What was he thinking?

The title of this post should be taken as a perfectly sincere question, not a rhetorical one. I am going to talk about the Holy Father’s now-famous address at Regensburg, not because I am disapproving, but because I am genuinely curious about his purpose in making a reference that was so liable to provoke anger. Those of you who have not yet read Pope Benedict’s speech in full ought to do so. It isn’t very long, and like most everything he writes, it is both intelligent and thought-provoking.

With regards to the controversy, though, the most immediately striking thing is this: the inflammatory reference does not comprise a significant portion of the article. In fact, it’s barely a blip, just an illustrative example to get him into the main material, which is a discourse about the nature of God in the Christian tradition, and particularly about the connection between God and reason. It would certainly be misleading to say that the discourse is about Islam.

Even so, the contrast with Islam doesn’t entirely disappear even after he moves on to discuss Christianity, and he refers back to it in his final paragraph, so I think we have to assume that the example was chosen carefully and not merely as an attention-grabbing device. His main point is that the Christian God is by nature in conformity with reason, and that human reason can therefore give us a grossly imperfect but nonetheless real grasp of some divine truths. He discusses various historical trends towards de-Hellenization, and diagnoses the errors of these approaches. Indeed, the Christian God has contact with his people on many levels: in the burning bush, in the pillar of fire, most obviously in the Word made flesh… that same Word which can also guide human reason.

The implication of the opening example is that Islam may not regard God in such a way, and that it may instead view him as a being so utterly transcendent that no human capacity can even begin to approach him; the only appropriate response to God would be slavish and unquestioning submission, even, as the Pontiff points out, if God were to command his faithful to engage in idolatry. The connection to violence should be fairly clear. A Christian conversion must draw the heart, might and mind of their own free will back to God. That cannot be done through bloodshed, and Our Lord has promised that bloodshed cannot draw us away, either. But slavish obedience, perhaps, can be won with violence, and indeed, one has to wonder what sort of faith the armed missionary seeks to inspire if it is so nearly akin to the terror inspired by an invading enemy. The childish suggestion of many liberals that the Pontiff should have illustrated his point less controversially by talking about the crusades, misses the point entirely. The Crusaders did not give the Muslims a choice between conversion and death. In many cases, they offered them only death, and the merits of that policy could be discussed separately, but it does not demonstrate the same conception of the nature of faith that the Islamic conquests showed, and this is the relevant point for the purposes of the Pontiff’s argument.

After discussing the theological climate of Christianity for some pages, the Holy Father ends by leaving open the door for Muslims or anyone else to jump on board with the project. “It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures,” he concludes. So, the speech ends on an ecumenical note. Clearly the Pontiff intended to add an interfaith component to his address, and Islam does seem to have been the target of some backhanded criticism. But this was an academic discussion, and not aimed at a particularly large or general audience. Did the Pontiff intend to make a splash, or was this just absurd happenstance, the result of some reporters getting their hands on the wrong quote and running wild with it?

Diagnosis of the spiritual condition of the Islamic world is badly needed right now, and I for one am longing to see the Church more aggressively involved in such an endeavor. It’s a commonplace by now that Islam is becoming a source of monumental problems around the globe. Western nations have some power (though maybe not enough) to combat particular upsurges of violence, but the root of the problem is in religious ideology, and the secular West has no remedy for the spiritual sickness that has spread through the Middle East and Asia, and now Europe, and beyond. The Church does. She too sees the spiritual vacuum of secularism into which the murky air of Islam has rushed so furiously. The weakness of her present guise notwithstanding, she has within her the resources to address this challenge, and no one understands this better than our Holy Father.

Her own members might even be purified through the effort. I for one welcomed with joy the news of a nun being shot by enraged Muslims after the Pontiff’s speech. I have no fear for the soul of that good sister, and this is the sort of sacrifice that the Muslims will have to respect. It would be wonderful for them to recognize that they aren’t the only ones willing to die for their faith – only with this difference: Christian martyrs die, not in blaze of violence and hatred, but with the love of their enemies and Jesus Christ pouring from their lips. Catholics, too, might be stirred out of complacency by enough repetitions of this scene.

So, what was the Pontiff thinking? Was this intended merely as an intellectual project, the violent reaction to which utterly surprised him? Or is he pushing buttons more deliberately, testing to see whether the time is right for a more frank dialogue with Islam than any other spiritual leader of our time is presently willing (or able) to wage? He remarked cryptically that the quote "did not reflect his own personal views" -- whatever that means -- but I for one very much hope that there will be more to come.
go to main page