Exactly what the Pope meant!

Muslims all over the world were evidently offended when, in the German city of Regensburg, German-born Pope Benedict XVI "implicitly" denounced links between Islam and violence, particularly in regard to "jihad" or holy war.

Although the scholarly Pope was addressing a group of university professors, his "scholarly" lecture was given a markedly political spin. Benedict cited the 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor Manuel Paleologos II who had said of the Prophet, "Show me just what Mohammad 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."

Supporters of the Pope, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said he was merely expressing his absolute rejection of any use of violence in the name of religion. Muslim organizations worldwide, however, felt that the Pope was either uninformed about Islam or, worse, had deliberately distorted the Prophet’s teachings.

Whether or not the Pope has apologized for his Regensburg remarks is still a matter of some debate. At the Vatican the other day, he was widely quoted as having said he was "deeply sorry" for what he had said. Several observers said, however, that a more accurate translation of what he had said to the audience gathered in St. Peter’s Square was that he was "deeply saddened" at the Muslim reaction to what he had said.

A statement released by the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone clarified that the Pope "sincerely regrets" that some passages of his speech could have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of the Muslim faithful. His words were "interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to the intentions," said Bertone.

Ironically, the reaction to the Pope’s call for a dialogue between religions, and for the absolute rejection of violence, was the burning by Palestinians of four Catholic churches in the West Bank. Another church was attacked in Gaza City.

The Pope’s trip to staunchly Muslim Turkey this November, although not yet cancelled, is apparently in jeopardy. Even a comment Benedict made in 2004 as head of the conservative Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, is recalled. He apparently opposed Turkey’s admission to the European Union since, as a Muslim country, Turkey was "in permanent contrast to Europe."

If history is prologue, and today informs an on-going so-called "clash of civilizations" between Christian and Muslim societies, a lot of the sordid past of Christianity and other religions will probably be dredged up to further cloud the discussion. For example, the head of the Islamic Society of North America challenges Catholics to "compare the history of violence committed in the name of the Catholic Church and violence committed in the name of Islam."

To start with, the Society points to "500 years of the Inquisition, the counter-reformation, the Crusades." The truth is, the group insists, all religions have been used for violence, including Judaism. They are, of course, referring to the familiar Arab charge that terrorism was invented not by Islamic fundamentalists, but by Zionists bent on carving out a Jewish state from historic Arab lands.

This brouhaha, whoever is right and who’s wrong (and, in all probability, the truth is once again somewhere in between), only points to the folly of extremist positions, as well as the importance of words, which convey both comforting and disturbing ideas.

We may not have thought twice when the Pope spoke out against violence, but since his words were construed as having condemned one particular religion as preaching violence as a way of spreading the faith, he is now hard-pressed to explain that he was not in attacking a particular religion but the violence practiced by any religion.

But what the good Pope might have missed in his highly intellectual discourse against violence is that these days, the term violence is itself a highly complex notion. It encompasses both physical violence, which we can readily see in 9-11 and people killed or maimed in suicide bombings, but also institutional violence which is a lot more subtle but no less lethal.

For one thing, in spreading "democracy," even in countries which do not want it and have survived for centuries without it, the West is seen as doing violence every bit as murderous as the Crusades were reputed to be.

While aggressive violence is anathema to most decent societies, the debate gets a little more complicated when one is talking about the violence which a desperate people claims it has no option but to use in order to defend itself. Thus, suicide bombers are hailed as martyrs and heroes, whereas the West sees them only as mindless automatons programmed to commit mass indiscriminate destruction.

If a dialogue is to begin, as the Pope correctly urges, it must begin with a clear understanding of the nature of violence, and the different ways violence can afflict human beings. This process will not be as easy as getting the Muslim faithful to prove that they are indeed peace-loving people. It will not even be as easy as trying to understand, once and for all, what jihad really means and what its role is in Muslim theology.

For the truth is, Christians really do not understand what jihad is. How is holy war consistent with a faith that swears it is peace-loving? On the other hand, Christians have a lot of work to do to distance themselves from charges that Christianity itself spread through the use of violence.

Pope Pius XII’s alleged "collaboration" with Hitler, ethnic cleansings undertaken by allegedly Christian societies against people of different faiths, to name just two examples, must be explained in light of current realities and dogmas which condemn, in no uncertain terms, such selective interpretations of religious tenets.

The Pope has a lot of work to do, even as I am certain he will weather this crisis. But since he has entered the fray, he has no choice but to engage. Already, radical Muslims are charging him with allying himself with George Bush in order to launch a new Crusade. This is, of course, utter nonsense, but it is an indication of the magnitude of the Pope’s task.

He has to tread carefully, measure his words and anticipate that there are those who, for their own reasons, twist them beyond recognition to foment the kind of dismay and discord that greeted his Regensburg remarks.<