Mea Culpa

As a "recovering Catholic" (a phrase utilised by a friend to describe her own alienation from Catholicism) who is now a member of the Uniting Church in Australia, it would be fair to say that Pope Benedict XVI and I would not see eye to eye, theologically speaking, on many issues. Certainly, I was a trenchant critic of Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, and I have not hesitated to be pointedly critical of the Catholic Church in the past; I dare say I will have occassion to be similiarly critical in the future.

This criticism, I hasten to add, is not motivated by any personal antipathy toward either the office of the Pontiff, or toward the Catholic Church in general. My own alienation from Catholicism arose for reasons that have to do with my understanding of the relationship between the human and the divine, and how that relationship can be expressed both individually and within a faith community. But I don't bear any grudges, even if I do find much within the structure, teaching, and exercise of authority within the Catholic Church that leaves a lot to be desired. Afterall, I recognise that this is also true of every church, regardless of denomination, because churches are inherently human structures and communities that are necessarily as flawed (and as profound) as the humanity by which they are composed.

Just how flawed is illustrated by the fact that, when I read media reports on the weekend of a speech given by Pope Benedict XVI, in which he allegedly drew on the comments of the medieval Byzantine Emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, to describe Islam as a faith of "evil" and "violence", I must confess that I rolled my eyes and muttered darkly to myself about bigotry and intolerance. Not that I had actually read Benedict's speech; I was simply prepared to believe the worst.

Now, this was both stupid and unjust. Stupid because, as a theology student, a person who has a keen interest in both science and philosophy, and a trade union official who has more than once defended an unfairly accused employee, I should simply have known better. Theology, science, philosophy, and trade unionism have all taught me the need for careful reasoning and examination, for asking questions and holding received information and scepticism in a necessary tension. Yet I promptly forgot that very lesson and jumped to conclusions. And this propensity to condemn before I knew the facts was unjust because, even if the media reports turned out to be true, I owed it to myself and to the seriousness of the issue, to make a proper enquiry into the matter and reach my own, evidence-based conclusions. Only by doing so could I have tested my own assumptions, measured the extent of my ignorance, and proceeded on a basis of justice.

And, of course, it turned out that, while the initial media reports were technically "correct" in that they did accurately report the quote from Manuel II Paleologus utilised by Pope Benedict in his speech, the media also failed to report the context of the speech or the reason why the Pope had used the offending quote. In other words, the media reports were incomplete and, ultimately, dead wrong.

Just how wrong is illustrated by thoughtful and revealing articles by Waleed Ali and Barney Zwartz in The Age newspaper. For the truth is, Pope Benedict had simply used the quote as a minor point illustrating his wider theme of the place of reason in faith. The quote itself asserts that the use of violence in religion is contrary to the will of God, and therefore irrational, and was made by Manuel II Paleologus as part of a conversation between himself and a Persian Islamic scholar. True, the quote is specifically aimed at Islam, and references the existence of "jihad" in the Islamic faith, but two things need to be noted. First, given the conversation from which the quote arises was between a Christian emperor and an Islamic scholar, it is hardly surprising that one should be critcising the other (and, presumably, vice versa). Secondly, and more importantly, as Waleed Ali points out, all the quote does is actually demonstrate what a poor grasp Manuel II Paleologus had of Islamic theology. Moreover, it seems the principal reason why Benedict used the quote was that he had only recently read the text from which it derives, and thus it was fresh in his mind.

To the extent that Benedict was guilty of anything, both Waleed Ali and Barney Zwartz illustrate that it was naivity, lack of clarity, and a failure of judgement. Naivity, in that it appears not to have occurred to Benedict that his words not only get reported around the world, they get reproduced in "soundbite" form that conveys none of the complexity and subtlety of the issue he is addressing. Lack of clarity, because he did not make it plain that his use of the quote was for illustrative purposes only, and did not represent his own views concerning Islam. And failure of judgement because it appears that Benedict did not allow the speech to be vetted by those officials within the Vatican who may have been more alert to its problematic aspects.

But this post is not a criticism of Pope Benedict; it is a criticism of me. Because my failure in this regard was much more serious. It was the rush to judgement, the failure to check my sources and make my own enquiries, the willingness to make assumptions and cast aspersions. The failure, in other words, to be a person of both reason and faith, to have allowed myself to adopt a sub-Christian response. It is not Benedict I accuse of bigotry and intolerance, but myself.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

For those who may be interested, Benedict's speech can be located here.

Talk to you soon,

BB

Quote for the Day: Originality consists in thinking for yourself, and not thinking unlike other people. (J. Fitzjames Stephen)