17 September 2006 - Sunday
"God is not pleased," addendum
I suppose my previous entry failed to address, at least directly, the charge actually aimed at Benedict XVI by most Western critics. That charge seems to be simply that the inflammatory Manuel II Paleologus quotation was unnecessary, whether or not Benedict personally agrees with the Byzantine emperor.
Now, unless the pope is a liar, he does not agree with Manuel in thinking that Mohammed brought into the world only "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." But since I cannot prove that the pope is not a liar, I will content myself with asking myself whether the quotation was necessary.
And I conclude that yes, it was necessary. Or rather, it was much more responsible of the pope to include it, in some form or another, than it would have been to exclude it.
In any kind of intellectual history, it is essential to understand what a thinker was arguing against in order to understand what he was arguing for. In this case, as long as Benedict wanted to highlight Manuel's argument for rationality and toleration at all (and I happen to think it was a cool thing to highlight), he had to place it in an historical context.
If he had not mentioned that Manuel II Paleologus was making a Greek and Christian argument against the ideas of a Persian Muslim, the pope would have done little justice to Manuel's thought. So I find it astounding that some otherwise historically-minded people are claiming that Benedict should have censored the upsetting bits out of his intellectual history.
Are there any other topics that a religious leader should shy away from when talking about the worldviews of past thinkers? Should we be making a list?
| Posted by Wilson at 17:59 Central | TrackBack| Report submitted to the Humanities Desk
I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing ... but I'll answer anyway.
I don't know whether I would have or not. Certainly, I would not now -- but I imagine the pontiff would not either.
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know what quotational (sic) resources were at Benedict's disposal. And I have my own questions about the speech, being Protestant myself. I do think that the quotation works well within the speech, both because it is picturesque and because it shows just how important the question that Benedict is addressing can be.
Now, it is obvious that a historical "reflection" like this one has to strike a balance between analysis and rhetoric. In my opinion, the inclusion of this quotation is legitimate as an effort to do that. If the inclusion of this quotation is somehow inherently objectionable, I'm not sure how any of us are safe writing about the past.
The more I look at the speech, the more I recognize that Benedict was drawing a distinction not between Christianity and Islam, but between "Greek" and (if you will, given this particular story) Persian philosophy -- as alternatives within the same theistic worldview. The idea repudiated so forcefully by Manuel II seems to be, for Benedict, a "live" option for all theists. I believe that is why he included the stark language from the Greek side -- because of its moral importance for the pope's audience, not because of its sectarian claim. In other words, I suspect it was very important for Benedict to get "evil and inhuman" in there for rhetorical reasons, while Mohammed was important for historical-analytical reasons.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?The thoughts of Wilson on 17 September 2006 - 20:48 Central
+ + + + +
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
Would you not have chosen the same quote? The process of creating vibrant prose often demands that scholars quote those statements rife with emotional metaphors, rather than the more analytical passages.
The thoughts of NDR on 17 September 2006 - 19:11 Central+ + + + +