"I was looking at him from a purely religious perspective, in that I see him as both damaging the Church's image (and so her ability to affect change) and the opinion of the faithful, in such a way as to drive them to other faiths. It was a purely Roman Cathilocentric opinion."
First, let me say that although I am not Catholic, as I mentioned above, my comments are not intended in the slightest as a slur on the Church. I self-identify as a religious Protestant, but attended Mass twice weekly while living in a Catholic dorm in Germany (In fact, it sounds just *wrong* to say anything but "Lamm Gottes, Du nimmst hinweg die Suende der Welt, erbarme Dich unser."). My husband is a Catholic of the old school; from Central America, he would prefer his Masses in Latin, thank you. This is just to clarify that "the Church's image" is important to me, as well, as is the image of the greater group, Christianity in general, as seen by some in the Muslim world.
"Well, the latter is slighty more defendable than the former, but if one parses the hermenuetics carefully (and not much careful casuistry is required) one can make a case for Just War, a la Aquinas in the case of the IRA (and the later behavior; off announcing bombs, well in advance of detonation helps this interpretation) which would allow them to be devout Catholics."
I understand your point, here, but my point is that people who plot mass murder and terrorist acts may earnestly *believe* and be able to argue that they are the truly devout, but that the mainstream of each of the big three would neither condone the acts, nor believe that they are mandated by God. Extremists believe it, of course, and the extremist preachers, mullahs, etc., IMHO, misuse texts and persuasion to gain a following that will carry out actions that the mainstream believers abhor.
We have Pakistani and Afghani Muslim engineering friends, and when I taught ESL, we had quite a few students who became friends who were *Wahabbists.* Having discussed religion with them at various times, I can say that these persons, at least, would not agree that there are no innocent civilians, and would never take part in violent acts. I have often needed to point out, when in discussion with non-Muslim Americans, that we, here, cannot hold Islam or Muslim people as a whole responsible for the acts of ignited crowds or terrorists.
"there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic."
Well, that was a little snarky, doncha think? In any event, each Muslim is hardly an island unto himself with his/her own interpretation. There are traditions, community, the Koran. Not totally unlike differing interpretations of the Bible among various Christian groups. Frankly, Pope John Paul II spoke more *for me* than Pat Robertson and the PTL Club ever did.
My point about the comments made by the new Pope making the world a more dangerous place is simply that in Middle Eastern areas where there is a Christian minority, that minority may become a focal point of rage by certain Muslim groups incited to believe that they have to take physical or violent actions to defend the honor of the Prophet Mohammed. The Catholic nun in Somalia may have been killed as a result. Churches are being torched. I think it places our troops at more risk, and right now, whatever one thinks about the war in Iraq, the safety of our troops is paramount. And, the West sees the pictures and holds *Islam* at fault.
I want our church leaders to work on *uniting* reasonable people of all faiths, not quoting words that could be guaranteed to incite anger or *more* anger in the Muslim world.
I hope this clarified my thoughts. Although comparative religions and religious history were not my fields of study, I do think I am allowed to hold an opinion on the topic.
no subject
First, let me say that although I am not Catholic, as I mentioned above, my comments are not intended in the slightest as a slur on the Church. I self-identify as a religious Protestant, but attended Mass twice weekly while living in a Catholic dorm in Germany (In fact, it sounds just *wrong* to say anything but "Lamm Gottes, Du nimmst hinweg die Suende der Welt, erbarme Dich unser."). My husband is a Catholic of the old school; from Central America, he would prefer his Masses in Latin, thank you. This is just to clarify that "the Church's image" is important to me, as well, as is the image of the greater group, Christianity in general, as seen by some in the Muslim world.
"Well, the latter is slighty more defendable than the former, but if one parses the hermenuetics carefully (and not much careful casuistry is required) one can make a case for Just War, a la Aquinas in the case of the IRA (and the later behavior; off announcing bombs, well in advance of detonation helps this interpretation) which would allow them to be devout Catholics."
I understand your point, here, but my point is that people who plot mass murder and terrorist acts may earnestly *believe* and be able to argue that they are the truly devout, but that the mainstream of each of the big three would neither condone the acts, nor believe that they are mandated by God. Extremists believe it, of course, and the extremist preachers, mullahs, etc., IMHO, misuse texts and persuasion to gain a following that will carry out actions that the mainstream believers abhor.
We have Pakistani and Afghani Muslim engineering friends, and when I taught ESL, we had quite a few students who became friends who were *Wahabbists.* Having discussed religion with them at various times, I can say that these persons, at least, would not agree that there are no innocent civilians, and would never take part in violent acts. I have often needed to point out, when in discussion with non-Muslim Americans, that we, here, cannot hold Islam or Muslim people as a whole responsible for the acts of ignited crowds or terrorists.
"there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic."
Well, that was a little snarky, doncha think? In any event, each Muslim is hardly an island unto himself with his/her own interpretation. There are traditions, community, the Koran. Not totally unlike differing interpretations of the Bible among various Christian groups. Frankly, Pope John Paul II spoke more *for me* than Pat Robertson and the PTL Club ever did.
My point about the comments made by the new Pope making the world a more dangerous place is simply that in Middle Eastern areas where there is a Christian minority, that minority may become a focal point of rage by certain Muslim groups incited to believe that they have to take physical or violent actions to defend the honor of the Prophet Mohammed. The Catholic nun in Somalia may have been killed as a result. Churches are being torched. I think it places our troops at more risk, and right now, whatever one thinks about the war in Iraq, the safety of our troops is paramount. And, the West sees the pictures and holds *Islam* at fault.
I want our church leaders to work on *uniting* reasonable people of all faiths, not quoting words that could be guaranteed to incite anger or *more* anger in the Muslim world.
I hope this clarified my thoughts. Although comparative religions and religious history were not my fields of study, I do think I am allowed to hold an opinion on the topic.