In these post double helix times and after Dolly the sheep how can one reconcile those things with faith. Reason was the basis of those discoveries and if a Catholic priest was murdered then if DNA tests were used to identify the murderer the Pope would have no qualms about that. Faith itself would not do so.

Thank you Michael & F.H. for the article and comment respectively. There is a comment at the bottom of the link you provided FH, and I couldn't resist posting it here.

"Does the Pope really want a dialogue with Islam?

"The amende honorable of the Pope in the form of a sincere regret expressed publicly did go a long way in containing a dangerous confrontation between Islam and Christianity. But what has gone unnoticed in the chaotic imbroglio is the Pope’s invitation to a “frank and sincere dialogue” with the Muslims. Not surprisingly, the Muslims masses under the misguidance of an extremist clergy were busy burning Churches and effigies of the Pope, and killing innocent nuns to have concentrated on countering the Pope through “reason” by accepting his invitation. It is time Muslims realized that violent or emotional reaction to attacks on Islam or its prophet is not the Islamic way. Now, with the Pope emphasizing in his meeting with Muslim envoys on Monday, Sep 25 that, “the inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims is, in effect, a vital necessity, on which a large part of our future depends", it has become all the more necessary to engage the Church in a “sincere and respectful” debate.

A careful reading of the Pope’s Sep 12 Regensburg address reveals that his entire speech revolved around the necessity “to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith” and it was in this context that the Pope wanted a dialogue “over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an”, … “especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.” What are being referred to here are Judaism, Islam and Christianity."

2 b contd..

"Confining ourselves to a hermeneutical discussion on Islam and Christianity, the following are some of theological issues that need to be addressed by the Pope for a meaningful dialogue with Islam.
Claiming Islam to be a continuation of the message brought by Moses and Jesus, the Quran makes categorical statements on the life and person of Christ which have profound implications for Christian theology. First of all, Islam negates the concept of the Original Sin supposedly committed by Adam and Eve that necessitated the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross as vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. The Quran declares that “no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (6:164). The truth is that it was Paul who perpetuated the belief of salvation through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:14) whereas Jesus himself says that God “will reward each person according to what he has done.” (Matthew 16:27). In fact the Quran challenges the very idea of crucifixion asserting that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified and that those who believe in his expiatory death “follow nothing but conjecture.”(4:157).

"On the crucial issue of God the Quran strongly opposes the theanthropic status ascribed to Christ saying that he was no more than a messenger of God (4:171) and that it is blasphemy to believe in Trinity and the divine sonship of Jesus for there is only one God and it does not befit His status to sire a son and, nor does He need to beget a son (5:73-77, 19:88-92, 112:1-4). The Quran also records a future conversation between God and Jesus on the Day of Judgment wherein Jesus forcefully denies having ever claimed divinity either to either himself or his mother Mary (5:116-119). The truthfulness of this statement can be verified from the fact that in the all the four Gospels of the New Testament Jesus always refers to himself as “Son of Man” emphasizing his human nature. (Matthew 8:20, 17:22, 19:28, Mark 9:31, 14:21)."

2 b contd 2morrow..

Sadly, I have to say that your article would be very good, in not for a clear manipulation of facts.

You claim:
More to the point, perhaps, the Pontiff himself quotes the Koran as saying exactly the opposite of what the emperor alleges. /.. the Pope distanced himself from the views of the emperor.

Well...
Let's look into the text. Yes there was a quote
>The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion.

but it was commented:
>It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat
........................

After several hundreds of years of conflicts both sides can find justification to all sorts of accusations. What we should be doing now, is to look for understanding, forgiveness and co-operation.
The Regensburg address did the opposite.

A sign of greatness it was not. I was, at the very best clumsy.

B16 should look for inspiration to his predecessor John Paul II

Paul

I think the pope should just be mindful of his new high profile position where his words can be easily taken out of context.

Academic discussions may involve complex arguments, quotes, indirections and hypotheticals, the news works in sound bytes which are largely without context.

I think this is the reason why politicians never answer hypothetical questions. The pope may be a scholar by nature but his job is very political and he'll have to act accordingly.

I don't think he needed to apologise, a clarification that he was taken out of context should have been enough. His apology did prevent a repeat of the danish cartoonists episode. Though there are few vatican products that could have been boycotted or burned.

Dear Paul of Melb... keep up the good work mate. I've seen your comments in the Herald. Welldone!

Dialogue with Muslims should be contextualized.
There can only ever be one goal. "Enlightenment"
"I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness" said Jesus.
Dialogue must shine that light into the dark world of Jihad and revenge and "If I try real hard to be good, maybe Allah will accept me". No... what is needed is this "We are justified through faith"
and
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3)

The only dialogue which can be meaningful is that which brings salvation to lost souls.
Darkness to light
Lostness to found
Astray and Alienated to reconciled.
Starving to filled
Thirsting to quenched.

Dialogue must be proclamation of the unchanging evangel and response.
There is no point in giving comfort to dying men when you have the medication which will save them. They don't need comfort, they need Medicine !

But again, this also should be contextualized. The Popes emphasis on love is the starting point. As it was for Jesus.
The good shepherd leaves the 99 safe sheep to find the single one who is astray.
Our outreach to the lost, must be based on Christ in us, and His love driving us.