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.
The Pope in the Central African Republic
I wasn’t sure I was qualified to write about this, seeing as I’m neither a Catholic nor do I know much about the Central African Republic, but I found myself so moved by the story that I thought I’d share it anyway.
In March 2013, President François Bozizé was ousted in a coup in March 2013 by a group of mostly Muslim rebels from the north, the Seleka. They targeted churches and Christian communities.
In December, Christian anti-Balaka militias overran the capital and waged a brutal campaign against the Muslim population, causing more than 400,000 people to flee their homes. Nearly half a million more fled to neighboring countries. The wave of violence has been notable for extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture and endemic rape.
A peace agreement was signed in July 2014, but the violence has persisted, particularly outside of the capital.
After delivering the Mass in the capital of Bangui and attending an ecumenical event hosted by a Protestant Evangelical pastor, the Pope took the biggest security risk of his papacy, traveling to an active war zone to visit a mosque that’s been under siege from armed Christian militias in Bangui.
Under heavy UN and Vatican protection, Francis travelled in his open popemobile into the heart of PK5, where 15,000 Muslims are surrounded by Christian militias. Before the civil war erupted in March 2013, the Muslim population of the capital was about 122,000 but most have fled. Thousands of people gathered at the roadside, cheering as the papal entourage drove down red dirt roads. …
After removing his shoes on entering the Koudoukou mosque and bowing towards the holy Muslim city of Mecca, the pope told several hundred men inside that “Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters”.
“Together, we must say no to hatred, to revenge and to violence, particularly that violence which is perpetrated in the name of a religion or of God himself. God is peace. Salaam,” he added, using the Arabic word for peace.
Francis said his visit to CAR “would not be complete if it did not include this encounter with the Muslim community”.
The chief imam at the mosque, Tidiani Moussa Naibi, thanked Francis for his visit, which he said was “a symbol which we all understand”.
Some Muslims are living in the mosque after being forced out of their homes by the violence. “We are very proud to welcome him. The pope is not only for the Christians, he is a servant of God for all Central Africans,” said Ibrahim Paulin, a spokesman for the displaced.
Armed UN peacekeepers were positioned on the mosque’s minarets and a helicopter hovered overhead. At the edge of the district, armed Muslim rebels stood in front of wooden barricades, watching for any threat from Christian vigilante groups. …
A group of Muslim rebels joined thousands of people at the mass at the Barthelemy Boganda stadium. Two pickup trucks pulled up in the middle of the crowd shortly before the pope’s arrival and a group of Muslim vigilantes from PK5 leapt out, wearing T-shirts bearing the pope’s image, as people cheered and – referring to the conflict – shouted “it’s over”. …
I hope it is.
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
It’s a gesture that implies the object/person/place being bowed to is respectable. Mecca is not respectable. It is a shrine to Mohammed, who was an evil man.
If Islam is not a benign worldview, but is rather an inherently harmful idea like communism, materialism, or reincarnation, then it must be confronted as other dangerous philosophies are confronted.
The popularity of other false ideas did not prevent our popes from assertively, if gently, arguing against them. Those errors had been argued against by many generations past, but we will continue to reject them until the end of time. How is Islam different? Why is it acceptable to politely smile while people honor a villain and centuries of oppression?
By the way, Claire, I understand that this was probably meant to be a more cheerful and unifying conversation. I don’t want to drag it into the mud. But the Right is losing, both in politics and in theological battles, because conservatives too often prefer comfort to truth.
Schooling the Pope on how to be a good Catholic? Seems to lack humility, but that’s probably me not getting it.
Humility requires that I be self-critical as well, not that I refuse to consider the fidelity or implications of others’ actions. As with study of fiction, consideration of others’ choices helps one to form one’s own decisions.
Popes err like the rest of us. His special gifts and authority make me especially cautious in criticism, but not mute.
Fair enough, but have you considered with an open mind that he might be right?
(For example, Muhammad isn’t buried at Mecca.)
What would it mean for Pope Francis to be right in this instance?
That he is right to look on Muslims as theological kin, fellow seekers of Abraham’s God, despite Mohammad’s very unChristian interpretation of a “good” or “holy” life? That Islam is a harmful falsehood that nevertheless deserves respect merely for being favored by a billion people? Or that a show of kinship is necessary to end the violence, even if that gesture misleads other peoples into believing the very different theologies are basically alike?
I’ve considered a variety of explanations. All seem to involve either disregard of Islam’s content or prioritization of civil peace over truth (which the history of Christian martyrdom seems to contradict).
In any case, I’m glad the killing has stopped. I want Muslims to learn truth, not to be massacred.
The main point on which he is right in this instance is the public witness he gives to the Christian commitment to love and peace, even in the face of violence.
Then, too, he is right to show Muslims that he looks at them, too, as children of God—people he cares for and whose religious sensibilities he respects.
I think you are profoundly wrong (also unCatholic) in your reduction of Islam to its evil elements, and I’m grateful our Pope doesn’t do that.
Watch The Color of Paradise for a different view of Islam.
“His values are mine. He prays. I pray.”
Maybe Mohammad prayed before he consummated his marriage to a pre-pubescent girl. Even in ancient times, that was brutal.
It’s noble that our Holy Father strives to find shared values and experiences with Muslims. That’s love. I just think he mistakes superficial similarities for a common foundation and aim. And, as Pope, his mistake is looked upon by millions of Christians as an example to follow.
If he understands Islam better than I do, I hope I will be corrected.
I’ll jump in the fray here. There is nothing in the Catholic faith that requires a bow towards Mecca, so your premise is flawed.
I have no doubt the Pope wanted to show respect to his Muslim brothers, but I cringed when I read that he bowed toward Mecca. Bowing towards Mecca is what Muslims do 5 times a day. A similar gesture for a Catholic would be the sign of the Cross or genuflecting before the tabernacle. I doubt any Muslims do this when they enter a Catholic Church. But it was a gesture in line with this Pope: confusing.
I didn’t say schooling the Pope in Catholic ritual – I’m assuming there’s more to being a good Catholic than ritual.
I agree with your critique of the Pope, Aaron.
When asked on the flight back to Rome what religious leaders should do because “Today more than ever, we know that fundamentalism threatens the entire planet.”, the Pope descended again into gobbledygook.
I would have loved to have heard him (out of love for his Muslim brothers – willing their good) clearly define the “fundamentalism” as Islamic supremacism and call out Islam to put an end to this once and for all. But instead, he bashes Catholic fundamentalists. I must say I just don’t understand the man at all.
Again, Katie, I am not reducing Islam to its “evil elements” as you say. I am reducing it to its evil founder and penultimate role model, the supposed prophet who entirely scripted the Koran.
In both Old and New Testaments of Christianity, God’s chosen prophets do terrible things… but then they convert and repent. Their regrets make them humble and prepare their hearts for God’s merciful guidance. Mohammad’s life seems to follow an opposite sequence of events: he begins preaching kindness, then he leads war parties in raids and conquests while preaching brutal intolerance of anyone who won’t follow.
How can a religion of mercy and love follow from Mohammad? Is there any way to justify Islam without asking that question?
OK, then tell me what you meant by your comment about schooling the Pope on how to be a Catholic. The talk was about his bow towards Mecca and his humility with that gesture – I assumed that was what you were getting at. What did I miss?
I paused there myself – is it required?
No, that was exactly it.
What’s the difference?
The difference is that I am not cherry-picking between equal elements to favor one of many reasonable interpretations (“reasonable” meaning guided on logic, but not necessarily correct logic). I am looking at the foundation acknowledged by all varieties of Muslims, the root of all Islam’s supposed wisdom… its most crucial element: Mohammad.
Again, I welcome correction. It seems the only way to reasonably support a kind and tolerant version of Islam via the Koran is to dismiss his relocation to Mecca and focus exclusively on his earlier life as a pauper. Do you disagree? Does Mohammad’s time as a raider/caliph provide an example of kindness and justice?
I’ll watch Katie’s recommended film sometime, though the synopsis doesn’t suggest any relevance to theology. I never questioned that Muslims can be good people. I questioned that they are made good people by adherence to Mohammad’s example in the Koran.
Probably more Koran than Muhammad. The over-focus on Muhammad verges on idolatry. “Mohammedans” misses the point.
It’s very arguable that you’re right, and no it probably does not. Certainly some of those verses seem suspiciously specific (you can have eight wives, they shouldn’t argue with you). Otoh, “well off merchant” is not a pauper – so while I don’t fault your sincerity, I wonder if your perceptions are all as accurate as you feel.
I don’t think that was the point the Pope was addressing when he showed up and was friendly, respectful, humble and dignified.
Well, actually, the Muslims did sack Rome. Rome was first sacked in 410, 455, and 546, by Visigoths and Goths.
Then the Muslims arrived in 846:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome
In fact, Muslim pirate raiders attacked every port in Italy multiple times:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-muslim-piracy-changed-world.html
The only reason they quit was that the Ottomans took over, and got the Europeans to start paying protection money. Which they continued to do until Jefferson sent American Marines to Tripoli.
This whole Emirate of Sicily thing is fascinating. Civilisation is more mixed than we give it credit for.
I will add a sour comment that the western media ignored the Muslim coup and Muslim attacks on Christians in the Central African Republic. Then, when Christians started fighting back, with the result that there were Muslim war refugees in addition to the Christian refugees, western journalists first started to report the story.
That is reducing it to its evil elements.
Countless Muslims are made good by relating themselves religiously to the One True God, Creator and Judge, by way of the faith they were taught is true and which definitely has true elements.
Have you read The Last Battle of C.S. Lewis? If yes, do you remember the character of Emmit? (I think that was his name.) He was a Tashbaan soldier, and a follower of the evil god Tash. And yet, in the end, Aslan recognized him as his own, and rewarded him for his devout life. He said: Whenever you did good in the name of Tash, you were serving me.
This is the Catholic view, as I understand it. All good and sincere religious acts (even when they are bound up with bad theology) are directed at God, and He, in his goodness and mercy, accepts them and responds to them, infected (as all our good acts are) with imperfections and impurities as they may be.
Jeepers Aaron. You are patronizing the Vicar of Christ—judging him as if you know better than he how to set a Christian example.
The Pope “mistakes superficialities for a common foundation”?! Worship of God, the Creator, ruler and just judge of the world and each of our souls is superficial?!
Gobbledygook?! Fundamentalism isn’t threatening the planet?
There’s no such thing as Christian fundamentalism?
He didn’t say what you would have loved to have heard him say, therefore you will publicly disdain the Pope?
Listen, people: To recognize a shared root is not to draw an equivalence—unless you want to correct Jesus, too, for comparing anger to murder or “lust in the heart” to adultery.
Fundamentalism is—just as the Pope said—a form of idolatry. It relativizes the Absolute and absolutizes the relative. It is perverse; antithetical to true worship; and it can co-exist with sound theology. Right now it is particularly virulent among Muslims. But Christians are not immune. Catholics are not immune. (The reaction to the Pope in traditionalist and conservative circles has persuaded me that it’s a much more serious problem than I’d previously thought.) And, insofar as we admit it into our own hearts, we add to the miseries of the world.
Likewise: to show respect for a mixed-bag of a religion is not to assert an equivalence between it and the True Faith. It is not to endorse particular doctrines or practices. We are adding to the confusion when we pretend that it is.
The Pharisees rejected Jesus because he didn’t say and do what they wanted or expected the Messiah to say and do. Instead, he went around speaking cryptically, consorting with public sinners, and showering mercy on the poor and marginalized. Also, he rebuked them for their arrogance and hypocrisy.
Not once did Jesus compliment a Roman for his misguided but humble reverence of Roman gods. Jesus made himself available to all, but called all to conversion.
It’s good that we meet with people of other beliefs and love them as they are, tolerating their errors. It’s not good that so many modern Christians in the secular West are content to leave those people in error. Truth is an aspect of love. Truth is necessary for greater unity.
The Apostles were fallen men like the rest of us. St Peter made mistakes, even so far as to deny Christ three times. The extraordinary graces that enable a pope to defend the faith do not grant him perfect ethical judgment. A pope is not God’s puppet or an avatar to perfectly represent God’s divine will.
The Pharisees judged a man. I judge a man’s choices. You talk as if any criticism of a pope or bishop is anathema, but Vatican II encouraged input from the lambs.
Even the greatest of Christ’s shepherds struggle with imperfection and doubt:
When I criticize a pope or bishop’s choices, that doesn’t mean I am not simultaneously trying to learn from his example.
Yes, gobbledygook. Fundamentalism threatening the planet sounds like Obama talking. From the Charlie Hebdo attacks to the recent carnage in Paris, we’ve had a Russian airliner blown out of the sky by ISIS, carnage in Mali by “me-too” Islamic types and carnage elsewhere in Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc., etc. These have all been done in the name of Islam, not fundamentalism. To then say that there are Christian fundamentalists is exactly like Obama telling us not to get on our high horse because of the Crusades. Islamic supremacism is threatening the planet – why can’t the Pope say that?
As a member of the laity, I feel it is my duty to call out the Pope when he is in error – just as he calls me out in my sin with his many wonderful homilies that he has preached. The Pope and I can learn from each other – I don’t see our relationship as a one-way-street.
Scott, the Pope is not in error. He just isn’t saying what you want him to say.
Islamic supremecisism is a form of fundamentalism; it is threatening the planet, is it not?
The Pope doesn’t use the term you want him to use perhaps because he thinks “fundamentalism” better expresses what he want to say. He may think it better, for instance, in terms of keeping millions of Muslim hearts and minds open to him. He may find it better in terms of not further inflaming an dangerous and delicate situation. He may think it better for reminding Christians that we are not immune from that spiritual danger ourselves. He may think it more apt from capturing the particular dynamic in international and inter religious relations he currently perceives in his travels throughout the world…
We don’t know, because we’re not him.
The relation between the Pope and laity is not a one way street, but neither is it a relation of peers. We have neither his office nor his charism. Neither do we have his responsibilities, his reputation for holiness, his view of the world, his vast experience, his constant, personal contact with leaders in every field from every continent…
Further, what he is saying and doing is completely consistent with the Catechism and the words and acts of his predecessors regarding Islam. Were they, too, speaking gobbledygook because they made a careful point of acknowledging the good to be found in it?