9/11, Benedict XVI and Regensburg
September 28, 2011
George Weigel
In the flood of commentary surrounding the 10th anniversary of 9/11, I found but one reference to a related anniversary of considerable importance: the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg Lecture. That lecture, given the day after the fifth anniversary of 9/11 at the pope’s old university in Germany, identified the two key challenges to 21st-century Islam, if that faith of over a billion people is going to live within today’s world in something other than a condition of war. On the fifth anniversary of Regensburg, therefore, it’s worth reviewing what the Pope proposed, not least because the 9/11 anniversary commentary assiduously avoided the question that the Holy Father courageously confronted: the question of what-must-change in Islam in the future, to prevent an ongoing global war of Islam-against-the-rest.
Benedict XVI made two proposals at Regensburg.
Islam, he suggested, must find a way to affirm religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by reason and that includes the right to change one’s religion—and it must find this “way” from within its own religious, legal, philosophical and theological resources. The question is not one of surrender to certain secularist conceptions of public life, any more than it was when Catholicism confronted political modernity and found a solution in the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. The solution has to come from within, in what Christian theology would call a “development of doctrine.”
Secondly, Islam must find a way—again, from within its own religious and intellectual resources—to affirm a distinction between religious and political authority in a just state. This need not and indeed cannot mean a radical “wall of separation” between the two, based on some (mis)conceptions of the American constitutional order. It might mean something like what the Catholic Church did during the late 20th century, when Catholic scholars reached back into the fifth century and rediscovered a traditional distinction between priestly and imperial authority: a tradition whose deepest roots go back to the Lord’s own distinction between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God (Matthew 15:21).
Despite their being largely ignored during the 9/11 anniversary, these do seem to be the two key issues. An Islam that affirms religious freedom, including conversion from one faith to another, and that buttresses that affirmation through its own religious self-understanding and the arts of reason, is an Islam with which “the rest” can live at ease, and in enriching ways. An Islam in which religious and political authority are distinct, if related, is an Islam in which a genuinely civil society can begin to take root—and a robust civil society is one barrier against the corrupt authoritarianism that has bedeviled Islamic countries for centuries. A robust civil society in which there is room for religious freedom and multiple political perspectives is also essential to realizing the promise of today’s “Arab Spring”—which could give birth to a hot summer and a bitter winter if its chief accomplishment is to effect a change from secular political authoritarianism to religiously-warranted political authoritarianism.
What hit the United States on 9/11 was not a “tragedy,” despite the ubiquitous and virtually universal misuse of that word in the 10th—anniversary commentary. What hit New York and Washington was evil unleashed from within an intra-Islamic civil war that had been going on for decades. And at the center of that civil war is a contest over whether Islam can embrace such modern political ideas as inalienable human rights (that can be known by reason, and thus by everyone) and the separation of powers within governments.
If the answer to that question is “No,” then the cycle of war between Islam and “the rest” that has ebbed and flowed since the seventh-century will continue. If the answer is “yes,” then that answer will have to come from within Islam, not by a process in which Islamic societies radically secularize. Pope Benedict XVI was insightful enough, and courageous enough, to say this at Regensburg. It’s about time the world paid attention.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.28.2011 | 2:53am
Rick says:
My family and I spent the summer of 2006 in Regensburg. The spectacular local cathedral was undergoing a frantic face-lifting at the time in preparation for the Pope's visit in September. What he later said about the necessary changes in the Islamic world, was exactly on target, in my opinion. But as both you and the Pope confirm, these transformations must come from within the world of Islam, and not at the point of a gun as we have tried to do it in Iraq and Afghanistan. The results of our externally forced efforts have been governments that are corrupt beyond all understanding and that lack credibility in the eyes of their own people.
We might also consider that the Pope's enlightened cry for increased tolerance has little resonance with much of the Church's own history. A former pope, Innocent III, had little tolerance for "heretics" who stubbornly refused to listen to reasonable efforts at conversion. He called the Albigensian Crusade which butchered and finally exterminated the Cathars in France. We may have the difficult task of being extremely patient while the Islamic world crawls its way along the same path it took us centuries to tread.
We might also consider that the Pope's enlightened cry for increased tolerance has little resonance with much of the Church's own history. A former pope, Innocent III, had little tolerance for "heretics" who stubbornly refused to listen to reasonable efforts at conversion. He called the Albigensian Crusade which butchered and finally exterminated the Cathars in France. We may have the difficult task of being extremely patient while the Islamic world crawls its way along the same path it took us centuries to tread.
9.28.2011 | 8:13am
Resh Galuta says:
Are Islamic countries barbaric because most Muslims are poor? Or are Muslims poor because most Islamic countries are barbaric? If the former, the problem is solvable.
9.28.2011 | 8:29am
Thomas R says:
In fairness to Islam the "right to change one's religion" was not real well accepted among us Catholics during my mother's lifetime. I don't know if they believed in legal restrictions on the matter, but leaving the Catholic faith could get you shunned at least in my region. And in the nineteenth century the leaders of the Church, of those I've read, were generally against the idea apostasy was permissible.
And Islam as an ideology that influences the political discourse is pretty core in most notions of Islam. Islam never really had the "two spheres" idea because Islam, for most part, did not really have a clergy.
Although I loathe to disagree with the Pope wanting Islam to enter something like Vatican II, including the most conservative readings of it, is maybe not entirely plausible. For Islam to be Islam it almost certainly will be an ideology that influences most facets of life and distrusts apostasy.
And Islam as an ideology that influences the political discourse is pretty core in most notions of Islam. Islam never really had the "two spheres" idea because Islam, for most part, did not really have a clergy.
Although I loathe to disagree with the Pope wanting Islam to enter something like Vatican II, including the most conservative readings of it, is maybe not entirely plausible. For Islam to be Islam it almost certainly will be an ideology that influences most facets of life and distrusts apostasy.
9.28.2011 | 10:14am
HV Observer says:
"Islam ... must find a way to affirm religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by reason and that includes the right to change one’s religion."
Since apostasy is a capital offense in Mohammedanism -- all four of the main legal schools endorse it -- this is an impossible task. Anyone who tries it will be condemned as an apostate and subject to a death fatwa, in the manner of the one that still hangs over Salman Rushdie.
"Secondly, Islam must find a way—again, from within its own religious and intellectual resources—to affirm a distinction between religious and political authority in a just state."
Since the religion is the state, and the state is the religion in Mohammedanism, this is also impossible. The Ismaili Shia sect, the one led by the Aga Khans, have attempted this, but they are a marginalized minority. The only other serious attempt has been the Kemalist attempt in post-Caliphate Turkey, but that was an avowedly secular state exerting an iron grip on mosques and imam training. And now, with a Mohammedanist government in Turkey dismantling the Kemalist legacy, how long can that last?
There will be perpetual war in the world as long as Mohammedanism lasts.
Since apostasy is a capital offense in Mohammedanism -- all four of the main legal schools endorse it -- this is an impossible task. Anyone who tries it will be condemned as an apostate and subject to a death fatwa, in the manner of the one that still hangs over Salman Rushdie.
"Secondly, Islam must find a way—again, from within its own religious and intellectual resources—to affirm a distinction between religious and political authority in a just state."
Since the religion is the state, and the state is the religion in Mohammedanism, this is also impossible. The Ismaili Shia sect, the one led by the Aga Khans, have attempted this, but they are a marginalized minority. The only other serious attempt has been the Kemalist attempt in post-Caliphate Turkey, but that was an avowedly secular state exerting an iron grip on mosques and imam training. And now, with a Mohammedanist government in Turkey dismantling the Kemalist legacy, how long can that last?
There will be perpetual war in the world as long as Mohammedanism lasts.
9.28.2011 | 10:22am
Randy says:
Rick,
In brutal Middle Age Christian Europe--not so far removed from pagan tribalism--religion WAS political affiliation, AND military affiliation. That's what the West overcame, but they didn't overcome it immediately. For them, today's heretics were tomorrow's army at the gates.
In brutal Middle Age Christian Europe--not so far removed from pagan tribalism--religion WAS political affiliation, AND military affiliation. That's what the West overcame, but they didn't overcome it immediately. For them, today's heretics were tomorrow's army at the gates.
9.28.2011 | 10:52am
Santiago Ramos says:
Dear Mr Weigel,
You will be happy to know that I have my college sophomores read the Regensberg Address in the spring semester. However, the two points that you make in your column are not found anywhere in the Regensburg Address. The Regensburg Address deals with two main problems: the separation of faith and reason in the philosophical sphere, which reaches its most sophisticated exposition in the thought of Kant; the separation of faith and reason in the theological sphere, as represented by Harnack. If you want to find some sort of subtext within the speech, I think the more obvious thing to do would be to say that it was a critique of contemporary EU secularism. But it was not really about Islam -- not in this sense you're talking about, anyway. That's not to say that the pope or the Vatican hasn't made the points that you make here elsewhere, but there is no reason to misrepresent this speech. It has important points to make. Different points from the one you're talking about here.
You will be happy to know that I have my college sophomores read the Regensberg Address in the spring semester. However, the two points that you make in your column are not found anywhere in the Regensburg Address. The Regensburg Address deals with two main problems: the separation of faith and reason in the philosophical sphere, which reaches its most sophisticated exposition in the thought of Kant; the separation of faith and reason in the theological sphere, as represented by Harnack. If you want to find some sort of subtext within the speech, I think the more obvious thing to do would be to say that it was a critique of contemporary EU secularism. But it was not really about Islam -- not in this sense you're talking about, anyway. That's not to say that the pope or the Vatican hasn't made the points that you make here elsewhere, but there is no reason to misrepresent this speech. It has important points to make. Different points from the one you're talking about here.
9.28.2011 | 10:52am
Brian English says:
"We might also consider that the Pope's enlightened cry for increased tolerance has little resonance with much of the Church's own history. A former pope, Innocent III, had little tolerance for "heretics" who stubbornly refused to listen to reasonable efforts at conversion."
Non-Catholics, primarily Jews, were tolerated by the Church throughout its history. Heretics fell into a completely different category because they were viewed as undermining the Church itself.
"He called the Albigensian Crusade which butchered and finally exterminated the Cathars in France."
Efforts to deal diplomatically with the Cathars came to an end when they murdered the papal envoy. And the Crusade called by Innocent III was responded to because the French aristocracy regarded the Cathars as a danger to France.
"We may have the difficult task of being extremely patient while the Islamic world crawls its way along the same path it took us centuries to tread."
This idea gets floated alot, that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, so in 600 more years Islam will be just like Christianity. That really misses the point of the structural problem in Islam that has to be addressed. It also ignores the well-established fact that Islam is going in the wrong direction, getting less tolerant over the past century with the ascendancy of Wahhabism.
Non-Catholics, primarily Jews, were tolerated by the Church throughout its history. Heretics fell into a completely different category because they were viewed as undermining the Church itself.
"He called the Albigensian Crusade which butchered and finally exterminated the Cathars in France."
Efforts to deal diplomatically with the Cathars came to an end when they murdered the papal envoy. And the Crusade called by Innocent III was responded to because the French aristocracy regarded the Cathars as a danger to France.
"We may have the difficult task of being extremely patient while the Islamic world crawls its way along the same path it took us centuries to tread."
This idea gets floated alot, that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, so in 600 more years Islam will be just like Christianity. That really misses the point of the structural problem in Islam that has to be addressed. It also ignores the well-established fact that Islam is going in the wrong direction, getting less tolerant over the past century with the ascendancy of Wahhabism.
9.28.2011 | 10:54am
Santiago says:
Here is a link to the address, by the way:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
9.28.2011 | 11:04am
Edward Dougherty says:
I am afraid that Mr. Weigel neglects to mention that it may help if we do not engage in further unwarranted military invasions of their lands, such as our unnecessary, immoral invasion of Iraq. That invasion was supported by both himself and this journal.
9.28.2011 | 11:06am
Dan says:
Oddly, Catholic apologists at the time of this lecture were sighing in exasperation about the minor focus of the lecture on Islam and the major focus as part of Benedict's engagement of the West as a largely relativistic atheist culture.
5 years later, the same troop finds that the three paragraphs on Islam are the only thing to write about.
Dr. Weigel has spent the better part of Benedict's papacy trying to re-write, warp, and relativize the pope's own words. Dr. Weigel has a limited role for faith and reason, using it largely when it suits his politics and finding it a bit uncomfortable when it disagrees with his tribal prejudices (for example, the notion that bishops should not focus on such things as economics or war, or dismissing the uncomfortable parts of a papal encyclical). Focusing on a chord of Islam-hate in conservative circles, he seems to need to peruse conservative bloggers who bring up the three paragraphs of Islamic critique (in a 30 minute lecture) every 9-11.
Dr. Weigel is a propagandist. He is paid by a conservative think tank to do this.
5 years later, the same troop finds that the three paragraphs on Islam are the only thing to write about.
Dr. Weigel has spent the better part of Benedict's papacy trying to re-write, warp, and relativize the pope's own words. Dr. Weigel has a limited role for faith and reason, using it largely when it suits his politics and finding it a bit uncomfortable when it disagrees with his tribal prejudices (for example, the notion that bishops should not focus on such things as economics or war, or dismissing the uncomfortable parts of a papal encyclical). Focusing on a chord of Islam-hate in conservative circles, he seems to need to peruse conservative bloggers who bring up the three paragraphs of Islamic critique (in a 30 minute lecture) every 9-11.
Dr. Weigel is a propagandist. He is paid by a conservative think tank to do this.
9.28.2011 | 11:35am
arty says:
Edward:
Why would Weigel mention it, if he did not (and presumably still does not) believe that the Iraq invasion was unnecessary or immoral? All your comment does is assume Weigel was wrong about something else, and then criticize this article for failing to have reversed his position. See dictionary for definition of non sequitur.
Why would Weigel mention it, if he did not (and presumably still does not) believe that the Iraq invasion was unnecessary or immoral? All your comment does is assume Weigel was wrong about something else, and then criticize this article for failing to have reversed his position. See dictionary for definition of non sequitur.
9.28.2011 | 11:41am
Cogito says:
There are a number of ways that a moderate and tolerant Islam can develop. And some careful attention to this by Christian philosophers and activists here, can help.
In some readings of the Koran, for example, it acknowledged that Allah is the same as the "God" of even the Book, or the Torah and/or the Bible. While the Koran also called Jesus a "great prophet."
If Jesus is a great prophet in Islam? Then his message of peace and tolerance should be revered by Muslims.
And indeed, the Prophet, Our Sacred Messenger, many feel, endorsed only defensive wars. In the Koran.
In some readings of the Koran, for example, it acknowledged that Allah is the same as the "God" of even the Book, or the Torah and/or the Bible. While the Koran also called Jesus a "great prophet."
If Jesus is a great prophet in Islam? Then his message of peace and tolerance should be revered by Muslims.
And indeed, the Prophet, Our Sacred Messenger, many feel, endorsed only defensive wars. In the Koran.
9.28.2011 | 11:42am
Brian English says:
"I am afraid that Mr. Weigel neglects to mention that it may help if we do not engage in further unwarranted military invasions of their lands, such as our unnecessary, immoral invasion of Iraq. That invasion was supported by both himself and this journal."
Let's go over this slowly, one more time, so everbody can understand it: 9/11 happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
Let's go over this slowly, one more time, so everbody can understand it: 9/11 happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
9.28.2011 | 11:45am
Howard Kainz says:
For Islam to allow freedom of religion, and conversion to another religion, would be impossible. It would contradict the last (Medinan) part of the Qu'ran, which superseded the earlier (Meccan) half -- not to mention many of the ahadith sayings of Muhammad. The Islamic mandate is to convert or subjugate all unbelievers, by force if necessary. Fortunately, although there have been violent Christians, nothing in the New Testament offers a justification for violent proselytizing.
9.28.2011 | 11:48am
Edward Dougherty says:
Arty,
Mr. Weigel started this article by stating that Islam is living in a condfition of war with the rest of the world. My point in mentioning the invasion of Iraq, which occupied a largely (but not entirely) Islamic country for no good reasons, was to highlight that it is actions such as these that exacerbate the state of war that Islam perceives itself to be in, if you believe Mr. Weigel.
This is not to let Islam off the hook for it's more violent voices. Rather, those who portend to lecture to Islam about it's violence should also reexamine their past beliefs (such as Mr. Weigel's about the necessity of the Iraq invation) before starting such a lecture.
Mr. Weigel started this article by stating that Islam is living in a condfition of war with the rest of the world. My point in mentioning the invasion of Iraq, which occupied a largely (but not entirely) Islamic country for no good reasons, was to highlight that it is actions such as these that exacerbate the state of war that Islam perceives itself to be in, if you believe Mr. Weigel.
This is not to let Islam off the hook for it's more violent voices. Rather, those who portend to lecture to Islam about it's violence should also reexamine their past beliefs (such as Mr. Weigel's about the necessity of the Iraq invation) before starting such a lecture.
9.28.2011 | 12:03pm
arty says:
Edward:
And my point was that you provided no compelling reasons why Weigel ought to have reconsidered his support for the Iraq war, you simply assumed that he should be doing so and isn't. FWIW, I didn't find Weigel's justification of the Iraq war convincing when he originally made it, either, but you are committing a variant of the cardinal sin of book reviewing: criticizing the author for a book they didn't intend to write. Offer a compelling reason why Weigel should reconsider his view of the justification of the Iraq War, and then you'll have a criticism that isn't just a non sequitur.
And my point was that you provided no compelling reasons why Weigel ought to have reconsidered his support for the Iraq war, you simply assumed that he should be doing so and isn't. FWIW, I didn't find Weigel's justification of the Iraq war convincing when he originally made it, either, but you are committing a variant of the cardinal sin of book reviewing: criticizing the author for a book they didn't intend to write. Offer a compelling reason why Weigel should reconsider his view of the justification of the Iraq War, and then you'll have a criticism that isn't just a non sequitur.
9.28.2011 | 12:28pm
Randy says:
Ed D,
Whatever you think about preemptive war in Iraq, removing Saddam was a political decision--not a religious decision, not the result of a fatwa. Weigel's point is that Islamic states should join the modern world, and divorce mosque from state. Some Islamic states separate the two in theory, but not so much in practice. And also, they should allow freedom of conscience for those who convert away from Islam. At least, don't kill them. What's wrong with those proposals?
Whatever you think about preemptive war in Iraq, removing Saddam was a political decision--not a religious decision, not the result of a fatwa. Weigel's point is that Islamic states should join the modern world, and divorce mosque from state. Some Islamic states separate the two in theory, but not so much in practice. And also, they should allow freedom of conscience for those who convert away from Islam. At least, don't kill them. What's wrong with those proposals?
9.28.2011 | 1:16pm
Brian English says:
"And indeed, the Prophet, Our Sacred Messenger, many feel, endorsed only defensive wars. In the Koran."
In light of the wars of aggression launched by Mohammed's immediate successors, how can that possibly be a valid interpretation of the Koran? Don't get me wrong, I would like that interpretation to be the predominant one, but I don't see how it could be if you are just going to look at the text and the actions of people who actually knew Mohammed.
In light of the wars of aggression launched by Mohammed's immediate successors, how can that possibly be a valid interpretation of the Koran? Don't get me wrong, I would like that interpretation to be the predominant one, but I don't see how it could be if you are just going to look at the text and the actions of people who actually knew Mohammed.
9.28.2011 | 1:21pm
Brian English says:
"And also, they should allow freedom of conscience for those who convert away from Islam. At least, don't kill them. What's wrong with those proposals?"
Catholics and Muslims are natural allies on many social issues. However, the refusal to accept freedom of conscience is a deal-breaker.
Catholics and Muslims are natural allies on many social issues. However, the refusal to accept freedom of conscience is a deal-breaker.
9.28.2011 | 1:43pm
Sophia Mason says:
Thomas R., you point out that "the 'right to change one's religion' was not real well accepted among us Catholics during my mother's lifetime. I don't know if they believed in legal restrictions on the matter, but leaving the Catholic faith could get you shunned at least in my region. And in the nineteenth century the leaders of the Church, of those I've read, were generally against the idea apostasy was permissible."
Well, naturally. No group likes it when their people leave--it says bad things about the organization they're leaving. But there's a difference between
(A) questioning whether someone should leave your organization, or disapproving of their leaving, or even avoiding them, locking them out of your life, and saying nasty things about them--all of which we Catholics will sometimes do--and
(B) holding that persons who leave said organization should be punished with death--which some Islamic groups do.
As for legal restrictions on leaving Catholicism ... For at least the past hundred years in most western countries (certainly in America and all the other former British colonies) such restrictions would not have been _feasible_, and legislation to implement such restrictions would have been met with a donkey's laugh. "Believe in legal restrictions"? We had enough trouble keeping ourselves from being politically marginalized by Protestants on the one hand and secularists on the other.
Well, naturally. No group likes it when their people leave--it says bad things about the organization they're leaving. But there's a difference between
(A) questioning whether someone should leave your organization, or disapproving of their leaving, or even avoiding them, locking them out of your life, and saying nasty things about them--all of which we Catholics will sometimes do--and
(B) holding that persons who leave said organization should be punished with death--which some Islamic groups do.
As for legal restrictions on leaving Catholicism ... For at least the past hundred years in most western countries (certainly in America and all the other former British colonies) such restrictions would not have been _feasible_, and legislation to implement such restrictions would have been met with a donkey's laugh. "Believe in legal restrictions"? We had enough trouble keeping ourselves from being politically marginalized by Protestants on the one hand and secularists on the other.
9.28.2011 | 2:47pm
Derek Chisholm says:
You state that:"An Islam in which religious and political authority are distinct, if related, is an Islam in which a genuinely civil society can begin to take root."
Islam places adherence to the law as the central avenue for each individual's relationship with God. Because worldly adherence to any law is inherently political, religious authority and political authority cannot be distinguished from each other in Islam or any other tradition that makes the law and adherence to it the central avenue for relationships with God.
Islam places adherence to the law as the central avenue for each individual's relationship with God. Because worldly adherence to any law is inherently political, religious authority and political authority cannot be distinguished from each other in Islam or any other tradition that makes the law and adherence to it the central avenue for relationships with God.
9.28.2011 | 7:25pm
Brian Harrington says:
The Catholic Churchs position on other faiths has evolved tremendously due to the publication of the Vatican II decree Nostra Aetate (and subsequent clarifications). The decree also calls on all Catholics to engage in interfaith dialogue by the way, something that is being overlooked at present. My own feeling (I am studying a course on Interfaith theology and interreligous studies and have recently returned from a conference on same in Istanbul) is that the Catholic adoption (at Vatican II) of personalist philosophies has yet to be fully appreciated by the Muslim world. Also because Muslims lack the centrally organised hierarchy that the Catholic Church has, changes are more sporadic and haphazard when they are sought than would occur in a Catholic context. Also the advent of mass higher education and mass broadband communication (Turkey for example has the fourth highest number of facebook users per capita in the world) in Muslim countries is leading to debates over the best way forward for the Muslim religion. In essence if Christians and Catholics (as requested) do engage with their neighbours of other faiths, they should not be surprised if the holy spirit Himself should not bring these encounters to suprising and fruitful conclusions.
(Can e-mail on articles written on these topics as follows: (a) Catholic perspectives on a multi-faith world (60 page A4 on history and current position of interfaith dialogue from Catholic point of view). (b) Western Personalism: Universal epistemology of man or an imposition of values on other world cultures? (considering Islam in opposition to personalism) (40 page A4).
Yours In Christ,
Brian
(Can e-mail on articles written on these topics as follows: (a) Catholic perspectives on a multi-faith world (60 page A4 on history and current position of interfaith dialogue from Catholic point of view). (b) Western Personalism: Universal epistemology of man or an imposition of values on other world cultures? (considering Islam in opposition to personalism) (40 page A4).
Yours In Christ,
Brian
9.28.2011 | 9:20pm
Rick says:
@Brian English:
When I mentioned that the Albeginsian Crusade was a prime example of violent Catholic religious intolerance of the past, a voice in the back of my head said that someone would justify it because the Cathars were heretic Catholics, not another religion. I was not to be disappointed.
First, although they were Christians, the Cathars were entirely separated from the Catholic Church, as much as the Protestants were later. They were not renegade priests preaching apostacy from Catholic pulpits. Their doctrines and structure were radically different from Catholicism,much more different that those of the later Protestants. Second, even if these nonviolent vegetarians were heretics, and even if some Cathar was the murderer of the Pope's envoy (which is historically disputed), would total extermination, down to the women, children, and babies, be a defensible response from the perspective of Jesus's teachings? Third, can a policy of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience be compatible with the ruthless persecution of apostates, in any case? By the way, the nobles of northern France responded to the Crusade primarily because they coveted southern lands, lands that they succeeded in adding to their fiefdoms.
"Non-Catholics, primarily Jews, were tolerated by the Church throughout its history."
A great oversimplification. For example, the Jews of Spain suffered terrific oppression from Catholics until the Moorish conquest in the 8th century. The 8th Council of Toledo in 653, for instance, banned all Jewish rites and required Jewish converts to Catholicism to kill any fellow converts who lapsed back into Judaism. (Sound familiar?) The Jews flourished under the Moors, but were eventually expelled by King Ferdinand after the Catholics reconquered the peninsula. When I lived in Morocco, I became acquainted with the descendants of some of the expulsees who still lived there.
You are correct that in the last half of the 20th century, Islam began to drift towards a radical restorationism and increasing intolerance. But so did every other major world religion. This is the most fascinating phenomenon! Why did Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism ALL start moving in that direction at the same time in history? In any case, the radical rebellion we are being forced to deal with from the Islamic world is primarily a revolt against the invasion of their part of the world by modern, progressive Western liberalism. Mr. Weigel is quite right when he identifies the 9/11 attacks as a byproduct of a civil war within the Islamic world itself. There is no concensus among them about how to deal with the modern world.
When I mentioned that the Albeginsian Crusade was a prime example of violent Catholic religious intolerance of the past, a voice in the back of my head said that someone would justify it because the Cathars were heretic Catholics, not another religion. I was not to be disappointed.
First, although they were Christians, the Cathars were entirely separated from the Catholic Church, as much as the Protestants were later. They were not renegade priests preaching apostacy from Catholic pulpits. Their doctrines and structure were radically different from Catholicism,much more different that those of the later Protestants. Second, even if these nonviolent vegetarians were heretics, and even if some Cathar was the murderer of the Pope's envoy (which is historically disputed), would total extermination, down to the women, children, and babies, be a defensible response from the perspective of Jesus's teachings? Third, can a policy of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience be compatible with the ruthless persecution of apostates, in any case? By the way, the nobles of northern France responded to the Crusade primarily because they coveted southern lands, lands that they succeeded in adding to their fiefdoms.
"Non-Catholics, primarily Jews, were tolerated by the Church throughout its history."
A great oversimplification. For example, the Jews of Spain suffered terrific oppression from Catholics until the Moorish conquest in the 8th century. The 8th Council of Toledo in 653, for instance, banned all Jewish rites and required Jewish converts to Catholicism to kill any fellow converts who lapsed back into Judaism. (Sound familiar?) The Jews flourished under the Moors, but were eventually expelled by King Ferdinand after the Catholics reconquered the peninsula. When I lived in Morocco, I became acquainted with the descendants of some of the expulsees who still lived there.
You are correct that in the last half of the 20th century, Islam began to drift towards a radical restorationism and increasing intolerance. But so did every other major world religion. This is the most fascinating phenomenon! Why did Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism ALL start moving in that direction at the same time in history? In any case, the radical rebellion we are being forced to deal with from the Islamic world is primarily a revolt against the invasion of their part of the world by modern, progressive Western liberalism. Mr. Weigel is quite right when he identifies the 9/11 attacks as a byproduct of a civil war within the Islamic world itself. There is no concensus among them about how to deal with the modern world.
9.29.2011 | 10:26am
Mike Melendez says:
@Rick: Given that caliphate was alive if not functioning well at the beginning of the 20th century, it's not surprising that some Moslems wanted to get back to that in the second half of the 20th century. But "every other major world religion"..."began to drift to a radical restorationism and increasing intolerance" is such a sweeping claim it requires extraordinary evidence. I'm waiting. And please, try not to pick and choose isolated incidents that only show what fools we mortals be, religious or not. Make the same sweeping case.
From your words I gather you are not too tolerant of "religionists".
You have me curious about the Cathars, I'll have to read more. I have read about Spanish Inquisition and the times that lead up to it. Are you aware that the majority of the Jews forced out of Spain by Ferdinand wound up back in Spain? Most other countries treated them just as bad, so most eventually went home. That the Jews flourished under the Moors sometimes is true. But it is also true that sometimes they flourished under various of the Christian states in Spain. You seem to be aware of the Moorish conquest and presumably the centuries long Reconquest. Are you aware succeeding groups of Moors invaded and forcefully took over from the already present groups of Moors now and then in that history? We humans are an interesting study, but we don't tend to act monolithically. We're much more fragmented.
From your words I gather you are not too tolerant of "religionists".
You have me curious about the Cathars, I'll have to read more. I have read about Spanish Inquisition and the times that lead up to it. Are you aware that the majority of the Jews forced out of Spain by Ferdinand wound up back in Spain? Most other countries treated them just as bad, so most eventually went home. That the Jews flourished under the Moors sometimes is true. But it is also true that sometimes they flourished under various of the Christian states in Spain. You seem to be aware of the Moorish conquest and presumably the centuries long Reconquest. Are you aware succeeding groups of Moors invaded and forcefully took over from the already present groups of Moors now and then in that history? We humans are an interesting study, but we don't tend to act monolithically. We're much more fragmented.
9.29.2011 | 11:55am
Brian English says:
"a voice in the back of my head said that someone would justify it because the Cathars were heretic Catholics, not another religion. I was not to be disappointed."
You should have listened to that little voice. It is wonderful that your comparative religion studies have led you to conclude the Cathars were a separate religion, but the Church didn't see it that way.
"They were not renegade priests preaching apostacy from Catholic pulpits."
They were renegades leading souls to Hell. It didn't matter where they were preaching from.
"Cathar was the murderer of the Pope's envoy (which is historically disputed),"
Not by any serious historians.
"would total extermination, down to the women, children, and babies, be a defensible response from the perspective of Jesus's teachings?"
Another one who believes the "Kill them all, God will know his own" story. Every Cathar was not killed. Certainly in cities that resisted and were taken by storm many non-combatants were killed, but those were the rules of war then, and it had nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the inhabitants of the city.
"Third, can a policy of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience be compatible with the ruthless persecution of apostates, in any case?"
No, of course not. But if you were the Pope in the 13th Century, and a cult was leading souls astray, and you knew you would be held responsible by God for those lost souls since you had the ability to put a stop to it, what would you have done?
"By the way, the nobles of northern France responded to the Crusade primarily because they coveted southern lands, lands that they succeeded in adding to their fiefdoms."
But the only reason those lands were up for grabs was because the King viewed the Cathars as a threat to the kingdom.
"A great oversimplification."
Actually, the great oversimplification is your belief that the Jews were beloved in Moorish Spain and constantly persecuted in Christendom. The greatest massacre of Jews during the Middle Ages, and the one most noted by contemporaries, took place in Spain in the 11th century, and it was committed by Muslims. The first expulsion of Jews from Spain also was by Muslims. Look at Richard Fletcher's book on Moorish Spain and Robert Chazan's book In the Year 1096 for these issues.
"But so did every other major world religion. This is the most fascinating phenomenon! Why did Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism ALL start moving in that direction at the same time in history?"
Are you joking?
You should have listened to that little voice. It is wonderful that your comparative religion studies have led you to conclude the Cathars were a separate religion, but the Church didn't see it that way.
"They were not renegade priests preaching apostacy from Catholic pulpits."
They were renegades leading souls to Hell. It didn't matter where they were preaching from.
"Cathar was the murderer of the Pope's envoy (which is historically disputed),"
Not by any serious historians.
"would total extermination, down to the women, children, and babies, be a defensible response from the perspective of Jesus's teachings?"
Another one who believes the "Kill them all, God will know his own" story. Every Cathar was not killed. Certainly in cities that resisted and were taken by storm many non-combatants were killed, but those were the rules of war then, and it had nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the inhabitants of the city.
"Third, can a policy of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience be compatible with the ruthless persecution of apostates, in any case?"
No, of course not. But if you were the Pope in the 13th Century, and a cult was leading souls astray, and you knew you would be held responsible by God for those lost souls since you had the ability to put a stop to it, what would you have done?
"By the way, the nobles of northern France responded to the Crusade primarily because they coveted southern lands, lands that they succeeded in adding to their fiefdoms."
But the only reason those lands were up for grabs was because the King viewed the Cathars as a threat to the kingdom.
"A great oversimplification."
Actually, the great oversimplification is your belief that the Jews were beloved in Moorish Spain and constantly persecuted in Christendom. The greatest massacre of Jews during the Middle Ages, and the one most noted by contemporaries, took place in Spain in the 11th century, and it was committed by Muslims. The first expulsion of Jews from Spain also was by Muslims. Look at Richard Fletcher's book on Moorish Spain and Robert Chazan's book In the Year 1096 for these issues.
"But so did every other major world religion. This is the most fascinating phenomenon! Why did Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism ALL start moving in that direction at the same time in history?"
Are you joking?
9.29.2011 | 1:12pm
Brian English says:
"Are you aware succeeding groups of Moors invaded and forcefully took over from the already present groups of Moors now and then in that history?"
The Golden Age of Cordoba was brought down by Muslims from North Africa, not Christians as many people think.
The Golden Age of Cordoba was brought down by Muslims from North Africa, not Christians as many people think.
9.29.2011 | 3:32pm
Rick says:
@Mike: "But "every other major world religion"..."began to drift to a radical restorationism and increasing intolerance" is such a sweeping claim it requires extraordinary evidence. I'm waiting."
and @Brian: "Are you joking?"
No, it's no joke at all. It's so obvious that I didn't think I'd have to explain, but here goes. Of course, this resurgence of fundamentalism and restorationism in all major religions is not identical to the path Islam is following and it certainly has not always shown the same tendency towards violence. The Islamic world is the one that, as I pointed out, is particularly reacting to a tsunami of foreign modernism invading their world.
Nevertheless, the resurgence of politicized Evangelicalism in the US can hardly have escaped your attention. When I was a kid, it would have been strange to hear Eisenhower or Kennedy talk publically about what devout Christians they were. Today, a presidential hopeful is obliged to parade their Christian piety. (Even if Obama did it in a questionable way!) Resurgent Evangelicalism carries tremendous political clout and aims to transform our public life into a Christian model, by their interpretation. They are up against strong counter forces and official structures and laws, of course, but the movement is powerful. In fact, the resurgence of religious fervor in this country since the 1960s has realistically been called America's Fourth Great Awakening.
Surely you've also noticed the strong trend of modern Jews to abandon their liberalism and embrace orthodoxy. Orthodox congregations in America are growing rapidly. One notable example is David Goldman, who still writes occasional articles for FT. The growing fervor of the Orthodox Israeli settlers to reestablish the Biblical "Greater Israel" (restorationism, again) has even brought them into conflict with their own government.
And now to the Hindu revival. You must have noticed that the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) controlled the Indian government from 1998 to 2004. It is a Hindu nationalist party that believes India should be officially declared an exclusively Hindu nation, ruled by Hindus. Hindu fundamentalism has been on the rise for some time, and special labs have even been established in India to research the salubrious qualities of cow urine. Although Hinduism has historically been a tolerant, inclusive religion, these new fundamentalists have shown strong intolerance of Muslims and Christian missionaries. Being a Christian missionary in India is now a much more hazardous occupation than it used to be.
No, all this is anything but a joke!
and @Brian: "Are you joking?"
No, it's no joke at all. It's so obvious that I didn't think I'd have to explain, but here goes. Of course, this resurgence of fundamentalism and restorationism in all major religions is not identical to the path Islam is following and it certainly has not always shown the same tendency towards violence. The Islamic world is the one that, as I pointed out, is particularly reacting to a tsunami of foreign modernism invading their world.
Nevertheless, the resurgence of politicized Evangelicalism in the US can hardly have escaped your attention. When I was a kid, it would have been strange to hear Eisenhower or Kennedy talk publically about what devout Christians they were. Today, a presidential hopeful is obliged to parade their Christian piety. (Even if Obama did it in a questionable way!) Resurgent Evangelicalism carries tremendous political clout and aims to transform our public life into a Christian model, by their interpretation. They are up against strong counter forces and official structures and laws, of course, but the movement is powerful. In fact, the resurgence of religious fervor in this country since the 1960s has realistically been called America's Fourth Great Awakening.
Surely you've also noticed the strong trend of modern Jews to abandon their liberalism and embrace orthodoxy. Orthodox congregations in America are growing rapidly. One notable example is David Goldman, who still writes occasional articles for FT. The growing fervor of the Orthodox Israeli settlers to reestablish the Biblical "Greater Israel" (restorationism, again) has even brought them into conflict with their own government.
And now to the Hindu revival. You must have noticed that the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) controlled the Indian government from 1998 to 2004. It is a Hindu nationalist party that believes India should be officially declared an exclusively Hindu nation, ruled by Hindus. Hindu fundamentalism has been on the rise for some time, and special labs have even been established in India to research the salubrious qualities of cow urine. Although Hinduism has historically been a tolerant, inclusive religion, these new fundamentalists have shown strong intolerance of Muslims and Christian missionaries. Being a Christian missionary in India is now a much more hazardous occupation than it used to be.
No, all this is anything but a joke!
9.29.2011 | 4:40pm
Brian English says:
"Resurgent Evangelicalism carries tremendous political clout and aims to transform our public life into a Christian model, by their interpretation. "
We've been hearing about this for 30 years. Remember when Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority were going to take over the country? It never happened, did it?
"Surely you've also noticed the strong trend of modern Jews to abandon their liberalism and embrace orthodoxy."
A strong trend? David Mamet is influential, but he is only one guy.
We've been hearing about this for 30 years. Remember when Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority were going to take over the country? It never happened, did it?
"Surely you've also noticed the strong trend of modern Jews to abandon their liberalism and embrace orthodoxy."
A strong trend? David Mamet is influential, but he is only one guy.
9.29.2011 | 9:44pm
Thomas R says:
That's a good point Sophia. I just got the sense he was saying Islam should accept, not merely tolerate, people leaving Islam and have Islam's role be "moral instructor to the state" rather than be part of the state's ideology at all.
And I think those two things are hard for Islam to do, but oddly I was not agreeing to the more hostile views of Islam expressed here. I was just saying I think the statements, while they sound nice, are asking a bit too much of the Islamic world. Or could sound, even to more tolerant Muslims, like asking too much. Therefore you may get nothing when it might still be possible to get something.
To an extent I think we're going to have to accept that in majority Muslim nations Islam is likely going to influence how, Muslims in those nations at least, deal with certain family issues like divorce or inheritance. We may not like that influence, but Protestants presumably didn't like that Malta forbade divorce until this year or maybe last year. And I think it would be easier/more-doable to ask them to be tolerant of apostasy, not okay with it. Some Muslims feel that the killing of apostates was only to be done in times of war or persecution, when the Muslim community needed all members to stick together to survive. (Or when apostates could aid the enemy) And try to convince "good Muslims" we're not at war with them. However leaving Islam is still likely to be, to them, leaving the "True Faith revealed to Muhammad by God through the Archangel Gabriel."
Asking them to make revolutionary changes to their society, even if that's not the intent, is maybe too utopian and progressive. I think Wiegel felt these were reasonable or moderate changes, hence he assumed they were doable from within Islam, and I just have a sense many to most Muslims wouldn't agree. Islam is in many ways a way of life, somewhat like ultra-Orthodox Judaism, so it's hard to compartmentalize it in a way some in the West can do with religion. (In some ways I admire that, in others I also find it a tad unnerving)
And I think those two things are hard for Islam to do, but oddly I was not agreeing to the more hostile views of Islam expressed here. I was just saying I think the statements, while they sound nice, are asking a bit too much of the Islamic world. Or could sound, even to more tolerant Muslims, like asking too much. Therefore you may get nothing when it might still be possible to get something.
To an extent I think we're going to have to accept that in majority Muslim nations Islam is likely going to influence how, Muslims in those nations at least, deal with certain family issues like divorce or inheritance. We may not like that influence, but Protestants presumably didn't like that Malta forbade divorce until this year or maybe last year. And I think it would be easier/more-doable to ask them to be tolerant of apostasy, not okay with it. Some Muslims feel that the killing of apostates was only to be done in times of war or persecution, when the Muslim community needed all members to stick together to survive. (Or when apostates could aid the enemy) And try to convince "good Muslims" we're not at war with them. However leaving Islam is still likely to be, to them, leaving the "True Faith revealed to Muhammad by God through the Archangel Gabriel."
Asking them to make revolutionary changes to their society, even if that's not the intent, is maybe too utopian and progressive. I think Wiegel felt these were reasonable or moderate changes, hence he assumed they were doable from within Islam, and I just have a sense many to most Muslims wouldn't agree. Islam is in many ways a way of life, somewhat like ultra-Orthodox Judaism, so it's hard to compartmentalize it in a way some in the West can do with religion. (In some ways I admire that, in others I also find it a tad unnerving)
9.30.2011 | 9:42am
Sophia Mason says:
Thomas R., helpful clarification. I think I'm in the Weigel camp in terms of what I would like to see happen eventually, but it may well be that it would be easier to effect change through baby steps.
†