum of its members: bishops, priests, and faithful. And the German pope placed his bet precisely on what distinguishes Christian Italy: its being, not a minority Church, but a Church of the people, “a very lively reality, which retains a grassroots presence among people of every age and condition.”
For Benedict XVI, Italy’s uniqueness is not residual, but the forerunner of the Christian rebirth of the West, for which he hopes intensely. He assigned a very demanding project to Italian Catholics. “If we are able to do this,” he said, “the Church in Italy will render a great service not only to this nation, but also to Europe and to the world.”
But in the meantime, broad sections of the apparatus of this same Italian Church are looking at Benedict XVI’s program with fear and amazement. . . . For context, see also A Church of the People or a Church of the Elite? Verona’s Dilemma, by Sandro Magister. Oct. 13, 2006; and Pope Benedict's address "On the Occasion of the Fourth National Ecclesial Convention" Oct. 19, 2006.
- "B16 On The 12", by Jimmy Akin:
Pope Benedict recently completed a series of audiences on the Twelve apostles. I thought these were particularly interesting and well done. He covers what we know about them, what is speculated about them, what their writings contain, and what their example says to us today.
Now that the whole series is finished, I thought I'd provide links to the audiences so that you can read through them as a group if you wish. . . .
- "It is unfortunate," says Teresa Polk (Blog by the Sea), "that, amid the tumult of the past couple of weeks, the important messages of the Holy Father's week in München have prompted less reflection than otherwise might have been the case. After yesterday's meeting with envoys from Muslim countries, now that the controversy seems to be passing, I want to do a series of posts that reflect back on some of the addresses other than the lecture at Regensburg." A very fruitful project and well worth reading:
- Rumors abound that Pope Benedict XVI has signed a universal indult allowing celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal (i.e., the Tridentine rite) by any priest in the Church. Click the link for a roundup by the American Papist of news and reactions from St. Blog's parish; also Amy Welborn's "Old/Classical/Tridentine Mass/Rite Roundup" (Open Book Oct. 19, 2006).
In Liturgical Reform, Latin, LeFebvrists, and the French and U.S. Bishops (Blog by the Sea Oct. 29, 2006), Teresa Polk takes a look at "the potential wider use of the Latin Tridentine Mass as well as concern over the new Institute of the Good Shepherd, which was organized in September for Le Febvrists returning to the Catholic Church."
Teófilo (Vivificat Oct. 31, 2006) examines The prospects of the Tridentine Mass in the light of the impending new indult, and its potential as an aid for reunion with Eastern Orthodoxy (as asserted both by Archbishop Raymond Burke and Bishop Fernando Rifan of Brazil (Teófilo disagrees).
According to Fr. Z (What Does Prayer Really Say), an expansion of the Tridentine Mass "would be the right thing to do."
Responding to concerns, Rorate Caeli asks: Can the existence of two rites fracture unity? -- Drawing from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks at the Conference on the Tenth Anniversary of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, the answer is no. (Stay tuned to Rorate Caeli for regular, substantial coverage of this issue).
Also of relevance: Ignatius Insight's republication of How Should We Worship?, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy, by Alcuin Reid, O.S.B. Appended to the article is an excellent compilation of resources on the subject.
- Intellectual Charity: On Benedict XVI and the Canadian Bishops, by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. Ignatius Insight Oct. 2, 2006 -- a substantial explication of Pope Benedict's Ad Limina message to the Canadian Bishops:
One has to say that Benedict XVI chooses his targets very carefully. This time, in what might be an otherwise little noted short lecture, he speaks to the Canadian bishops from Ontario. They will, I hope, long ponder the notion of intellectual charity and its relation to their own polity and academic heritage. As in Regensburg, this address can and will, hopefully, be read by many. Its thesis is that religious minds also have to think correctly. It is an act of charity, as I think Aquinas said, to teach, or even to point out, the truth to another. This pointing out is where we begin, now at the University of Regensburg, now in the Consistory Hall of the Apostolic Palace in Castel Gandolfo to about twenty bishops from Ontario in Canada.
- The Story of Joseph Ratzinger 1969-1977: "It seemed the end of the line. And instead ...", by Gianni Valente. 30 Giorni [30 Days] August 2006:
Former students tell of Ratzinger’s last period of teaching at the recently opened Bavarian University. Surrounded by the respect of the students and the affection of colleagues, the professor of Dogmatic Theology believed he had achieved an ideal situation. But Paul VI was to upset his plans.
 Coming soon from Ignatius Press: The Way of Love: Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Deus Caritas Est  :In response to Benedict XVI's first encyclical, the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies and Marriage and Family reflects, together with the Holy Father, on love. From the very beginning, the fundamental work of the Institute has been pursuing a deeper understanding of God's plan for marriage and family. In these twenty-five years various generations of students and professors, following the legacy of John Paul II, have been able to discover and communicate the beauty of the vocation for which all men have been created: the call to love. ' Twenty-six professors from the Institute's various sessions express what in their understanding are the main themes of the document, approaching the topics raised by the Holy Father with different theological and philosophical perspectives; by so doing they have highlighted the significance and fecundity of the lines of thought suggested by the Pope. This book is offered as a path towards a fuller understanding of the profundity and richness of the love with which God fills us and wants us to communicate in our turn.
- Pope Warns Theologians to Not Seek Applause (Zenit.org Oct. 6, 2006):
A theologian prostitutes himself when he subjects himself to the "dictatorship of common opinions," Benedict XVI told members of the International Theological Commission. [...]"To speak to meet with applause, to speak oriented to what men want to hear, to speak obeying the dictatorship of common opinions, is considered a sort of prostitution of the word and of the soul," said the Holy Father quoting the First Letter of St. Peter.
The theologian needs a form of "chastity," which implies "not to be subjected to such standards, not to seek applause, but to seek obedience to the truth," the Pontiff said.
Benedict XVI continued: "And I believe this is the fundamental virtue of the theologian, this discipline, even hard, of obedience to the truth, which makes us collaborators of the truth, a mouth of truth, so that we will not speak in this river of words of today, but that we are really purified and chaste through obedience to the truth, so that truth may speak in us."
 On October 17th, the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff published Benedict XVI's calendar for the remainder of 2006, which includes two trips -- one in Italy and one to Turkey (Nov. 28, to Friday, Dec. 1) -- and a full Christmas agenda.
Speaking on the Holy Father's intentions for his trip to Turkey, Bishop Luigi Padovese asserted the Pope's focus on dialogue: "The Pope is not coming to missionize, as the Turkish press claims, but to speak with Muslims, the Turkish government, and obviously with Catholics, but especially with Orthodox Christians." On November 2nd, Police detained a man who fired shots into the air outside the Italian consulate yesterday in protest against the Pope's impending visit (Source: The Herald Nov. 3, 2006):The suspect later told a reporter he wanted to murder the Pope."I don't want him here, if he was here now I would strangle him with my bare hands," said Ibrahim Ak, 26. "I fired the shots for God," Ak said as he sat handcuffed inside a police van. "God willing, he will not come. If he comes, he will see what will happen to him." Turkish online paper Zaman reports that Benedict will get "Bush-Like" Protection on his visit:Strict security measures will be taken during Pope Benedict XVI’s official visit to Turkey scheduled for November 28 to December 1, 2006.The Security General Directorate, in cooperation with the National Intelligence Agency (MIT) and the Gendarmerie, is working on security plans in an effort to prevent any provocations or even assassination attempts against the Pope. Preparing us for the coming trip with his column, Benedict’s gamble with Islam National Catholic Reporter Oct. 12, 2006:Pope Benedict XVI heads to Turkey next month, his first visit to a majority Muslim state. Of all the question marks surrounding the trip, perhaps the most consequential is this: Which Benedict will show up?
Will it be the Benedict of Regensburg, challenging his Muslim hosts to embrace rationality, hence to renounce violence and to respect religious freedom? Or will it be the post-Regensburg Benedict, seemingly determined to project a "kinder, gentler" face to Islam, missing no opportunity to send signals of reconciliation? Can he, in some fashion, be both? Please pray for our Holy Father this November.
On a Lighter Note . . .
- Does the BBC enjoy being so far behind the fact curve? asks Edward N. Peters (), taking on a manifestation of the media's anti-Catholic hysteria:
Apparently the BBC thinks that if the Vatican publishes a document in 2001, (which the Catholic press reported on in early 2002), but the BBC only notices it five years later, the document must have been a deep dark Vatican secret till then. Quick, what's British English for "Get real"?
Britain's Evening Standard reports that the BBC just aired a "Panorama" story about how Pope Benedict XVI, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a "secret Vatican edict" to bishops around the world (right, like that's a group that could keep a secret if it tried), an edict so secret "that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times", which ordered a massive cover-up of clergy sexual misconduct. . . .
- "More than two and a half million people have met Benedict XVI in Rome or at Castel Gandolfo since the beginning of the year," reports AsiaNews (Nov. 1, 2006):
According to statistics of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, which organizes the audiences, the number of faithful who have met the pope in the first 10 months of the year was exactly 2,674,820.
Specifically, 938,500 took part in the Wednesday general audiences; 349,120 took part in particular audiences; 502,200 were present at liturgical celebrations, which took place in Rome. Meanwhile, 885,000 listened to the Angelus in Rome and Castel Gandolfo.
- Italian journalist praised Benedict XVI for having made the Church "the greatest bulwark of reason" (Catholic News Agency Oct. 27, 2006):
In an article published by the Spanish daily “La Razon,” Messori said the “intellectual prestige” of Benedict XVI, “which was not lacking in his predecessors,” seems to be the unique characteristic of the current Pontificate.
Messori said that the idea of Pope “as professor” seems to prevail in the minds of the people. This is evident during each of his public appearances in which “the masses of the faithful” do not come to get emotionally charged up, “but rather to learn, almost to attend the lecture of a wise and at the same time generous professor, who breaks down and offers his knowledge to those who do not have it.” Vittorio Messori is known for the first publication of a book-length interview with a pope (Crossing the Threshhold of Hope, 1994, with John Paul II), as well as a book-length interview with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (The Ratzinger Report, 1985).
- The Vatican mission at UN headquarters in New York is organizing a conference on Pope Benedict's critique of contemporary relativism, to be held Nov. 20, 2006. The event, co-sponsored by Ignatius Press and the Path to Peace Foundation, will include presentations by George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Marcello Pera, a member of the Italian senate. (Catholic World News Nov. 2, 2006).
On a related note, here is a positive review Fr. John Jay Hughes of Without Roots: Europe, Islam and the West -- and from the National Catholic Reporter, no less. Thank God for small miracles.
Special Recognition and Personal Thanks to two bloggers for their daily and/or regular coverage of Pope Benedict XVI, and which I made particular use of in compiling this roundup: The Papa Ratzi Post (Michael S. Rose); Argent by the Tiber. Labels: benedict, benedict roundup
|
From the new blog
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
