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
Well, you load the point by expressing it that way. The Pope didn’t compliment anyone for their errors. And Jesus did, on more than one occasion, publicly praise the great faith of a Roman soldier or a Samaritan woman. “Not in all Israel have I found such faith.”
Paul didn’t condemn the Athenians for their paganism, rather he introduced them to the “Unknown God” they had been worshipping as one among the others. In other words, he respected and worked with their religious sensibilities, pagan as they were, as great missionary saints have done throughout the ages.
I don’t say the Pope is perfect or beyond criticism. Rather I say that it is all unfitting for us to patronize him, as if we know better how to be Pope. We don’t.
Jesus praised their faith in Him, the Son of God, not their faith in pagan gods or rituals.
I’m sure much of what Pope Francis does is impulsive, as any human being does more than one has carefully considered beforehand. Any person must react to surprising circumstances. For all I know, his bow to Mecca was a momentary decision.
Yes, but those were pagans, not heretics. Islam is a heresy. It was introduced after Christ and distorts much from both Old Testament and New. That makes it significantly different from the myths God used to gradually introduce himself to pre-Christian peoples. The saints fought heresies vehemently. They were not all tolerant of pagan ways either.
This isn’t about condemning anyone for their beliefs. It’s about condemning false beliefs. The Church acknowledges that only God knows all approaches to Christ, but it also teaches that the Church is “the fullness of truth” and Christ is “the way and the life.”
It is the only form of fundamentalism threatening the planet. To just use the term fundamentalism is like holding a conference on violent extremism – one can’t battle the enemy without knowing who it is.
Yes Katie, I know this, and that is why he needs to be clear in his language. This isn’t the first time this Pope had people questioning what he says. It’s like when he talks on climate change, saying that it’s “now or never” because the world is on the “verge of suicide”.
I don’t recall what previous Popes have said and didn’t say that Francis was mistaken to point out the good in his Muslim brothers. I just want him to be clear on what the problem is and to state clearly what the problem is.
Originalism might be a more accurate term. ISIS follows the examples of the first generations of Muslims, which conquered and enslaved the peoples around them. The first generations of Christians, by contrast, approached pagans as beggars.
Adhering to tradition, to original teachings and ways, is something Catholics take pride in. The Church is the embodiment of that tradition.
Rejection of Vatican II would be an example of fundamentalism in Catholicism. I agree that such rejection is wrong and troublesome. Fundamentalism is over-simplification. It retreats from challenges and nuances to the security of simple clarity. In Christianity, it most commonly takes the form of relying totally on isolated and hyper-literal references to the Bible without care for tradition, scholarship, scholarship, or even community.
Anyway, please know that I do take your admonishments seriously, Katie. It is not clear to me how the relationship between a Vicar of Christ and his flock is affected, or not, by the modern technologies which for the first time make every distant utterance and action of popes known to us. Certainly, we should give his words deep consideration.
The Catechism’s kindly reference to Islam also gives me pause. For now, this makes more sense to me.
The office of Pope has to be open to criticism. Let’s be honest here, there have been some pretty awful Popes.
The other unpleasant truth is that the Papacy has always been political. It is a nation-state, and was for a long time a powerful one economically and militarily.
I vaguely recall that one pope had the body of another exhumed and put on trial.
The only guarantee is that the Vicar of Christ will preserve the faith. Not every pope is given to us for inspiration. We have been blessed in recent decades.
Pope Francis is provides an excellent example to follow in many ways. It’s no insult to point out that his gifts are different than the last two popes.
I don’t agree with you on this point. I think a kind of materialist fundamentalism is likewise threatening the planet. Likewise the sort of liberal fundamentalism that absolutizes “reproductive rights” and “sexual identity.” (An ugly form of Catholic fanaticism is not helping.)
I think the Pope (like Cardinal Sarah) is right to recognize a spiritual kinship in the religious fanaticism of the Islamists and other forms of fanaticism now on the rise. All of them thrive in Power dynamics, and in the hermeneutics of suspicion. They are opposites of love, and opposites of the gospel.
Jesus was not clear in his language. He was cryptic. He was perplexing. He was disturbing—to the Pharisees and to his closest disciples. He wasn’t unclear from negligence and irresponsibility or incompetence. He was unclear (as the Jesuits, of whom Francis is one) are famously unclear: because he was trying to communicate truths that are challenging and deep and and difficult to receive.
Those who talk as if the prime task of the Pope is to enunciate clear doctrine radically misunderstand his office, just as the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus.
I am a fan of Robert Spencer. I think he’s doing vitally important work. But it did not please God to make him Pope. He is not the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He is not the Chief Shepherd or the Servant of the Servants of God.
His perspective and his mission are narrow and particular (which is not to say false and invalid). The Pope’s are radically different and infinitely more complex.
Robert Spencer is free to limit his focus to an academic study of the history and teachings of Islam, comparing them to the history and teachings of Christian.
He doesn’t have care for all the souls in the world on his shoulders.
That’s fine that you don’t agree with me but you’ve moved the argument away from the specific question that was asked – it was obviously about Islamic fundamentalism as the Paris attacks were mentioned. I don’t disagree about materialism and reproductive rights and sexual identity but that wasn’t the specific question that was asked.
Islam is Mohammed and Mohammed is Islam. We need to be honest about who and what he was and that Islam holds him to be the ideal man. The leader of the Catholic Church needs to speak clearly and truthfully about Islam which is an existential threat to today’s world.
Islam is an existential threat to Christians around the world. A pope might not be free to focus so intently on one of many challenges facing Christians around the world, both political and (primarily) spiritual. But clarity about Islam, one way or another, is a pressing global need of Christ’s disciples today.
If our Holy Father chooses to delegate those hard questions, fine. But identifying moral and spiritual challenges to Christians in the forms of competing philosophies/theologies is a traditional responsibility of the Church. We need to understand how Islam relates to Christianity in practical terms.
This article at LifeSite News today seems apropos. It lists examples of various papal errors through the centuries — some of them heinous crimes and even implied endorsement of heresies — and cites Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI, if any non-Catholics are still reading this) arguing that the Holy Spirit does not directly elect popes… and so does not guarantee admirable and holy leaders.
Rather, the guarantee of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the Church through protection of essential belief and assurance of His gifts through the sacraments and spiritual blessings.
During the election of a pope, the Holy Spirit guides the willing. But, as all Catholics should be aware, even the hearts of priests and bishops may be hardened. Cardinals can be blinded to the will of God by pride or whatnot and thereby elect a fool or tyrant to become the Vicar of Christ. Authority of the anointed is not wholly dependent upon merit.
But God turns all things to His plan. So a chastisement today, even in the form of a bishop, leads the prayerful to holiness.
I do not believe Pope Francis is a terrible pope. But nor do I believe he is particularly wise. He is brave, humble, and devoted to others. But he is not always a great teacher.
Jesus was talking to Jews. Pope Francis is talking to the world.
Ms. KatieVS, you and Pope Francis are using a perfectly fine definition of “fundamentalism,” but that is not the definition that is uppermost in the minds of the world press when they hear his remarks. It is not surprising that they mangle his message. He knows that they have a bad history of mangling his message, but he continues to speak recklessly.
I don’t think it’s reckless, I think it’s deliberate. I think he’s trying to change the narrative. He’s trying to shift our perspective from political to religious and human, and from earth-bound to eternal.
A year or so ago my husband and I heard a talk by the Papal Household Theologian—a Polish Dominican with an unpronounceable and unspellable name, appointed by Benedict and retained by Francis. One of the questions afterwards was posed by a conservative clearly perturbed by what was going on at the Synod. The theologian’s response was, essentially: “The Pope is taking on two mentalities at once: The mentality of the prodigal son, i.e., the left, and the mentality of the elder brother, i.e. the right. Each has their false sense of entitlement. The mentality of the right is more difficult to overcome.” (I’m paraphrasing.)
I think he’s exactly right.
Well, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the sense of entitlement by the older brother was that of one who was firmly at home in the household of the Father, but who needed further instruction.
On the other hand, the sense of entitlement of the younger son was when he was on his way out. He departed the household, and “was dead” to the Father. The story later describes the repentance of the Prodigal Son, but when he returns he no longer has a sense of entitlement.
If Pope Francis and his Household Theologian see these two differing senses of entitlement as equivalent, then it is no wonder that his message seems muddled.
Further instruction? Is that what you think he needed? I don’t see it that way.
I think he needed conversion—as truly and as deeply as the other son needed it.
Here’s the wiki link on that theologian, BTW. You’ll see what I mean about his name.
From Luke chapter 15:
I do not read this as the older son in need of conversion, if he is “always with” the Father in the Father’s household. I read it as the older son still needs to advance in seeing things the way the Father sees them.
The younger son, in contrast, left. He quit the Father’s house, and required conversion to come to repentance and return.
Both sons have issues. I do not see them as equivalent.
Interesting.
One might say the Left emphasizes affection while the Right emphasizes justice and truth. Both affection and justice are aspects of love. Both are necessary for unity and fulfillment of the relationship.
Perhaps, a person is more aware of the difficulties involved in whichever of those is that person’s focus and constant struggle. So an affectionate person thinks it no small sacrifice to open one’s heart to sinners, while a law-minded person believes the greater challenge is to fulfill God’s laws (which define expressions of love).
If so, each might be inclined to perceive the other as the more obstinate party.
As I see it, they are equivalent, or rather alike in one way, not in another.
They are alike in having a sense of entitlement (differently expressed) and in not realizing how utterly they depend on the gift of their father’s love and generosity. They are alike in underestimating and misperceiving what they had in their father’s house.
“The mentality of the older brother” is more difficult to overcome not because he’s “just as wrong” or “just as bad”, but because it’s harder for him to accept that everything he has comes from God’s love and mercy, not his righteousness.
This is why tax collectors and prostitutes will get into heaven before the pharisees.
Again it seems to me that you are faulting the Pope for not seeing things the way you do. That’s not “error”. And it seems to me that all of us—faithful Catholics especially—ought to open ourselves to his perspective, because we know it’s much broader and deeper than our own, informed by a life of fidelity and personal holiness, and attached to a singular office guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.
As I said above, Islam is not reducible to Mohammed. It is also the mode through which millions of souls are related to God.
Just the other day I read these lines from a reported Catholic mystic that expressed the point well:
The Pope, I suspect, chooses his words carefully with those souls in mind.
He doesn’t want them to hear the Pope calling Islam evil. He doesn’t want Christians to think of Islam as the enemy. And he doesn’t want the faithful imagining that war is the answer (though war might be unavoidable.) He doesn’t want us thinking and responding to events on an ideological and political level. He wants us to realize the point that Solzhenitsyn made so forcefully:
The first thing we can and must do to rid the world of violence is confront it in ourselves.
I googled “Pope Benedict and Islam” just now. [my bold]
And
My experience of living in Qatar for 5 years and Indonesia for 5 years informs me that your opinion is naive. Whenever Mohammed is mocked, or even a cartoon of his face is drawn, Islam erupts with riot and slaughter.
I’m glad you brought up Pope Benedict in your other comments. We saw the reaction to his Regensburg speech where he quoted that there is no compulsion in religion and encouraged Islam to embrace reason – again rioting and killing.
It is very difficult to dialogue under these conditions.
In Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis wrote:
All of that is a one-way street.
He should be forceful and call for freedom of religion, not freedom of worship.
And I disagree with his last sentence – it is very naive.
I’m still learning about Islam. But it seems the claim that “Islam is not reducible to Mohammad” is like saying “Judaism is not reducible to Moses”. Perhaps in some extreme sense, that’s true. But there’s no way to interpret Judaism without going through Moses. Likewise, there’s no way to interpret Islam without going through Mohammad. No one can logically embrace the religion without embracing its central prophet.
There are elements of Muslim practice which I respect. I admire the humility and discipline of stopping to kneel and pray through every single day, for example. There are ways to make fraternal connections with our Muslim neighbors. But love of both God and Man requires truth. We must not hesitate to insist on God’s true nature or to object to harmful distortions. We do not love Muslims by pretending their theological errors are insignificant.