Pope Issues Personal Apology

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Did you actually read the comments?

"His clarification was welcomed by a number of Muslim groups, including the Council of Muslims in Germany, where he made the speech."

"The Muslim Council of Britain said the Pope's expression of regret was "exactly the reassurance many Muslims were looking for". "

"In Turkey, the most senior Muslim r can't expect anything better from such savages.

Was what I wrote false?[/b]

You continue to be simply dishonest and deceitful. YOUR claim was:

He has apologised for the parts that needed an apology -- even offended Muslims can see that.

"Welcoming a clarification" is not "accepting an apology" and you know it. Saying the "Pope's STATED respect for Islam was a civilised position" is not "accepting an apology" and actually seems like a rather double edged comment. Nor is "considering the chapter closed" and "welcoming the Pope's call for a dialogue" accepting an apology.

No "substantial" number of Muslims are satisified with the non-apology and no "substantial number" of Muslims would "only be satisfied with a conversion to Islam". Both comments are simply disingenous and deliberately so.

So continue to play your dishonest games.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You continue to be simply dishonest and deceitful. YOUR claim was:

He has apologised for the parts that needed an apology -- even offended Muslims can see that.

"Welcoming a clarification" is not "accepting an apology" and you know it. Saying the "Pope's STATED respect for Islam was a civilised position" is not "accepting an apol ke a rather double edged comment.

So continue to play your dishonest games.

You're the one playing dictionary games here (which is rather ironic). Whether they accept it as an apology or welcome it as a clarification, it amounts to the same thing -- as far as they are concerned the matter is substantially closed and the focus should be on the future (e.g. how to work together to a better understanding, how to avoid similar situations etc.).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're the one playing dictionary games here (which is rather ironic). Whether they accept it as an apology or welcome it as a clarification, it amounts to the same thing -- as far as they are concerned the matter is closed and the focus should be on the future.

It seems to me that the only people truly offended by the remarks are the ones who are looking for an excuse to launch another jihad. If Islam is the way of peace, why in hell is the sword such a prominent player?

Just as thoughtful Christians were aghast at the atrocities of the Inquisitions and Crusades, thoughtful Muslims are aghast at the violence being perpetrated by politically-minded war mongers who insist on covering their shameful acts with the false badge of religious passion.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Does he have to? The Church has already issued apologies on that subject, so every time they critisice another religion do they have to mention the Church's wrondoings in the past (of which they did not commit and are not part of their core teachings)?

If it is a scholarly paper, then a balance of presentation ...[text shortened]... the last part of my post, because I cited a Beatitude from St Luke.

Nemesio[/b]

If it is a scholarly paper, then a balance of presentation is certainly in order. His paper lacked
that balance as well as a condemnation of the emperor's position.

His criticism was that according to Muslim teaching God is absolutely transcendent and not bound by his word. The Christian God apparently is bound by his (John 1, apparently he is the word). Thus, he is pointing out that the Muslim teaching is flawed because it can lead to violence by its abandonment of reason.

Obviously, you feel that this is a fair position, otherwise you, too, would be calling for an
apology.
Obviously I feel that the Pope's comments have been misrepresented.

Was the Emperor right?

I do not believe that Emperor's comments on Islam would hold up to modern day scrutiny. However, the Pope clearly identified something he thought was important in the Emperor's dialogue, and that is that violence is incompatible with faith.

The Christian is called
to turn the other cheek when he is being slapped. The Christian is similarly called to fight
for those others who cannot fend for themselves.

I hardly se how this could apply to the Pope's speech. The Pope is making an appaisal of religion. Who is exactly should be fending for and in what way should he turn the other cheek?

It means that, even if nutcases are blowing up churches, the Christian has a duty not act sinfully
towards them.

Correct. But are you seriously suggesting that academic appraisal of another religion is a sin?

So, too, are all Christians -- even as their churches are
being blown up, Christians must still treat their enemies with love, which means not being insulting.

There is a certain arbitrariness about the claim "insulting". It is clear that the Pope did not intend to be "insulting" and I can only assume that those "insulted" are hyper-sensitive to criticism.

However, I hold the Pope to the
highest moral standards, which means if he is insulting to even the most hateful, nasty, and evil
person in the universe, I expect him to seek forgiveness from that person.

Please do not embellish the situation. The Pope has made only an assessment of the Muslim teaching that God is absolutely transcendant. He has not promulgated anything "insulting". Last time I checked the Vatican's position of Islam was the same; one of respect and tolerance (but that does not preclude either side from criticising the other).

If he
were doing so from a scholarly standpoint, then he had a duty to explore both religions in question.

He has no such obligation. Pope John Paul the second distinguished between the religion and the religion's actions. The catechism does not advocate violence so why should the Pope have to dwell on the Christian crusaders? There is of course a relationship between Islamic teaching and violence and this Pope is careful to demonstrate.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If it is a scholarly paper, then a balance of presentation is certainly in order. His paper lacked
that balance as well as a condemnation of the emperor's position.

His criticism was that according to Muslim teaching God is absolutely transcendent and not bound by his word. The Christian God apparently is bound by his (John 1, apparently he is ...[text shortened]... ip between Islamic teaching and violence and this Pope is careful to demonstrate.[/b]

Well, obviously you don't think the Pope was careless or even insensitive. You keep defending
his choice of selection, the reasons for it, and so on. It seems pointless to argue because, in
order for an apology to be even a reasonable consideration, you have to think the Pope did
something wrong, and you clearly do not.

I suppose this is precisely why so few Popes have apologized: the Church's faithful simply don't
see actions by the Pope as requiring apology (until years later) and are willing to make up all
sorts of excuses on his behalf.

Here are the excuses you made:

1) It's hard to make an apology. The Pope must be diplomatic.
This gives the impression that the Pope is a politician before a clergyman.
2) The Pope must minimize harm to all sides so that they are not based on unreliable information.
This presumes that members of the RCC will be hurt by an apology.
After my 7-minute apology, you wrote
3) I have no problem with it, but the Pope 'prepared' his audience by saying the Emperor's words
would 'astound' us (which turns out was inaccurate).
You didn't identify any harm it would have to the 'RCC side,' but when called on this point, you said:
4) The Pope only sought to illustrate that violence was incompatible with God's nature.
I observed that Pope illustrated this with a vitriolic comment from a 14th-century emperor; that is,
the Pope's quote suggests that the violence in the religion of Islam is incompatible with God's
nature. However, he failed to do so with respect to any other religion. You responded:
5) I do not see what is offensive about the Pope's comments. If he apologized, it might whitewash
his criticism of Islamic violence.
Noting that the paper was (ostensibly) about the incompatibility of violence and religion
(not Islam), I observed that it might have been possible to make the same point without such a
disgusting quotation and that the paper might have benefited from a broader survey of religions in
order to provide a better context for such a vitriolic quote. You responded:
6) The Church has already apologized for the violence in its history; and
7) Non-violent Moslems (for whom the quotation does not apply) shouldn't be offended.
Lastly, you wrote:
8) Thus, he is pointing out that the Muslim teaching is flawed because it can lead to violence by its
abandonment of reason.
A claim not supported by the Regensburg paper... and
9) The Pope clearly identified something he thought was important in the Emperor's dialogue,
and that is that violence is incompatible with faith.
The emperor's quote said that the only novelty that Mohammed brought was evil and inhumanity.
This does not show that violence is incompatible with faith.

Look at the evolution of reasons which you use to justify the Pope's words. The questions boils down
to these: Could the Pope have selected a different quote to make his point? Yes. Given that,
do you recognize that people could have been hurt by such a quote? Yes. Does the Pope have a
duty not to insult other people? Yes. When the Pope insults someone (even inadvertently), does
the Pope have a duty to apologize? Yes.

My opinion is that a religious leader has the responsibility for being a model of Christian behavior.
This doesn't mean that I expect him to be perfect, but to strive for it, as we all should. If you can
find no objection to the content of my apology except that it might affect the scholarly reception of
his paper, then I think the trade off to assuage the insulted masses is a no-brainer.

Only pride or politics would interfere with such a judgment.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The orthodox position is that salvation makes one a believer, not works. Works (fruit) are indication of growth, not of salvation--- and certainly not a precusor to salvation. After all, what of your list is not exhibited by, say, a buddhist?

Well, this contradicts St James, who says faith without works is dead.

Unless you think someone with a dead faith is a Christian.

Indeed, St James felt that faith was inseparable from works; that the former could not exist
without the latter.

Naturally, God, being just, takes into account the amount of time you have between the moment
of faith and death, which is why the second thief joined Jesus in paradise; he didn't have time
for lots of works, but his work through confession was the only demonstration of faith available to
him.

Given that most Christians will have more time than the thief, works are a necessary part of their
Christian lives as demonstrations of faith.

Among the things which a person of faith will demonstrate is forgiveness and contrition. These are
necessary parts of Christian life (unless Jesus was teaching people about these things for His own
amusement).

So, a Christian with a true faith will, by necessity, be a doer of works, a forgiver and be asking
for forgiveness whenever appropriate.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
9) The Pope clearly identified something he thought was important in the Emperor's dialogue,
and that is that violence is incompatible with faith.
The emperor's quote said that the only novelty that Mohammed brought was evil and inhumanity.
This does not show that violence is incompatible with faith.

Read the whole passage quoted from Manuel II, not just the first part of the first sentence.