Who Would
Jesus Bomb?
The
Pope Weighs-In on Islam
By Kam Williams
|
Show me
just what Muhammad brought that was new, and
there you will find things only evil and
inhuman, such as his command to spread by
the sword the faith he preached. . . .
Violence is incompatible with the nature of
God and the nature of the soul.
Whoever
would lead someone to faith needs the
ability to speak well and to reason
properly, without violence and threats. . .
. To convince a reasonable soul, one does
not need a strong arm, or weapons of any
kind, or any other means of threatening a
person with death. . . .
It is not
surprising that Christianity, despite its
origins and some significant developments in
the East, finally took on its historically
decisive character in Europe. We can also
express this the other way around: this
convergence, with the subsequent addition of
the Roman heritage, created Europe and
remains the foundation of what can rightly
be called Europe.— Pope Benedict XVI
|
Anyone who read the full text of Pope
Benedict XVI’s hate speech delivered last week at the
University of Regensburg, knows that there’s
considerable cause for alarm, given his caustic comments
about Islam. Certainly his incendiary suggestion that
Muhammad was “only evil and inhuman” was irresponsible,
unless deliberately intended to trigger Christian
animosity towards Muslims, and vice-versa. After all, he
already was aware of what happened a year ago when a
cartoonist drew a picture of the Prophet with a bomb
tucked in his turban.
That caricature sparked riots and
boycotts worldwide. So, what could the Pontiff possibly
think the reaction would be when he totally trashed
Muhammad? A crusade? A jihad? World War III? Don’t think
for a minute that the Pope’s words were a simple slip of
the tongue either, because he was reading from an
annotated, well-researched, carefully-prepared, papal
script.
Furthermore, as every devout Catholic
knows, the Pope is infallible. Faithful followers
believe that he cannot err in matters of faith and
morals, and a talk condemning another religion as wicked
undoubtedly qualifies. In the wake of Muslim outrage
over the lecture, the Church issued a press release
stating that the Holy Father “sincerely regrets that
certain passages of his address could have sounded
offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful,
and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no
way corresponds to his intentions.”
Unfortunately, this half-hearted
apology never specifically retracts the offensive
language which caused the uproar in the first place.
Instead, it blames Muslims by suggesting that they might
have misinterpreted his meaning. Plus, it states that
they revere Jesus as a prophet, and that, “They also
honour Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call
on her with devotion.” That disingenuous double-talk
doesn’t bear any resemblance to a sincere beg for
forgiveness.
If the Pope is truly remorseful for
his divisive diatribe, then he needs to say so himself,
and in a very public manner, preferably from the Vatican
pulpit overlooking St. Peter’s Square. Till then, I
wouldn’t blame Muslims for remaining concerned about the
true motives behind a speech which patently appealed to
Europeans’ deeply-ingrained inclination towards racism
and religious chauvinism, especially when it was
delivered in Germany, a country with such a checkered
record when it comes to tolerance.
* * *
* *
Lloyd Williams is an attorney and
a member of the bar in NJ, NY, CT, PA, MA & US Supreme
Court bars. * * *
* * Mackie Blanton
Responds to the Notion of "Papal Infallibility"
The Catholic
Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is
generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In
particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians"
often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with
"impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope
cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder,
think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical
incantation when an infallible definition is due.
Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic
tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to
explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility
is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that
belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also
belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in
doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a
doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who
promised the apostles and their successors the bishops,
the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears
me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Not everything in a
conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine
is defined, is to be treated as definitive and
infallible. . . . The merely argumentative and . . .
definitive judgments, however true and authoritative
they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of
infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive
sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has
been previously or subsequently established by an
independent decision.
Infallibility is
not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but
only to his . . . teaching; and the conditions required
for
ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the
Vatican decree:
| The pontiff must teach in his public and
official capacity as pastor and doctor of
all Christians, not merely in his private
capacity as a theologian, preacher or
allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a
temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the
Diocese of Rome. Then it is only when, in
this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of
faith or morals that he is infallible (see
below, IV). |
Further it must be
sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all
the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic
authority, in other words that he wishes to determine
some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and
irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense.
These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the
defining intention may be manifested.
In present day
conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the
most distant parts of the earth and to secure a
literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the
presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses
the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does
not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the
faithful as
ex cathedra and infallible.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V
posted 21 September 2006 |
