Loading ...
Not an insignificant statement, I think, from Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, England. In a press release issued on the 17th (PDF), he said:
The thrust of the Pope’s lecture, which so far has been entirely lost, is greatly relevant today. His point is to emphasise the importance of our capacity for reason. He refers to violence only in as much as it is against right reason. He affirms that because it is against reason then it is against ‘the nature of God’. Pope Benedict asks pertinent questions about the relationship of faith and reason in Islam. . . .
This academic lecture by Pope Benedict XVI is perceptive and very relevant. I hope that we will not be distracted by the reaction to it that has been created on the basis of a misunderstanding, deliberate or not, of what he actually said.
I suppose that we can see a couple things happening in issuing this statement. First and most importantly, he is reminding people to look at Benedict’s own words, to see what he really said, in order to see the thrust of the whole speech. But second, I think that Archbishop Nichols is deliberately showing his support for the Holy Father in a public way in a country where such statements of support might not be terribly popular. Cardinal Pell, also speaking in defense of the pope, drew just the right connection between the message of the speech and the subsequent Mohammedan reaction to it.
Indeed, we all know that Cardinal Pell is one of Benedict’s sure allies in the College of Cardinals, a supporter of the Mass of All Times and Places and Peoples (the last appellation is for Iacobus), and Cardinal Pell is increasingly well known outside of Australia. But not many people know of Vincent Nichols, pace the attempts of this blog to draw attention to him, who as we see here, understands the Holy Father’s speech, and is willing to go on record publicly as supporting what turned out to be controversial. Further, Nichols has been a supporter of good liturgical sense, besides granting a number of indults for the old rite of the Mass in his archdiocese. I was here in Oxford when he led a Corpus Christi procession through the streets of Oxford - a tad POD, if you ask me.
I think that these are all pieces in a resume which will see him, not long from now, arrayed in the splendor of the sacred purple, hopefully in this archdiocese. That foot-dragger and liberal, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, is now 74.07 years old; which means 0.93 years until mandatory submission of the resignation papers. How soon after that they’ll be accepted, who knows? But when it comes to the next appointment, especially considering the fact that Benedict hasn’t shown an inclination to appoint Savanarolas to prominent dioceses, e.g., his recent appointments in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., someone like Nichols moving to Westminster seems all the more likely to me.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
From an Englısh language Turkısh News websıte; (from JSP)
Ahmet Hakan:The Pope and Gulen
Whether you want to interpret it as an omen or as a very realistic view of things to come, it doesn’t matter! If only Pope Benedict XVI hadn’t made those unfortunate statements….He would have arrived in Turkey and be greeted by this sight: A group of school children waiting for him as he descended his airplane. And it would have emerged that those children, waiting with flowers in their hands, were studying at religious schools funded by Fethullah Gulen. And what’s more, no one would have been surprised by this all. Because for a long time now, the Gulen groups have been systematically making an effort to become closer to the “other sacred books.” And what is this situation being called: Dialogue between religions.
The basic aims of the international Gulen movement are clear: they want to bring about global peace. They want to bring about an atmosphere or tolerance and dialogue. According to the Gulen movement, it is not the time for a struggle between religions, but for “saving religious belief.” After all, the “winds of atheism” are gaining ground every day, right? Which is why Gulen has chosen to focus on the struggle against atheism above all else. Which is also why he has written books now explaining the similarities, rather than the differences, between the Bible and the Koran.
Which is also why, in recent history, Gulen met with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. Work on this front was going well for him at the time.
******
However, no matter how well things were going, there were those who were very much annoyed by the road Gulen was taking. They saw the Vatican visit by Gulen as a sign that things were “out of control.” They accused the CIA of being involved with the Gulen visit, and in fact some sect members even wanted to force Gulen out. Despite all this though, Gulen forged ahead with his efforts for dialogue. And Vatican circles in particular were being very careful not to enagage in any behavior that would makes business more difficult for Gulen. That is, until Pope Benedict’s last controversial round of comments.
*****
Attention! Attention! Benedict XVI’s statements about Islam have collapsed the foundation for this “dialogue between religions” enterprise. Because one end of the dialogue has not put its views about the other end clearly on the table. There is clearly some serious ground which has been lost. And so, Gulen’s work from hereonin is going to be more difficult. And now, not only can you forget about Gulen’s children, with flowers in their hands, greeting the Pope at the airport; you might also have to forget about the Pope even coming to Turkey.
From JSP -
I also wanted to add that I had a stern lecture gıven to me be an elderly Turkısh lady. She ıs a thoroughly committed secular Turk, idolizes Attar, and despises the excesses of fanatical Islam. She blames the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a political force within Turkey squarely on President Bush’s shoulders. I don’t know personally the details of which she was speaking, but supposedly even before coming to power in the parliament, the pro-Muslim political party received high praise and prestige from Bush(ınvıtıng to the White House supposedly) thereby adding to its influence at home.
Upon reflection the only thing I took away from this as how many Christians (including Catholics) feel the need to support other ‘religious’ people especially over secular, non-religious people. I’ve heard this from protestants and from Catholics - how they think it’s somehow good for a Jew to be a ‘good’ ‘observant’ Jew or the goodness of faithful Mormons, etc.
Perhaps this ıs the trap that our evangelıcal presıdent ıs fallıng ınto? The false belief that there ıs some bond among ‘men of relıgıon’ - rather than realızıng that our best ınterest, short of establıshıng the Socıal Reıgn of Chrıst, ıs ın promotıng purely secular regımes.
Regardıng the ‘beıng a good Jew’ ıdea. The Early Church Fathers condemned thıs notıon. Beıng a good Jew actually angers God more than beıng a non-observant Jew. Before the comıng of Chrıst, they refused to follow the Law; and now that Chrıst has come and offered freedom from the Law, they (the Jews) try to follow ıt scrupulously
Correctıon;
The Turkısh lady referenced above ıdolızes Ataturk.
Though I obviously don’t subscribe to the view that it’s perfectly okay to belong to any religion as long as you’re sincere about it, I also can’t agree that, short of being Catholic, secularism is the best possible thing. The Church teaches that only those in a state of grace can act meritoriously, so in a certain sense all who don’t receive valid sacraments are equally outside the circle. But surely we still want non-Catholics to develop the virtues as far as they are able, and to live lives that could make them more receptive to grace.
The question, then, is whether secularism is the best possible condition for living virtuously and remaining open to grace, outside of Catholicism itself. On some level it’s an empirical question, and I suppose JSP has in mind something like this: secularists are like a blank slate just waiting for the Church to write on it. Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. already have lots of mistaken beliefs and habits that would need to be unlearned first. So the secularists are really closer to the right condition.
I see the logic in principle, but in practice I don’t think it hits very near the truth. Certainly, it is possible for a person to be vehemently committed to the errors of his native faith, and this could well be a stumbling block along his path towards the truth. But secularists are really not blank slates; they have all sorts of erroneous commitments of their own, and quite possibly a much larger body of things that need to be unlearned and relearned. As I say, the question is largely empirical, and secularism might not be the worst possible state, but it’s by no means clearly the best (or second best) one.
Those who suppose that it’s better to be a good Jew or Muslim or Protestant, than to be a bad Jew, Muslim or Protestant are presumably thinking that a genuine desire to worship God and do right has to be healthy, and better than apathy towards all things spiritual. This supposition seems to get support from Our Lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, when he said, “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.”