J. Cook on the Pope in Nazareth
Jonathan Cook, aka the Sage of Nazareth, is back from his vacation and doing some timely reportage on the background to the Pope's imminent visit to Nazareth.
See this piece from yesterday's National about the struggle Israel's Christian Palestinians had to wage to persuade their government that Nazareth would be more appropriate than Haifa as a place to hold the big papal mass.
This piece, from today's edition of the paper, gives some background to the Muslim-Christian tensions that are very evident in the city.
This pope seems like an unlikely bearer of any kind of peace message. His background in the Hitler Youth was bad enough. And then, he made that borderline Islamophobic speech in 2006... But I guess I believe in the power of everyone to act more compassionately and fairly over time.
And now, the "Pope walks out after Muslim cleric accuses Israel of 'slaughter'".
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084738.html
What a shame !
Wasn't just about every German boy in the Hitler Youth at that time?
His speech at Regensburg was hardly "borderline Islamophobic." He was making a theological point about the difference between Islam's transcendent, unknowable God and the "rational" God of Christianity, and illustrated it with a historical account that happened to include some rather harsh language in the mouth of a Byzantine emperor. It upset people who weren't paying enough attention to realize what he was talking about (the average citizen, regardless of his religion, is not much for theological subtleties). Personally, I thought his speech was a great advertisement for Islam; were I a member of Benedict's flock, I might well have converted after hearing it, for the conception of God as all-knowing and all-wise pretty much guarantees that from our perspective He will seem incomprehensible. In insisting that God is rational, Benedict implicitly reduced Him to the level of something we would consider "rational".
Craig, I found your argument about the pope very helpful. I could likely be persuaded by your point about his youth.
About the Regensburg speech, I'm not sure about theological speech but in discourse in general if you're quoting someone that implies a degree of concurrence with the views as quoted, unless you also utter a specific disclaimer or distancer...
For example, if you quote the Byzantine emperor as he did you could say, "Whereas I certainly do not agree with the portion where he said XYZ, his broader point is still one worth pondering..." The fact that Benedict did not do that indicates at the very least some amount of tone-deaf-ness or disregard concerning how his words would be heard by different audiences...
Ratzinger has made a number of 'insensitive' comments and moves over the years. They betray a mentality that seems reactionary, unempathetic, and not exactly courageous.
As far as I can tell, from looking over reports and speeches and itinerary, Ratzinger is simply perpetuating the grossly onesided treatment of the conflict that we continue to see. This is typical of the Holy See. They only see the sufferings and injustices that are 'politically acceptable' to see - who would Jesus stand with today? Would he stand with the israelies, whose concerns, as legitimate as they may be, are endlessly trumpeted, or with the Palestinians, whose concerns are endlessly marginalized?
Granted, the pope isn't Jesus. We can't have such high expectations. But for him to simply reiterate the same onesided narrative of the Middle East conflict that we've seen over and over again should be unacceptable to all Catholics. He should at least spend equal time in the West Bank. He should at least spend equal time addressing anti-muslim prejudice and violence. He should at least visit Gaza.
But this is the Pope who thought that Turkey shouldn't be in the EU because it would compromise the christian character of the EU.
As far as I can tell, from looking over reports and speeches and itinerary, Ratzinger is simply perpetuating the grossly onesided treatment of the conflict that we continue to see. This is typical of the Holy See. They only see the sufferings and injustices that are 'politically acceptable' to see - who would Jesus stand with today? Would he stand with the israelies, whose concerns, as legitimate as they may be, are endlessly trumpeted, or with the Palestinians, whose concerns are endlessly marginalized?
Granted, the pope isn't Jesus. We can't have such high expectations. But for him to simply reiterate the same onesided narrative of the Middle East conflict that we've seen over and over again should be unacceptable to all Catholics. He should at least spend equal time in the West Bank. He should at least spend equal time addressing anti-muslim prejudice and violence. He should at least visit Gaza.
But this is the Pope who thought that Turkey shouldn't be in the EU because it would compromise the christian character of the EU.
While Nazareth may have the largest Arab population in Israel, Haifa does have the largest Christian population.
Helena, I agree that in the Regensburg speech Benedict was not sufficiently sensitive to how it would be perceived, particularly by the Muslim public. I just don't think there was any intention to offend, nor was it "borderline Islamophobic."
I don't know if I was entirely clear on this point above, but I'm not a Roman Catholic or indeed any type of Christian. I defend Benedict on this point merely because I don't think your characterization is accurate. The speech was actually quite interesting and overall a good illustration of the fact that this pope is more thoughtful and intellectual than his immediate predecessor, John Paul II. It was a bit "diplomatically challenged", but I think that's because Benedict still needed to learn a lesson about how much more attention his statements would get now that he is pope. The focus on him, and the perception that he speaks for the Church as a whole, is much more intense than it was even when he was a cardinal.
"While Nazareth may have the largest Arab population in Israel, Haifa does have the largest Christian population."
Jes -- you sure about that?
This late 2006 haaretz report
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/805277.html
mentions that "60 percent of all [Israeli] Christians (148,000) live in the north, with one third of these living in Nazareth and 15 percent in Haifa."
In any case, Jesus was raised in Nazareth -- bit more symbolic to Christians everywhere -- and thus the great sensitivity.
From Wikipedia's article on the Hitler Youth:
"By December 1936, HJ [Hitlerjugend or Hitler Youth] membership stood at just over five million. That same month, HJ membership became mandatory, under the Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law... HJ membership was required even when it was opposed by the member's parents."
Also, from Wikipedia's article on Benedict XVI:
"Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth..."
So, pretty clearly, he didn't have much choice under the law, and I don't suppose the Nazis would have taken kindly to conscientious objectors.