The Anchoress

There is a a lovely post up over at the Inside Catholic blog, wherein Zoe Romanowsky links to Fr. Hugh Vincent Dyer, OP (is it me or is the Dominican Order absolutely all over the internet and using it very well, indeed?), and his encounter with a Muslim woman that might surprise you.

One day last week I stood in front of St. Stephen Martyr Church in D.C. with a young religious sister and the pastor of the parish. The scene would have made for a typical beginning to a joke, “A priest, a nun, and a friar, were…” We were talking, laughing, and enjoying the sun; a diocesan priest in black, a Franciscan sister in brown and a Dominican in white.

A young lady with olive skin, black hair, and black eyes approached us. Her accented voice trembled as she asked us to pray with her there on the street. She explained that her brother had been killed in Baghdad and her father had been kidnapped a year ago. We all closed our eyes and bowed our heads as Monsignor prayed…

You really do want to read the whole thing.

It reminds me a little of a story I linked to last year, by another priest, this time one taking a lesson from a newly-baptized Iraqi woman who took her life in her hands to leave Islam and embrace the Christ:

…this woman, who must remain anonymous, was touched deeply when she realized that the U.S. medical personnel not only treated wounded Americans and Iraqi civilians, but also treated wounded enemy combatants, including one who was known for having killed U.S. Marines. As she put it, “This cannot happen with us.”

This dramatic extension of mercy even to enemy soldiers caused her to take the next cautious step. She asked Father Bautista to “tell me more about Jesus.” As Father described Jesus and his life in the Gospels, one thing stood out among the rest for the Muslim woman he called “Fatima” (not her real name) and that was how kindly Jesus had related to, as she put it, “the two Mary’s.” Fatima was moved to see how Jesus deeply loved Mary, his mother, who was sinless, but also how Jesus deeply loved Mary Magdalene, who was “a great sinner.” As these discussions continued, Fatima reached a point where she said to Father Bautista, “I want to become a Christian.”
[…]
…Father Bautista became concerned for Fatima’s well-being and cautioned her to look carefully at the consequences of her decision and to think seriously before continuing her path into the Church.

Fatima paused for a moment and then looking intently at Father Bautista asked, “Do you give up so easily on Jesus?”

I like how the Mother of the Christ, Mary, riffs through these two stories in one way or another, through the “Fatima” connection or the Hail Mary in the first story. Mary, of course, is revered in Islam, although differently than as in Catholic or Orthodox Christianity. She also appeared at Fatima, in Portugal, a place named for the most-favored daughter of Mohammed.

I would have linked to Zoe Romanowsky’s post anyway, but right now I also do so in a special way. After trying very hard to keep my own east-and-west separately, today I finally toss it all up to God (in the same way I used to pick Buster’s pacifier up from the floor and give it back to him without major sterilization procedures) and say, “hey, while you’re there at Inside Catholic, go read my piece, which revisits - from a somewhat different angle - the Egan/Giuliani Imbroglio I second-parted here. Call it a part-three.

Deacon Greg has discovered Bruce Wayne or maybe Elastagirl, given my runs up and down the scale!

I just finished (and loved) The Last Secret of Fatima by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, which will be coming out in early May but may be pre-ordered.

If you followed coverage of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s recent visit to America, you saw a lot of Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican’s SecState; you’ll recall he told informed the pope, in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, of the moment of the anniversary of his election, at which the pope spoke so eloquently and extemporaneously.

The Last Secret of Fatima is actually a book-length interview (along the lines of God and the World) between Cardinal Bertone and Giuseppe De Carli, the head of Vatican broadcasting - one initiated by De Carli, and addressing the endless speculation about the “last secret” given to Lucia de Santos by the Virgin Mary nearly a century ago in Portugal. The Vatican, under John Paul II’s orders, made that “secret” public in 2000, but for some the revelation has never satisfied. I ate the book up and even found the forward (by Pope Benedict) and the introduction to be interesting and compelling.

Because it is in interview form, The Last Secret of Fatima is a fast and entertaining read - at times its two participants interrupt each other, get testy or teasing, and once they abruptly fall into a quick discussion about an Italian soccer team, but all the while they are giving us some tantalizing glimpses into the thinking and personalities of John Paul I, John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger (both as Cardinal and as Pope Benedict) and Sr. Lucia, herself. It also goes into surprising medical and political detail about the assassination attempt against John Paul, and how that event, coupled with his finally asking to see Lucia’s letter, shaped the remainder of his papacy. If we always knew that John Paul was a first-class mystic, we meet his stubbornness, and Lucia’s liveliness. Also very interesting, particularly in light of his recent visit, we get to see Ratzinger the careful theologian and scholar as obedient servant.

A few excerpts:

Bertrone: As Cardinal Ratzinger correctly explained, a prophecy, even a catastrophic or apocalyptic one, cannot be inevitable. Our Lady called for “Penance, Penance, Penance!” Prayer and penance are stronger than evil and bullets. Prophecy does not predict some inevitable fate that is deterministically bound to happen no matter what. Otherwise, we would be at the mercy of dark forces dangling us over an abyss of nothingness. That would make absolutely no sense given everything that we know about theology, spirituality, or the Church…On the contrary, prophecy is an urgent invitation to conversion, penance and prayer, and the point is that these things have the power to change the course of history. The mistake made by some of the Fatamists after the publication of the Third Secret was to give the text a literal, fatalistic interpretation. They hastily concluded that the Vatican had withheld the Third Secret until the year 2000 because John Paul II had survived the assassination attempt, whereas, in their view, the pope’s actual death was a requirement for the prophecy to be fulfilled. They seemed to assume that everything is governed by chance, and not by the God who “delivers us from evil.” The freedom to do evil is not the last world. True freedom is the freedom to be on God’s side.
[…]
Q: For the first time ever, the custodian of the Catholic faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was making public statements about a private revelation. This alone would have been enough to underscore the exceptional nature of the event. After all…the same Ratzinger had said, “Fatima will not be the origin of the apocalypse. That is impossible. No apparition is indispensable to the faith, because Revelation ended with Jesus Christ. Secret messages add nothing to what a Christian needs to know of Revelation.” Your Eminence, I have the distinct impression that if Ratzinger had had his druthers, the Secret would have stayed a secret. Or am I mistaken?

Bertrone: I think you are. Pope Benedict XIV had already given the Church a carefully worked out distinction between public and private revelation. So it wasn’t as if we were jumping over a cliff with no safety net. Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger was not opposed to revealing the Third Secret. He didn’t have any doubts or objections. The assassination attempt and the pope’s illness were signs. The last postscript to the shooting was the pope’s offering of forgiveness to Ali Agca at the Rebibbia prison on December 27, 1983. We were almost overwhelmed by the abundance of very meaningful signs. So why not transmit the call of Fatima to the broader Christian community? After all, it is the call to conversion, prayer and penance issued by Our Lord’s Mother, herself. The Fatima message is saturated with the Gospel. [emphasis mine - admin]

The book is very nearly up to the moment, discussing Pope Benedict’s Regensberg address and how quickly his remarks were jumped on and misreported by the press both in Europe and in America, the pope’s visit to Turkey, and what Fatima means to Islam. I knew that Fatima was named for Mohammed’s favorite daughter, who married a Christian and made her stand on that bit of land in Portugal, but I was not aware, for example, of this:

Q: …Fatima plays a role for Shiite that is similar to the role of Mary in Catholicism. For instance, Shiite theology assigns Fatima a part in the end-times. The Shiites believe that the Fatima shrine belongs by right to the Muslims and that the Catholics have stolen it form its rightful owners. They argue that if a Lady dressed in shining white appeared there, then it’s because she had a message for Muslims and not for Christians…[the question continues and goes into behavior De Carli has witnessed by Muslins at the Fatima Shrine]

Bertone: Let’s stick with the prophecy and not stray into other areas…when I met with Lucia the second time she showed absolutely no interest in drawing connections between Fatima and the attack on the Twin Towers…

The conversation between Bertone and Di Carli is lively and far-reaching, at one point one of them even quotes Magdi Allam who we know since Easter as Magdi Christiano Allam.

I will admit that Fatima has never held much fascination for me as it has for others. These apparitions are not articles of faith and while the Church very carefully investigates them and either recommends them as “worthy of belief” or not, (as it says in the book, between 1928 and 1975 there were 232 reported apparitions in thirty-two countries; the Church has recognized only 15 as authentic) Catholics are under no compulsion to pay heed to any of them. Even so, I found eavesdropping-with-permission on Cardinal Bertrone and Giuseppe De Carli to be irresistable, fascinating and ultimately very satisfying both to the spirit and to the intellect. It’s a good ‘un!

Curt Jester has his review here.

In looking again at the text of Pope Benedict’s White House address, I was struck by how serious were his remarks within the context of such a short speech given amid such pomp, particularly here:

Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found [in America] the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

This is a very interesting paragraph in light of the fact that Europe is slowly losing its ability to dialogue about faith (or about much of anything) in the face of its own laws — which suppress free speech in the name of “tolerance” — and its intimidated response to an aggressive strain of Islamic fundamentalism that continually preaches blood over brotherhood. Europe, which twice in the 20th century needed rescuing from totalitarian jackboots, is rather quickly becoming subjugated again; it is a place where Bridget Bardot can be legally prosecuted for daring to express her own thoughts and filmmakers, writers and artists must quell their own voices or submit to a life in hiding, where Shari’a law is making inroads because western law - and lawmakers - are standing aside for it and hoping to stay out of the crosshairs.

Like his predecessor John Paul II, who lived as a slave under the Nazi’s and then had to preach and teach in the sight of the restrictive communists, Benedict knows what it is to live under tyranny. As a 14 year old seminarian he was forcibly conscripted into the Hitler Youth, from which he deserted, hiding until he was found by Americans and taken as a prisoner of war. Benedict is likely the last 20th Century man standing in a position of world power, and his voice is one of experience and personal knowledge. He has been a witness to the power of hope and faithfulness over tyrants and terrorists, and he is telling us something very important, very serious:

The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24).
[…]
[The Church] is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society.

Reading that reminded me of Al Qaeda calling for America to convert to Islam and their forced conversions of two kidnapped Western journalists, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. After their “conversion” there was some spirited and useful debate about whether one should convert to save one’s life.

Benedict’s words seem to suggest that we ought not allow things to get to that point. He has, himself, offered to meet with Muslims for dialogue; moderates will meet, some others have said they will not. I believe Benedict - whose mein and manner the writer “Spengler” has characterized as “I have a mustard seed, and I’m not afraid to use it”, is praying for peace, and religious and political co-existence, but he knows it may be a long hard slog, though different than the one Bush has initiated.

At the release of those kidnapped journalists I wrote:

But whether Centanni and Wiig were men of faith, or not, their “conversions” were a sort of victory for our enemies. They displayed to the world what the West “holds dear.” I am not saying the newsmen were cowards [but]…their pronouncements about Allah and Mohammed, and their confession of new, Islamic names, was a real-time demonstration to the Islamofascists in our midst that “staying alive,” means the world to us. It can be translated as “look at these callow Western dogs, so in love with life, so beholden to nothing that they will say anything, do anything, even allow us to rename them, to cling to life…while we will give up everything…”
[…]
…To allow someone else to name you is to count yourself the lesser…By proclaiming their new Islamic names Centanni and Wiig - probably quite unwittingly - were declaring themselves new men in Allah. They were also living metaphors for the surrender of “the lesser” West.

I wonder, in war, can any innocent captive live or die only to themselves? I don’t think so, not when our enemy is so fluent in the language of symbolism and imagery.
[…]
Am I urging the West toward martyrdom, here? No, I am not urging it. But I am suggesting throughout history, martyrs have spilled blood and it has made a difference. I am suggesting that down the line some may well be called to martyrdom, and we might be wise to anticipate it and understand its use. I am suggesting that when one is caught in a fight between darkness and light - a fight that is more super than natural - such blood might well be required. It always has been, before.

Pope Benedict can see what surrender to a murderous and extreme movement will lead because he has seen it before; while the face of the oppressor may be new, the oppressor himself is an old, old foe. In a very socially unserious age, let us hope that the seriousness of this very quiet-but-serious man pierces our fogs and fantasies.

Sr. Lorraine sees Benedict’s constancy.

There’s a barnburner brewing between Michelle Malkin and Dean Esmay that is both interesting and important, as it has much to do with how the War on Terror is perceived and how we perceive each other, as well. Esmay and I had a friendly tussle a week or so ago, when he challenged me to assert a Muslim’s right to be annoyed at Pope Benedict XVI, to which I responded:

Can they first repeat Benedict’s argument back to him, accurately? It means reading the speech though, with an honest attempt to comprehend his meaning, and then saying, “this is what you said, Benedict - do we have the right of it?”

If they can do that, then yes..they have a right to be annoyed, if they like. Annoyed. Just like Catholics get “annoyed” when they feel they have been treated obnoxiously at the hands of, say, Hollywood. Annoyed does not mean killing, burning, calling for blood and death or converting people under a sword.

Having read Malkin and Esmay, though, I find myself landing rather squarely over here with Eric who is saying what I think most of us are feeling these days.

I, too, get very sick of hearing that Muslims are the enemy. Indeed; if we are at war with Islam, we have no business rebuilding Iraq and trying to help establish democracy; we should be leveling the place and populating it with Americans.

I see the enemy as jihadists…I mean [jihadists] in the sense of waging holy war in the name of Islam…One of the great ironies of the post-9/11 period is that while violent Islamic jihadists attacked this country, there is a constantly growing network — both organized and unorganized — of in-place apologists at virtually every level of society all ready to defend them. Criticize jihadists, and people on the left will call you a racist. An Islamophobe. A bigot. I have seen this too many times to count, and the reason I call it ironic is that before 9/11, feminists routinely criticized the veil. Gay activists did not hesitate to condemn Islamic homophobia. Atheists condemned Islam the same way they condemned Christianity. After 9/11, the PC crowd suddenly included a group which they’d previously neglected, and it seemed to me that the 9/11 attacks helped the image of radical Muslims with the left in this country. And in most newspapers, and on many campuses.

It is good to dialogue with folks like Ali, a moderate Muslim, but not enough such moderates are speaking out, and folks on the left, always desiring to seem “more tolerant” than ordinary human beings, and thus “more noble” have been busily making friends with the very people they used to despise for veiling women and persecuting gays. While they do that, they muddy up just what a “moderate” is. Ali is surely a moderate and even some who hated all Muslims have come around to seeing that (or to hearing it). But I cannot say it is beyond my comprehension why - for many - all Muslims are considered suspect.

As America has risked her young men and women in efforts to save Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, to liberate them in Afghanistan and Iraq, she has had to watch a seemingly endless video loop of screaming Muslims packing the streets, blades exposed, carrying signs denouncing, America, the Great Satan. It seems like the same mobs have gathered to denounce Jimmy Carter, then Ronald Reagan, then George H. W. Bush, then Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush. Despite all of our “tolerance,” America has seen her flags trampled; despite all the split blood of her young, she have seen her presidents burned in effigy. Despite all of her service to liberty, she has seen scimitars raised at her, in gleeful abandon.

Well, yeah, I may very well be. It is not “hate” but plain common sense that tells me to feel threatened when I know that at any given moment, somewhere in the world, 100,000 men, women and children are gathering and holding signs urging the beheading of anyone who does not show sufficient “respect” to their prophet. I’m a very respectful person but I feel threatened when “respect” seems to mean nothing less than submission and obsequious kowtowing, which I am not willing to offer.

There is a lot of chatter these days, but it seems to me the best way to ease the confusion is for the Muslims themselves to define themselves once and for all - to sort of “take back the faith,” from the extremist, radical Islamists who have come to - in the eyes of much of the world - define Islam.

Absenting that, what we end up with is this sort of displaced hate. Afraid to speak up about one enemy, people turn around and attack the nations they know will not retaliate or abandon them:

Reading her horrifying descriptions of shrill and menacing encounters by Brits toward Americans and Jews, I can only think that the British are suffering from the sort of transference we learn about in Psych 101. They’re terrified…They know they have Muslim clerics standing outside of mosques advising jihad. They hate knowing it. They would rather not have jihad preached in their country…And so they must lash out, in fear.

It’s safe to hate Jews, it’s safe to spout off to the Americans, because Jews and Americans are notoriously forgiving.

If the moderate Muslim majority does not make themselves clear - if they do not themselves bring lucidity to an increasingly muddled world-wide paralysis of understanding - things will only get worse.

Donald Sensing has an excellent post on all of this.

Not that it is particularly a bad thing, but as PJM notes the so-called Day of Rage during which the Islamic world was going to demonstrate against Pope Benedict has kind of fizzled out. Some Palestinians in Jerusalem set a few fires and declared the pope a Jew (I’m sure the pope did not mind - I wouldn’t).

And there was this Pakistani radical who said the pope should be crucified (he would not be the first Peter to endure it).

But over all, this brouhaha seems to be dying down more quickly than the Great Danish Cartoon Debacle from earlier this year. I wonder why that is.

Perhaps the expressed opinions of Muslims like, author Irshad Manji, who appeared on CBS’ Freespeech segment with a very moderate and sensible viewpoint, told the real story - that aside from the dependable, camera-ready actors of the “Muslim Street,” who seem to be walking gas leaks looking for an available flame - most Muslims were less offended than the headlines and the button-pushers would suggest?

Donald Sensing asks the necessary and sensible question, now: Where Do We Go From Here?

Now that the riots have died down in some Muslim lands as Pope Benedict’s Regensberg speech recedes from the headlines, it is time for serious-minded, responsible Americans and Muslims of Arab lands to take stock. Where do we go from here? We of the West no longer see such violence as an aberration that can be shrugged off by declarations by other Muslims that it really has nothing to do with Islam. Catholic nun Sister Leonella Sgorbati was shot four times in Mogadishu in a revenge attack for the Pope’s speech. Churches in the Middle East were attacked and some were set afire. A Somali Muslim cleric called on Muslims to kill the Pope.
[…]
But now, in the aftermath of the Pope’s speech, things are mostly different. It seems to me that most voices addressing the issue defend both the Pope’s right to say what he said, even if inflammatory, and what he said as well, inflammatory or not.

You’ll want to read the whole thing. Sensing sees a cause for hope, but does clue in to one line uttered by Dr. Al-Dabagh, who spoke of Muslim unity with other religions, a line which disturbed me earlier this week: What is needed now is an international agreement to punish all who insult God’s religions.

Writes Sensing: May God forbid it! That way lies only new inquisitions. I quite concur.

As I wrote earlier, that’s a troubling line because it suggests that all religions need to take on a warrior mindset, that religions need to “band together” to punish unbelievers…I would say what we need now is an understanding by all of God’s religions that God is big enough to take an insult and can deal with insults quite justly without our bloody intercessions.

Meanwhile, some are wondering “what about the Jews?” today, which is pretty appropriate, since it is the eve of Rosh Hashanna. I like this piece by Shrinkwrapped quite a lot and think it is important reading: The Plight of the Canary (the Canary being the Jews, of course…the testing bird…)

Also, do read this piece by Patrick O’ Hannigan which wonders about faith and reason and expression in the public square. As usual Patrick casts out into the deep, and comes up with a full net of fish.

Related:
On Day of Rage, A right to be annoyed?
Re Jews: Popes Message and Dem Habits
American Thinker; An Ancient Muslim Rage is on Display Again

Over at Deans World, someone has asked don’t the Muslims have the right to be annoyed at Benedict’s speech?

The writer asks first if he is the only one who remembers history, and brings up the Crusades, yadda, yadda.

Yes, yes, yes, Crusades, Christians killed people, blah, blah, blah, got that all out of the way? That is HISTORY and it is not what is happening today. Today, there is only one religion still bringing the sword to the discussion table, so can we stick to today, please?

Now to the question asked at Dean’s place: Do Muslims have a right to be annoyed with Benedict, so long as they do not become violent about it? I think that’s a fair question, don’t you?

I can give you a fair answer. In our house, we have a rule: You have the right to disagree with and be annoyed by anything someone else says, just as soon as you can accurately repeat back to your opponent the thing they said.

I would say that holds true for these fundamentalist Muslims, too. Can they first repeat Benedict’s arguement back to him, accurately? It means reading the speech though, with an honest attempt to comprehend his meaning, and then saying, “this is what you said, Benedict - do we have the right of it?”

If they can do that, then yes..they have a right to be annoyed, if they like. Annoyed. Just like Catholics get “annoyed” when they feel they have been treated obnoxiously at the hands of, say, Hollywood. Annoyed does not mean killing, burning, calling for blood and death or converting people under a sword.

Those sound like okay rules to me. Anyone else?

Related: After Friday’s Day of Rage, Then What?

Günter Grass, in his memoirs, recalls an encounter with the young Joseph Ratzinger while both were held in an American prisoner-of-war camp in 1945. The young Grass, a Nazi who had been proud to serve in the Waffen-SS, was taken aback by this soft-spoken, gentle young Catholic. Unlike God, the future pope played dice, quoting St. Augustine in the original while he did so; he even dreamt in Latin. His only desire was to return to the seminary from which he had been drafted. “I said, there are many truths,” wrote Grass. “He said, there is only one.”

Sixty years later, just before the conclave that elected him pope, Ratzinger proved that he had never changed. The then prefect of the Congregation of the Faith — in effect, the church’s theological backstop — preached a sermon to the assembled cardinals in which he denounced the “dictatorship of relativism.” From that moment on, there was no other serious candidate.
Daniel Johnson; Understanding Benedict, NY Sun

Very hopeful post from Gateway Pundit, that you’ll want to go read. It is a translation of a statement put out by Muslims urging discipline over Benedict’s speech of September 12, although it still seems not to really get his point. It is heartening to read.

I’m troubled by this line, though: What is needed now is an international agreement to punish all who insult God’s religions.

A troubling line because it suggests that all religions need to take on a warrior mindset, that religions need to “band together” to punish unbelievers. I don’t like that. It is not the job of religion to punish.

I would say what we need now is an understanding by all of God’s religions that God is big enough to take an insult and can deal with insults quite justly without our bloody intercessions.

Still, overall, this statement is a step in the right direction - it’s a damn sight better than much of the rhetoric we have been hearing from Islamists. We have certainly known all along that the radical, fundamentalist Muslims who get all the news coverage could not be the only voices in Islam…but it’s good to finally hear these others. Let us be grateful.

Benedict’s speech is not going away. Whether one believes it was needlessly or needfully provocative, a week later it is still being talked about and written about and shouted about, and that indicates a move away from stagnation and the status quo, and toward real dialogue, which is desperately needed, as the pope was trying to say all along.

Paragraph Farmer Patrick O’ Hannigan muses over at The American Spectator that Benedict’s is still a bear and a rottweiler, too:

[Benedict] has now posed a question that Amy Welborn ably summarizes as “a point of clarity for the Muslim world,” namely “Can you explain how the expressions of Muslim law, as lived out in your societies, are consistent with other teachings of your own religion, not to speak of thinking about basic human rights, which the rest of the world has arrived as via…you know…centuries of…reasoned thinking?”

If the only response to that from Muslim authorities is that it is rude even to ask such questions, then the reciprocal respect for which Benedict works as a way to interfaith peace becomes harder to maintain. And while it’s true that secular Western journalists typically shift from “theology is hard” to “let’s you and him fight,” it is also true that were it not for the hook of that the provocative medieval quote in Benedict’s lecture, very few people would still be reading or thinking about the important issues that the pope raised.

Patrick also quotes from this superb piece on Benedict by Daniel Johnson, in the NY Sun. I’d meant to pull the quote for you yesterday but had forgotten, so I was glad to see Patrick use it today:

Moreover, as Daniel Johnson pointed out…Benedict is the first pope elected since September 11, 2001. Johnson also noticed that “Benedict believes passionately that people of faith in general, and Catholics in particular, must either fight for their corner in the intellectual arena or shut up shop.” [all emphasis mine - admin].

Jesus said we would know a tree by its fruit - that we’d know the worth of a work by the fruit it produces. Benedict’s speech is going to produce much fruit, all kinds of fruit, for a while. An apple tree’s first fruits are inedible, but then the good things come.

I remain hopeful.

Also read:
Fr. Roger J. Landry; Reason vs Rage
Austin Bay;how the press ambushes
Bret Stephens;Pope Provocateur
Jonah Goldberg; Jihad Enabler
Ed Morrissey;Lord Carey delivers the real thing
Kathleen Parker;Translating the Pope
Tony Blankley;The Pope and Kissinger Warn the World
Carey backs pope and issues “warning” on “violent Islam”

Snapped shot says “get your cameras ready for the Muslim Day of Rage,” which is apparently set for this Friday.

Because, you know…the world hasn’t seen enough Muslim Rage in the last 30 years or so.

ABC News is helpfully pointing out that A Day of Rage is not the same as Jihad:

“Disciplined manner” is a repeated theme among Islamic moderate leaders who encourage people to protest. As Gerges reminded me, when the cleric al-Qaradawi called for a day of rage, he stressed repeatedly that it should be civilized, urging Muslims to behave with civility and dignity. “We must show the world that we are still civilized even when we are aggrieved,” he said. [emphasis mine - admin]

It’s almost pointless to try to repeat, again, that Pope Benedict was not deliberately, aggressively “hurting” their faith and prophet, or trying to do so; he was quoting a 14th century Byzantine Emperor while inviting Islam to dialogue on the whole issue of faith and reason, and whether violence was a reasonable expression of faith in the 21st century, but there, I said it again.

The truth is, by believing he could engage Islam in dialogue, in speaking to Muslims the way a professor might, in scholarly fashion, Benedict was treating Islam with a great deal of respect - he was saying, “you are intelligent enough to discuss this with humanity.”

Clearly, some - note, I say some - Muslims want to understand Benedict differently, and clearly this willful misunderstanding is just fine with some Muslim clerics, and if they want to believe the worst of Benedict, then they will, regardless of context or accuracy. But let’s move on, because this ABC piece has some another interesting tidbit in it:

And what about the brittleness of Muslims over criticism of the Prophet Mohammed? Many in the West have a hard time getting their head around the idea that any leader is above ridicule.

There are at least two important reasons why Muslims react with such passion when the Prophet is called into question. First, to Muslims, Mohammed represents an absolutism. His is the absolute prophecy. To question that is to challenge the foundation of their belief system. As for Westerners making jokes about Christ, or movies that question the teachings of the church, many devout Muslims will ask, “Why don’t the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don’t stick up for your Christ, don’t ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed.”

There are important distinctions not being made here. Muhammed, for all that he is praised - for all he is “absolute” - was still a man, and Islam (as far as I can tell) does not claim him to be more than man. All of the bloodshed and anger we’ve been witnessing, for example, over the Danish cartoons, has been in vengence of perceived slights about a man who - however blessed by God - was still simply a human being.

Christ on the other hand is not a “prophet,” (although this is how the Muslims understand him), and he is not simply a man. We Christians believe and assert that He is God, identified as the second part of the Triune God (whose Trinity might be best understood as “Body, Mind and Spirit of God - Christ being the Body). He is also our Savior. And Christians DO defend Christ against the bigoted mockery and disrespect of the unbelievers in our midst…we just don’t do it by calling for their deaths, threatening them with death or running into the streets to burn things, destroy things and get folks worked up enough to kill people, and we would like it - the whole world would really, really like it - if the adherents of Islam could possibly learn to defend their prophet without feeling the need to do all of this violence and raging.

And just a point of information here, the reason we Christians do not feel the need to resort to rage and violence is because we understand that God can pretty much take care of Himself - “Vengence is mine,” says He. So, we can correct and admonish our brothers and sisters lovingly and trust that He will deal justly with them. In this way, we may live in peace. Or, we try to.

Which was the whole point of Benedict’s speech, in the first place, and of his invitation to dialogue. Which all Muslims, even the fundamentalist Muslims, should be able to understand, if they would consider looking past unending umbrage.

But listen, the Muslims quoted above have said this “Day of Rage” is not “Jihad.” They’ve said they need the world to see that they are “aggrieved,” again. So good, say I; do it. Have your day of rage. Let the world see how very, very angry you are. But when you’re done raging on Friday and it comes to Saturday…then what? Then will you be ready to sit down and talk about your faith and your grievances, like adults? Finally? Will that be the point at which you can settle down and talk to the rest of humanity like human beings, in the same respectful tones you say you seek?

What do you think will happen after your “Day of Rage?” Do you think the world will offer you Benedict XVI, so you can slaughter him and dance in his blood? That’s not going to happen. So, you need to plan on how you’re going to deal with the world the next day. Because you can’t keep on raging. That simply won’t do. It’s getting more than a little tiresome.

When my kids were little and angry and they needed to have a temper tantrum to get something out of their system, I’d let them have the tantrum. And when the tantrum was over, we’d discuss whatever had been bothering them sanely, rationally, fairly. And then I’d make them clean up the mess they’d made while they were screaming and kicking and throwing things around. Most of the time, I’d help them with that clean-up.

The world is going to watch what happens on the day after your “Day of Rage,” with interest. If the world sees that you have finally spent your rage and are ready to talk and to start cleaning up the messes, the world will very likely welcome your readiness to engage in dialogue, and very likely the world will try to help with the clean-up, too.

But if the world sees that the “Day of Rage” brings nothing lasting, produces nothing worthwhile and promises only further rage at some distant date…well…then I’m afraid the world may very well decide that you’ve raged enough.

Or, you know…it won’t. In which case things will go on like this indefinitely, until everyone’s children are dead. Are we all on a road to perdition or to civilization?

It cannot be pleasing to the Creator of the World to watch his Creation destroy itself. What in the name of heaven is holy about that?

As for me, I want to declare here and now that I have written this as respectfully as I know how, which is - I think - all anyone can ask someone to do, particularly when you’re talking matters of sensibility wherein people clearly do not fully understand each other. I certainly wish no evil on anyone, not even on Madonna, when she mocks the crucifixion of my Lord, on a glittery cross. Maybe someone will call Jihad on my head for daring to think about these things and express my thoughts, although I think I am pretty clearly demonstrating that I seek peace for all sides. Or, maybe it is unfair of me to assume that a Muslim might read this and decide I need to be killed. If I am unfair, I apologize, but the idea didn’t come from nowhere.

Consider this: all we know regarding fundamentalist Muslims is all we see of you, i.e., rage, screaming, burning, killing and threats. If you want us to know differently, that will have to start with you. To begin with, you might reconsider your plan to play to the cameras on Friday…unless you are certain that your anger is all you need to share with the world about who you are, what you believe and why.

Some interesting reading (H/T Lucianne commenter, AHerald):

Benedict on Reconciling the Gospel and the Torah; The Catechism (an address he made before his elevation) and the text of his address to Muslim leaders, made last year.

Related Roundup: NBC okays Madonna Crucifixion broadcast, “hey, it doesn’t offend us,” says the network. Also linked to in the body of the above text. Yes, we Christians mind. Some of us will write letters of protest. Some of us will pray for Madonna, and NBC, that they might gain some sensitivity to us. Some of us will simply shake our heads and leave her to God, who can figure out justice for her much better than we can.

Tigerhawk notes and appreciates that - press reports to the contrary - Benedict has not “apologized for his remarks,” nor has he taken them back. He’s apologized for the way they were received. He clearly feels very badly about that.

Oh, and my exclusive to Pajamas Media’s Politics Central can be read here.

The WSJ has two good pieces up, an editorial, Benedict the Brave and a much deeper piece by Bret Stephens (available only by subscription) in which he writes:

Precisely in the middle of his speech, the Pope describes the convergence of faith and philosophy as decisive to the character of “what can rightly be called Europe .” He does not mention Europe again, nor, except obliquely, Islam. But near the end of his speech he warns that the “exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason” may be seen by other cultures “as an attack on their most profound convictions.” “Reason which is deaf to the divine,” he adds, “is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.”
A Europe that cannot understand its own religion, except as a form of subjective irrationalism, cannot possibly engage another. A Christianity that voluntarily recuses itself from reason cannot sustain a belief in the goodness of its convictions, to say nothing of its truth. A West that abandons a critical dialogue between faith and rational inquiry ceases to be the West. It becomes, in a peculiar way, guilty of the same errors Benedict accuses Islam of making. This is the Pope’s teaching, and it requires no apology. Notice that he offers none.

Related: Day of Rage: A right to be annoyed?

Fr. Neuhaus thinks all of this through, very eruditely.

Blue Crab Boulevard covers a call for the pope to convert to Islam

Ed Morrissey disagrees with EJ Dionne (so do I) and agrees with Anne Applebaum.

The Sanity Squad is talking about all of this in their podcast.

Amy points out that far from being a warmonger, Benedict was calling for peace, just last month

Aussie Cardinal George Pell defends the pope

Christopher Chantrill at The American Thinker says the pope is battling Dhimmitude.

Donald Sensing writes: Muslims bomb, burn, shoot and threaten for being called “violent”. H/T Blue Crab Boulevard.

Sticky Notes perceives that this outrage is being helped along by the press. Which should piss Muslims off, if they’re being manipulated.

Rick Moran writes on the pope’s dilemma

Dinocrat quotes both Spengler and Salman Rushdie.

Victoria pulls an apology from her own imaginings.

Related:
Benedict’s Supernatural Stand
For Popes and Presidents, it feels like 1981 out there
Sr. Leonella’s Victory
Muhammed Turned the Other Cheek?
A Roundup: Pope, Dopes and General Prattle
Benedict’s “Blunder” was partly media-enhanced.
Another Pope Roundup

Pajamas Media’s running roundup on the Pope Benedict/Angry Muslims story is constantly updating; it is by far the most comprehensive collection of writing on that issue, and I urge you to check in over there frequently.

While you’re visiting, you might consider also skipping over to Politics Central, where you will find my new piece on Benedict and the fundamentalist Muslims, wherein I wonder about a supernatural gambit. The piece is exclusive to PJM, so you can only read it over there.

C’mon, you know you want to…just give yer girl a little click!

UPDATED: You’ll also want to click over to CBS News.com to watch tonight’s Free Speech segment, which features Muslim author Irshad Manji speaking out about the Muslim reaction to Pope Benedict’s speech. It’s quite good.

Pajamas Media has a rip-roaring round-up of Benedict stuff, so I’ll round up on other issues as well. I’ll let you decide what is about dopes and what is general prattle…

Photos of context-challenged Islamists…and an answering cartoon.

Speaking of Cartoons….

Gerald links to a cartoon on Al Jazeerah, by people who have had their issues with cartoons in the past. Funny how the cartoon shows JPII as a Man of Peace. I mean, it’s nice to see them portray John Paul the Great in such a manner…he certainly was a man of peace…but how does that square with these terror tunnels in Rome which were found while JPII lived. Why would they want to cause trouble where JPII lived?

Al Qaeda says the pope and the west are dooooomed! DOOOOOOOOOMED!. They want him to make “more” of an apology, as in “take back all your words and bend for our sword.” Neither will happen.

Rev. Donald Sensing writes: Muslims bomb, burn, shoot and threaten for being called “violent”. H/T Blue Crab Boulevard.

The Pope Must Die. (I am so tempted to say, “you first…” but that wouldn’t really be nice, would it?)