Rest and Reflect

Samuele Bacchiocchi discusses Pope Benedict’s Lecture – 12 Sept 06 September 30, 2006

POPE BENEDICT XVI’S CONTROVERSIAL LECTURE

On 12 September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture titled “Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections,” at the University of Regensburg in Germany, where he was previously a professor of theology.

The lecture has caused Muslim demonstrations, riots, and even the shooting of a Catholic nun in Somalia. Many Islamic politicians and religious leaders registered their protest against what they believe was an insulting mischaracterization of Islam, in Pope Benedict’s quotation, “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.”

The quote is taken from a 1391 dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian, on such issues as forced conversion, holy war, and the relationship between faith and reason. The Pope used Emperor Manuel II’s argument in order to draw a distinction between the Christian view that “not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature”, and an Islamic view, as explained by Theodore Khoury and Ibn Hazm, that God transcends rationality, and his will is not constrained by any principle, including rationality.

Some of the Adventist reactions to the Pope’s lecture emailed to me, tend to be very negative. It almost seems that to be a loyal Adventist you must always find something wrong with the Pope. I do not share this view. There are times when I condemn the pope for actively promoting the idolatrous worship of Mary, but there are also times when I commend pope for addressing the socio-political issues of our time in a responsible way.

Three Crucial Points Made by Benedict XVI

I read the full text of the Benedict”s lecture and I find that he makes three crucial points that have been overshadowed by the controversy about his alleged offensive comments about Islam.

The pope’s first point is that the way we envision God determines how we define what is good or evil and the methods we use for advancing truth. For example, if we imagine that God is a remote, transcendent majesty with whom our only possible relationship is one of blind submission (Islam=Submission), then we must accept even what seems to be irrational, like the murder of innocents.

Benedict contends that the God of Biblical revelation is a rational God, who does not cancel out or abrogate human reason. Christianity has taught that human beings can build decent societies by following the light of reason. By contrast, the Koranic God is a transcendent God who is not subject to the logic of reason.

The pope’s second point flows from the first, namely, that irrational violence aimed at innocent men, women and children “is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the [human] soul.” Muslim believers who insist that the suicide bombing of innocents is an act pleasing to God, must be told that they are mistaken in their understanding of God, of His purposes, and His moral commands.

Furthermore, Islamic leaders have a responsibility to correct these distorted views of God, but too few of them, the pope seemed to suggest, have the courage to undertake a cleansing of Islam’s conscience, as Pope John Paul II taught the Catholic Church to cleanse its historical conscience. (Crusades, inquisition).

Honest Muslim and honest Christians have the right to disagree on their respective beliefs, but they do not have the right to force the choice imposed to the two Fox News employees by their captors in Palestine: convert or die. There is a serious asymmetry which Benedict has criticized before. The Saudis can build multi-million dollar mosques in Western Europe and the USA, yet Christians can be arrested in Saudi Arabia for giving out Bibles.

The Danger of Postmodern Relativism

The pope’s third point, which has largely been ignored in the heat of the controversy, is directed toward the West. The pope warns that the postmodern relativism (which I discuss in my lecture Cracking The Da Vinci Code) and irrationalism, which reduces truth to subjective beliefs or feelings, undermines the ability of the West to defend itself. “Why? Because the West won’t be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending. A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible, cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things” (Los Angeles Times, Sept. 20, 2006).

Frankly, I find Benedict XVI speech very compelling. I especially appreciate his distinction between the Christian view of God as a Being who acts according to reason, and the Muslim view of God as a Being who is utterly transcendent, not bound to the rule of reason. To support this point, Benedict cites “the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.”

Such a view of a universe ruled by an irrational God, can only results in a lawless society where good is evil, godliness is mass murder, and everything is permitted. All wars, in such a world, are just wars.

In a world dominated by relativism and political correctness, Benedict XVI must be commended for inviting Moslem leaders to engage in an open dialogue on RELIGION AND VIOLENCE. Perhaps, he is the only religious leader who commands sufficient authority to organize such a dialogue.

But the question is: Can moderate Muslim leaders be self-critical? Can they condemn and marginalize its extremists, or are Muslim today condemned to be held hostage to the passions of those who believe that murdering innocent people is pleasing to the Koranic God? Is the West prepared to encourage such a dialogue and support Islamic reformers?

A Problem with Benedict’s Lecture

The positive aspects of Benedict’s lecture, must not overshadow what I consider a major flaw, namely, his condemnation of the Reformers for rejecting the synthesis between faith and reason which had been worked out by such influential theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. By adopting the principle of Sola Scriptura, the Reformers sought to define faith as found in the biblical Word, not in the philosophical speculation of scholastics like Thomas Aquinas.

For Aquinas there are two channels through which God reveals truth: via naturalis (human reason) and via supernaturalis (Scripture). For the Reformers there is only one channel: Sola Scriptura. They rejected human reason as a channel of divine revelation, because historically the Catholic church developed a host of heresies on the basis of reason, rather than Scripture.

What Benedict ignores is that the Reformers were not against the use of reason per se, but against the way reason had been used by the Scholastics to develop Catholic teachings and practices contrary to biblical teachings. A good example is Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the extermination of heretics. Aquinas is rightly regarded as the most influential Catholic theologian, largely responsible for developing the scaffolding of Catholic theology. His rationale for the extermination of heretics is strictly based on reason, not Scripture, and closely resembles the teaching of the Koran on the killing of the infidels.

Aquinas writes: “With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death” (SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2).

Aquinas continues saying: “On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death” (SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2).

The above statements clearly show how Aquinas used reason, rather than Scripture, to justify the extermination of so-called “heretics.” It is evident that the Catholic historic reason for the extermination of the heretics, is just as irrational as the Koranic texts which command offensive warfare to kill the pagans, Jews, and Christians. For example, Sura 9:5 says: “When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [become Moslem], then open the way for them.” The best way for people to save their lives, was by renouncing their religion and adopting the Islam faith.

Had Benedict XVI chosen to compare the irrational historical Catholic teachings on the extermination of heretics with the irrational Koranic teachings on the killing of the infidels, there would not have been much of an uproar, because he would simply acknowledged the need on the part of both Christians and Muslim to reject violence as a means to advance one’s faith, because it is against the reasonable nature of God. On this basis Muslim may be more likely to engage in a dialogue.