New Page 0

October 6, 2006

By Archbishop Daniel N. DiNardo

A few weeks ago the Holy Father delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg where he had once taught theology during the 1960’s. The lecture was part of his return to his homeland of Germany; it was the only “professional” talk that he gave. As such he used the conventions of theological debate and reasoning. It is a very closely reasoned analysis of a classic theme in Catholic Theology -- the role of reason in faith or the relation between faith and reason. Because of the very nature of the content of the lecture, the Pope tried to mirror the content within the form or the rhetoric of presentation. After he opened the talk with a reminiscence of his time at Regensburg and the profound sense of coherence of the arts and the sciences at that place and the vigorous exchange of ideas by all members of the various faculties then, even by those who were non-believers but found the question of God integral to academic and intellectual life, the Pope then launched into a “quaestio,” a technical means in classic theology of noting a perplexity or a problem that helps to focus an issue, in this case the role of reason in the life of faith. The Pope cited a recent critical edition of a dialogue between the Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian in 1391 on the question of the truth of Christianity and of Islam. The Pope, after mentioning the fact that one of the suras (a main chapter) of the Koran directly states that there is no compulsion in religion, quotes Paleologus’ words that despite this command, there has been violence in Islam. The Pope introduced the now well-publicized quote by saying that it appears with startling brusqueness. But the Pope is more concerned with the lines that follow: the emperor says that “not acting reasonably is against God’s nature.” Violence is incompatible with “who” God is. It was this fact that was the “quaestio” or “aporia” of the Pope’s initial statement of his lecture.

Unfortunately the words were taken out of context by some and then made to sound as though that was the Pope’s thinking about Islam. This upset some of the faithful of Islam and inflamed the passions of a few extremists, a few of whom resorted to violence. In light of such controversy, the Holy Father apologized to those believers who were offended by his citation of the emperor’s words as though they were his own. He clarified that they were not. He apologized for his words out of context, but he did not and could not apologize for the issues that were raised in his “quaestio.” Let me try to explain why.

The Pope uses the citation to launch into a substantial argument about “logos,” a Greek expression denoting “word” and “reason.” It is a Greek concept in pagan philosophy at its best and it is an expression also found in the New Testament, most particularly in the majestic Prologue of the Gospel of Saint John: “In the beginning was the WORD.” It indicates a rationality, a reasonableness in the very biblical conception of God. God is “capable” of self-communication. God’s “reason” is creative and communicable. The Pope states that in this Christian understanding of God there is rapprochement between the Greek pagan understanding of the world or of the “whole” and the Christian understanding of who God is. God’s “reason” is not just a Greek pagan idea, but there is also such an understanding in the long and tortuous road of biblical faith to an analogous understanding in Christianity. God’s absolute transcendence is not capricious.

The Pope continues his analysis by examining the splitting apart of this mutual enrichment in the late Middle Ages, in the Reformation, and then more completely in the Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th Century; the effect of such estrangement has been negative on both reason and on faith. Reason becomes “closeted” to a very narrow form of calculation, restricted to material things only, while other dimensions of “reason” are thrown out and reduced to the “purely subjective.” On the side of faith, as theologians reduce their analyses by imitating this impoverished view of “reason,” theology and religion lose their power to sustain and create community beyond the smorgasbord of personal subjective “experiences,” many of them as irrational as they are tenacious in their grip on individuals. Without dismissing the important positive contributions of the Modern Age, the Pope then asks for a more integral understanding of reason that would enlarge our understanding of what “truth” means.

The Holy Father’s Address is actually more critical of the West than of any aspect of the faith of Islam. What he does do towards the end of his speech is address the question of whether God is simply pure “will”. In this, he invites all religions, not just those of the West to enter into a genuine and vigorous dialogue on our understanding of God. This would above all include Islam, which during the Middle Ages engaged in a most interesting theoretical and philosophical debate, through such excellent thinkers as Avicenna and Averroes, with Jewish and Christian philosophers and theologians. It is to be noted that the Pope indicates that the most complete understanding of God in our Catholic faith is that “God is Love,” a reality and a conceptual understanding that sees both reason and will as harmoniously integrated in a much deeper understanding of the nature of the One who “IS.” The pure activity of God is one of enduring, absolutely transcendent, self-giving Love.

If the Pope invited all high level theoretical thinkers to engage anew in a dialogue that embraces all religious discourse, he has also shown himself to be, at the practical level, very much concerned with the dignity of each person and abiding respect for every religion. He has engaged in the past with a wide variety of thinkers at a theoretical level; simultaneously he has met with people, both simple believers and non-believers, and has done so with grace and respect. It is unfortunate that many people did not read and study this most interesting lecture on one aspect of the “nature” of God.

About ten days ago, I met with a number of Muslim leaders here in Houston; in the course of our exchange we agreed to meet at a theological level to discuss some of the issues raised during the Pope’s Lecture and other issues of interest to them and to members of the Catholic Faith. May I add that the history of relationships between Islam and Catholicism here in Houston have always been cordial, no doubt due to the efforts of Archbishop Fiorenza and the excellent leadership of the various Muslim communities here. I certainly want to see that relationship deepened. I am saddened that any believers in the Muslim community were offended by the Pope’s remarks and apologize for any misunderstanding about the issue of Islam and violence. The issue of the nature of God is important to both us and to our Muslim brothers and sisters. A vigorous but sympathetic dialogue can produce greater respect and understanding.

May I also add that I was disappointed by the editorial in the Houston Chronicle on September 20th. The Headline, Fallible, was an unfortunate way to begin an analysis of the Pope’s remarks, a headline with an implicit very “secular” slam at a doctrine of our Church that relates to proclamation on faith and morals by the Pope in a religious ecclesial context, not an academic lecture. Though even the Chronicle editorial notes that the Pope’s words are on a different plane from the reaction of some who opposed him, not by words but by force, the writer never substantially entered into the content of the Pope’s lecture, dismissing it at one point as a “long cerebral speech to Bavarian academics.” The editorial pleads an agnostic “I don’t know” as to the why of the Pope’s insertion of the controversial words into the midst of its lecture. Had the editors been respectful enough to read the entire talk, they would have found some explanation. Perhaps the editors themselves are part of our modern problem, a very restricted notion of reason or “logos.” Or perhaps they are just part of our contemporary “lazy logos” of sound bytes.