relda,
My reference to the pope's recent rapprochements towards Muslims was aimed at Constance whom I assumed had an overall positive attitude towards the Catholic Church, including the role of the pope. Where we might differ is only in the interpretation of the pope's words. I am quite aware you do not share our sentiments about the Catholic Church, and I respect them: It was certainly not my intention to inject into this thread Catholic-Protestant controversies, and I apologise if I sounded as if it was.

The Catholic Church is a centuries old institution, so are objections against its very existence, very seldom original - remember, I grew up in a Marx-Leninist country so I have had most of them shoved down my throat - as well as arguments in defense of her role in the West's cultural heritage. I do not think I need to repeat them here.

I fail to see the relevance of Peter Kennedy's rebellion to what the pope says - and aims at - about the Catholic-Muslim relationship. Besides, there was already a thread or two on this OLO, where I also contributed, so please excuse me if I do not repeat myself.

There are people - some of them Catholics - who applaud what he did, others are saddened, even offended, by his actions. Not because of what he is saying or doing - there are many evangelical and other Christian preachers and activists saying or doing similar things - but because of his intention (perhaps only subconscious) to disrupt instead of leaving the Church like many others did before, and still remained Christians respected also by those who remained Catholics.

Glorfindel,
Please note that John Allen‘s article is indeed about “congruence” not identity, or even agreement in ultimate aims.

I do not think the pope wants to "(re)criminalize gays". Neither does Allen say this. When Benedict spoke of "bearing witness to all that is good and true, especially the common origin and dignity of all human persons” that Christians (and other decent people) can share with Islam, he had in mind more profound and centuries old values, than "gay rights" that nobody knew what they meant only half a century ago, as justified as they might be.

It was J.W. Goethe who said “Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be“. Perhaps the same is true about cultures, religions or world-views anchored in centuries of history.

It is probably true that Benedict wants to "join forces" with Islam against secularism. Secularism, however, differs from respectable secular humanism in the same sense that Christian literal fundamentalists or Islamists differ from mainstream Christians or Muslims respectively. Of course, Benedeict is against all three extremes (see e.g. his discussions with the secular humanists like Marcello Pera [http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-Islam/dp/B0010NYFK2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244310093&sr=8-2] or Jürgen Habermas [http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244310601&sr=1-1]).

You should not be surprised that Ratzinger was very sensitive about liberation theology, objectiing not to “liberation” but to a marriage of (abstract, apolitical) Catholic theology to the political ideology of Marxist class struggle. Remember, he is a Central European, where the horror of Stalinism made some priests and even theologians too eager to support the other side that they saw as the lesser evil (after all, Stalin‘s atrocities preceded Hitler’s by a few years), until it was too late.

George,
I bought and read the book by Ratzinger and Marcelo Pera "Without Roots: The West, Christianity, Islam, Relativism" in August 2007. It is a magnificent, sobering, cogent read. Postmodernist relativism is a spiritual and cultural equivalent of AIDS.

By the way, I have a strong empathy for what you say about growing up in a Marxist-Leninist country. I teach Russian stuff ...

Webby,
I can't resist pointing out that Orthodoxy regards *itself* as the preserver of the true belief about God and which glorifies Him with right worship, that is, as nothing less than THE Church of Christ on earth. It regards the western church, Catholic and Protestant strands, as having fallen into error from the true faith and practice as enshrined in church tradition from the earliest centuries of Christianity. Its ethos is extremely conservative and of course it sees itself as the vessel of apostolic succession!

Relda,
In your 2006 posting on the Regensburg Address, you wrote: "The Latin west owes its rediscovery of Greek philosophy, including the writings of Aristotle, partly to the work of medieval Muslim scholars."

Bernard Lewis (The Middle East: 200 years of history from the rise of Christianity to the present day), says in chapter 13:

"An important factor in the development of scholarship and more generally of science and learning was the work of the translators who, in the ninth century and after, produced a series of epoch-making Arabic versions of major Greek writings on mathematics and astronomy, physics and chemistry, medicine and pharmacology, geography and agronomy, and a wide range of other subjects including, notable, philosophy.

“Some of these works were preserved by the local non-Muslims; others were specially imported from Byzantium. … Many important Greek works which were … lost in the barbarous and for the most part uninterested West became known through Arabic translations, from which at a later date Latin versions were made. Most of the translators were NON-MUSLIMS – Christians, Jews, and above all members of the mysterious sect of the Sabians, since only they were likely to have the necessary knowledge of languages. …"

Glorfindel,
That is allright you don't have to resist. LOL. Yes I know about Orthodoxy and its claims. Whilst it says with much self confidence that it is the upholder of Chrsitiand truths of faith ( and it does for the most part), it has not a unified or single authority such as does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Another point is that before the mutual excommunications , the Christians of the East even had a Pope in Rome and were a part of the Catholic Church. Before the break ( schism) the pre 'Orthodox' all accepted the authority of the Pope of Rome and the Greeks all played a part in this ( before the break).

Today they are divided yet many of the Orthodox say that they only dispute with the Catholic Church on Marian dogmas not because they disagree with them but rather 'because we were not consulted' ie a rather sulky way of saying we won;t rejoin you and end the Schism but we will act all cut up that we cannot have our cake and eat it too ie you Catholic bishops won't let us in on doctrinal determinations.

George,

No need to apologise – if our conversation cannot offer a challenge without offense taken, there is little point to it. I understand your sensitivity to Marxist-Leninist politics with its failed system of government and class based ideology, supposed in its alien doctrine to ‘redeem’ mankind. A process of organic rejection of this ideology occurred – the Berlin Wall collapsed along with Soviet power.

Central to Catholicism is the primacy of conscience, the role of the faithful in defining legitimate laws and norms, and support for the separation of church and state – hence, despite any legitimate critique given, it will survive in some form or another.

I understand the Vatican may not impose teachings on an unwilling faithful for “she [Catholicism] needs public opinion in order to sustain a giving and taking between her members. Without this, she cannot advance in thought and action”(Communio Et Progressio, 1971). The popular notion that whatever the pope says on a serious topic is infallible is indeed an exaggeration of the principle of infallibility – even if I might disagree, in principal, with its very idea.

I’ll also say, and with some irony, the Enlightenment along with Western modernity could only have occurred as a consequence of the clash, military and ideological, between Protestants and Catholics. Perhaps the conflict with Islam (not necessarily military) may also prove, in time, just as fruitful.

Glorfindel,
What Russian "stuff” do you teach? Are you in a Russian Department? Do you speak Russian? Russian was a compulsory foreign language at my school, and although the language and culture served as the “carrier” on which the totalitarian ideology was presented to us, I soon learned to separate the two, and gradually developed a sentimental liking of their culture and mentality, notably the poetry of Lermontov (the Russian Byron). Later I learned to appreciate also sobornost (Khomyakov), the spirit of Russian Orthodoxy as a model of religiosity that complements ours, traditionally more individual-based.

Probably also this experience makes it easier for me to seek what is respectable and acceptable to us in the message of Islam, as separate from its unfortunately too many totalitarian and violent manifestations during their “Middle Ages” that many of their adherents are still passing through. This is how I understand also Benedict‘s recent initiative.

relda,
Again, I must agree with everything you wrote, though I do not think it is an irony, but rather a basic trait of how our Christian culture developed, that the Catholic-Protestant conflicts and controversies were needed to give birth to Enlightenment, that I believe has a future as a positive and fruitful contribution to the whole of humanity only as a CORRECTION to Christianity, and not as a self-standing REPLACEMENT of Christian visions of reality and ethics.

I think it is also preferable for the West that Muslims see Western culture in this way, so that the more open-minded among them can conclude that some kind of their own "enlightenment" as a correction to "fundamentalist" Islam - and not a replacement of Islam as such - is also their way to go.

I also agree that conflicts, controversies followed by a dialogue between open-minded Christians and open-minded Muslims could be fruitful, although these fruits are still too far in the future for us to see.