Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
There He Goes Again
Pope Francis said on Sunday that equating Islam with violence was wrong and called on Muslim leaders to issue a global condemnation of terrorism to help dispel the stereotype.
Has anyone of any influence anywhere gone on record “equating Islam with violence?” We all know that there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. But Pope Francis doesn’t limit his disquisition to this particular strawman, taking us into a relativistic moral world not normally associated with the Catholic church.
“You just can’t say that, just as you can’t say that all Christians are fundamentalists. We have our share of them (fundamentalists). All religions have these little groups,” he said.
Note that the Pope is here providing balance to his condemnation of ISIS terrorists, implying that all religions have a problem with homicidal adherents, as if sects of Christians or Buddhists are rampaging about beheading all and sundry.
But wait, there’s more.
“They (Muslims) say: ‘No, we are not this, the Koran is a book of peace, it is a prophetic book of peace’.”
Now the Pope leaps from admonishing against “equating Islam with violence” to endorsing the argument that the Quran is “a prophetic book of peace.” Might I suggest that next time Pope Francis wishes to opine on the Muslim holy book, he first pick up a copy for himself? Spanish translations are available.
Published in General
That’s a fair point, but I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. Your previous comment raised a rather inflammatory rhetorical question (i.e. “attempting to whitewash the violence inherent in Islam”) which I had already addressed in a previous comment. Then you implied that the pope’s effort is only half-hearted or cynical (can’t tell which you meant, you merely said he was not “honestly trying”) after I had suggested he was making a rather innocuous point about diversity in order to appeal to empathy. From that I figured you were really down on the guy and probably not interested in giving him any charitable interpretation.
I don’t think that’s what you are doing. I should have made that clear, but I’m not that good at manipulating multiple quotes. There was a comment or two which seemed to reveal a strong animus towards the Roman Catholic Church throughout history and a reply to that post which seemed to tar all those with criticism of the current pope with the same anti-church brush.
Cleaning up that tar was the motive behind my most-recent post.
…and I don’t really think the Pope’s efforts are half-hearted. I just think he is willing to throw some of his fundamentalist brothers-in-Christ under the bus in a futile attempt to earn the goodwill of some Muslims.
What I read is the pope made the following analogy:
And you took his meaning to be “Y and B are equivalent”.
That is standard operating procedure for many posters on Ricochet.
I can tell you, in all sincerity, that I want to like this Pope and would like to interpret any and all of his comments without a bias against him. I’m not a cafeteria-Catholic, nor a rad-trad, but an orthodox and faithful Catholic who has come to wish her Pope was more careful in his words. I was a big fan of his predecessor — maybe that’s part of the problem, as Pope Benedict was always very precise, concise, clear, and measured. However, if Pope Francis says stuff that has me scratching my head at best, or questioning his judgment at worst, I don’t think that I have resorted to merely going along with a “standard operating procedure”, but am honestly expressing what my concerns are. Do me the honor of allowing that I am expressing my own concerns and criticisms as I see them, and not merely indulging in disagreeing with what he is saying for the sake of disagreement.
If he didn’t see relevant similarities between Y and B, then his analogy would be pointless.
If Pope Francis does not think that fundamentalists, in some significant way, relate to all Christians in the same way that Jihadis relate to Islam, what possible purpose is there for his analogy? If the fundamentalists’ relationship is merely one of a benign subset within a larger set, as your generous interpretation seems to assert, why didn’t he use Presbyterians or Tridentine Mass Catholics?
I may be accused of assigning the worst possible interpretation to most of Francis’ public statements, but willfully avoiding the most plausible interpretations of those statements would require that I suspend whatever powers of reason that I have.
Because those are extremely specific and possibly too obscure for a Muslim to understand. Instead he went with the broadest possible statement, saying first “Christians” (the broadest identifiable group he belongs to) and then “all religions”. For all you know, when he said fundamentalists he meant the Christian Identity movement. It is you who decided he was targeting Baptists.
If the Christian Identity movement can even be included therein, it makes up an infinitesimal portion of American fundamentalism. If Francis was referring to them alone when he used “fundamentalists,” he’s guilty of incredibly sloppy language for a man in his position.
He explicitly targeted fundamentalists. We should take him at his word and not arbitrarily except large segments from the larger group he blithely condemned. Doing so strikes me as an attempt to save a misguided man from the consequences of his misguided statements.
Beware the No True Scotsman fallacy. And ISIS is also an “infinitesimal portion” of Islam, isn’t it? Note that he’s also encouraging Islamic leaders to treat ISIS as such. It’s an appeal to their better angels.
To me it’s obvious he’s talking about a particularly evil type of fundamentalist, not all fundamentalists. Or you’d have to believe the pope thinks Baptists and Hasidic Jews are as morally corrupt as ISIS. It’s absurd on its face.
Tell that to all the people who are cheering him on from the left
Like I said, absurd on its face.
Unfortunately, perception has become reality. A 21st-century pontiff should probably understand that.
An awful lot of what Pope Francis has said can be parsed in a way that isn’t dismissive of traditional beliefs, but it shouldn’t take the intellect of an Aquinas or Maimonides to hear what he says as anything but a rebuke of vast numbers of his fellow Christians.
I think that’s only a problem for leftists determined to impugn Christians, and for victimized Christians eager to take offense at a perceived “rebuke” that wasn’t. Here’s what he said just last year:
Ideas like Christian unity are easy to advocate in L’Osservatore Romano, but a little harder to promote when trying to ingratiate oneself with the enemies of Christianity.
I don’t think Francis realizes just how difficult it is for many of us in the west who are fighting what seems like a twilight struggle against forces that would destroy the traditional family, enlarge the state, and restrict the role of religion in daily life.
Whether he intends it or not and whether people interpret his words honestly or not, I believe the effect of Francis’ actual words will be diminished unity among Christians and strengthened hostility to Christians.
Whether he intends it or not and whether people interpret his words honestly or not, I believe the effect of Francis’ actual words will be diminished unity among Christians and strengthened hostility to Christians.
I’ll second that……. He’s not going to win any friends among Baptists, Pentecostals, and other fundamentalist groups with those comments, and that adds up to a large number of Christians. Not that they had any love for the Catholic Church before this, mind you, but it does make the relationship less, not more, receptive to unity. And it gives those on the Left who hate fundamentalists more ammunition — see, even the Pope thinksthose people are crazy and dangerous!
This seems like a whole other angle on the story. I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying here, but this sounds very harsh. Are you saying you think the people he is talking to, the Muslim leaders, are enemies of Christianity? And that what he’s doing is trying to ingratiate himself to them, rather than convince them to condemn ISIS? Please let me know if I am reading your comment wrong.
I will give your interpretation an “A-.” My only quibble is with your “rather than:” I think he was attempting to ingratiate himself AND get Muslim leaders to condemn ISIS.
Now, allow me to slide the rest of my chips onto the table:
Call me harsh if you choose to, but I think that Jorge Bergoglio has gotten to where he is in no small part because of his ability to ingratiate himself with lots of people who reject what the Roman Catholic Church has traditionally stood for. A problem for him now is that his visibility has revealed some contradictions.
His profound support for some of those aspects of the Christ’s gospel that appeal to orthodox Catholics may have hitherto obscured his rejection of many other values and beliefs they hold dear. His visibility is now making those conflicts easier to see.
A couple of parish priests that I know seem to be working harder and harder to rationalize some of his more provocative statements. I guess we’ll have to stay tuned.
As a postscript, I also think that Painter Jean may be wrong about many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians’ attitude towards the Catholic Church. For a minority of them, their doctrinal disagreements have created a genuine animus towards Catholicism; but for most, there is a warm sense of Christian brotherhood. These protestants are very grateful for what has been, at least through the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict, such a large and outspoken ally in the contemporary culture war.
As a postscript, I also think that Painter Jean may be wrong about many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians’ attitude towards the Catholic Church. For a minority of them, their doctrinal disagreements have created a genuine animus towards Catholicism; but for most, there is a warm sense of Christian brotherhood.
I hope I’m wrong. I do know that many fundamentalists don’t think Catholics are even Christians — it’s not an uncommon sentiment and is to be found even in some fairly mainstream Evangelical circles. Heaven knows I have certainly run across more than a few spittle-flecked, hate-filled Baptists who have ranted on and on against Catholicism.
Me too, Painter, but I think they’re a dying breed. Sixty years ago, WASPS could afford to be snobby about who their friends were. Now, they’re happy with whoever will sit with them at the lunch table.
Me too, Painter, but I think they’re a dying breed. Sixty years ago, WASPS could afford to be snobby about who their friends were. Now, they’re happy with whoever will sit with them at the lunch table.
You’re probably right — I certainly hope so. But to relate this to the main post: even though I have had unpleasant experiences with Christian fundamentalists, I have never feared that they would inclined to lop off my head. I don’t think the Pope saying to Muslim leaders, in effect, “we have our fundamentalists too” was either wise or charitable.