(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

I've just been reading the Pope's notorious Regensburg address , and have come to the conclusion that this is a lesson to us all that chucking in a controversial quote at the start of an academic paper is not always the best policy, even if it does stop people from falling asleep. Actually, the thrust of the speech isn't about Islam at all, but about how one regards the synthesis of Hellenistic and Jewish ideas. While Benedict's ideas about Islam, as they are presented in the speech, are oversimplified, the whole affair seems to have been blown out of all proportion, and makes one wonder if people bother to read things in context any more.

But what's really been baffling me is the suggestion that the Pope was being offensive to Jews by quoting - in a subsequent statement - Paul's statement that 'the Cross is a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks'. It finally dawned on me, after reading Mariana Hyde in the Grauniad, that it's possible that it was taken as an endorsement of the idea that the Jews - all Jews - are personally responsible for the death of Christ (to which the Christian would say, not any more than anyone else is). She writes of the Pope bringing up that business of the Jews killing his Lord - except, of course, that's not what the phrase 'scandal to the Jews' means at all. It could be paraphrased as "The Jews think that the idea that Jesus, executed like a common criminal, is God, is offensive and blasphemous, and the Greeks think we're nuts to believe something that far-fetched."

So - unlike the first instance - this one really is a mare's nest. Or am I missing something?

ETA On second thoughts, the first one's a mare's nest, too. Although I think it would have been better if Benedict had found some other quotation, none of this would have happened if journalists could be bothered to read things properly - or if there weren't people out there who like nothing better than an excuse to take offence. And it's disgraceful that the media is encouraging them. There are lots of subjects on which I disagree with the Pope and the Roman Catholic church in general, but I'm really getting fed up with this. If I were Catholic, I suppose I'd probably be writing irate letters in green ink by now...

Comments

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

makes one wonder if people bother to read things in context any more.

No. I read through the opening of the address (haven't had time to give it the attention it requires), and the overreactions aren't dealing with what he was really talking about at all.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

Goodness me, you don't expect people to read things in context, do you? Get back in your ivory tower!

[carlanime.livejournal.com]

Context? I don't think most people even know what it is, let alone how to take it into consideration before deciding to be offended. ::sigh::

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, the speech actually has very little to do with Islam... but apparently the journalists decided to ignore that, possibly because they find theology too boring (or too difficult?)

[tree_and_leaf]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...

*returns to thirteenth century mysticism*

[tree_and_leaf]

It's really rather depressing. And though I normally enjoy reading the Guardian, the fact that they're currently giving great prominence to an article headed 'How dangerous is Benedict?' (answer, apparently, extrememly) makes me want to thwap them about the head with something while yelling 'At least read the whole bloody thing before you start the witch hunt!'

[aervir.livejournal.com]

While I think that including that particular quote by the Byzantine-Emperor-whose-name-I-keep-forgetting-despite-all-efforts-to-the-contrary may have been insensitive and short-sighted (every single one of his statements as Pope Benedict carries a wholly different weight than a statement by Joseph Ratzinger the academic theologian), nothing whatsoever justifies the violent consequences of its misinterpretation.

And WORD (or should I say 'amen') to your comments on the Guardian article?

As I'm a Catholic in name only, I'm not writing any letters in green ink right now, but as a hopefully enlightend person, I'm mourning the apparent loss of people's ability to use their reason. Argh.

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh, I agree, he shouldn't have used it, though I think refering to it as 'brusque' was an inept attempt to distance himself from the anti-Muhammed aspect, and I suspect you're right and the problem results from not realising that Benedict can't say things that Ratzinger could get away with. But I can't imagine why certain sections of the British press seem to think that it's evidence of an Evil Catholic Plot against (a) Islam and (b) Liberal Values, rather than someone with not much experience of being in the public eye (he has, after all, spent most of his life either in a theology department or in the depths of the Vatican, and is supposed to be fairly shy) putting his foot in his mouth. And if I know anything about academics, he probably wrote it at 4 AM, anyway ;)

Amen is quite appropriate, I think - and it basically means the same thing...

[aervir.livejournal.com]

But I can't imagine why certain sections of the British press seem to think that it's evidence of an Evil Catholic Plot against (a) Islam and (b) Liberal Values...

Because it's what we sinister Papists do all the time! Maybe the Guardian author read too much Gothic novels where Evil Plotting Catholic villains abound?

Why are there no sinister Anglican plots?

[tree_and_leaf]

That sounds brilliant fun, it would almost be worth converting for!

Yes, I suspected something like that when someone gratuitously pointed out that the Pope's press secretary is a Jesuit. Who, as everyone knows, have nothing else to do with their time other than plotting to overthrow Protestant government. Unless they're trying to kidnap innocent girls and force them to become nuns.

Because you Anglicans are far too nice and boring!

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Come to the Dark Side, we've got scheming conspirators.

Yes, I suspected something like that when someone gratuitously pointed out that the Pope's press secretary is a Jesuit.

*facepalm*

I'm sure that the members of the Societas Jesu order, like all organisations, have done their fair share of questionable things over the course of the last five centuries (and I'm not counting abducting prospective novices), but that's just ridiculous. I bet he's rubbing his hands and cackling evilly right now!

Anglican Plots

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I suspect there aren't any Anglican plots because no-one can get enough of us to agree about anything for long enough to get a decent conspiracy going.

What would we plot though?
Anti-naffness, pro-tastefulness?
Pro Disagreeing very politely (whilst secretly stabbing in the back)
A plot against the coffee importers so that tea can once again reign supreme?
A plot against the consumption of any alcohol except sherry, GIN, and on special occasions (and at Pusey, of course) champagne?

Re: Anglican Plots

[tree_and_leaf]

You can take my life, but you'll never take my whisky.

You may well be right, or perhaps plotting against the high/ low/ charismatic/ evangelical (delete as applicable) takes up too much time.

Then there are presbyterians, who don't plot because schisms and mutually assured excommunication is so much more fun...

Re: Anglican Plots

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was the other possibility I considered - too busy plotting against each other to manage world domination.

I think the reason Roman Catholics are more likely to be plotters (at least in the English mind) is that they are nasty foreigners and follow another nasty foreigner. That's before we start on the equivocating Jesuits (have you read Antonia Fraser's book on the Gunpowder Plot? That's quite interesting about ideas about Catholic plots).

Re: Because you Anglicans are far too nice and boring!

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh, I'm sure they have. Quite apart from the fact that I have running joke with my Jesuit friend about his training to subvert the British state...

The irony, of course, is that the Papacy hasn't always trusted the SJ, because of the feeling that they were too modern, too independent, and Too Bloody Clever By Half. And in South America they - more or less - took the side of the indigenous people against the Spanish colonists (at a time before it had occured to most people to question colonialism), for which I will forgive them much.

Re: Because you Anglicans are far too nice and boring!

[aervir.livejournal.com]

See, see! Not even the Pope trusted them. They must be scheming behind his back now. Probably the Jesuits are the eminence grease in the Vatican.

Catholic Ninjas

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes! It's all the fault of that evil Jesuit press secretary trying to bring down the Pope AND western civilisation AND Islam!

It's all so clear, now...

Re: Anglican Plots

[tree_and_leaf]

I haven't, no... but I suspect you may be right.

Re: Catholic Ninjas

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously.

And he's hiding a nunchaku under his monk's habit. A blessed weapon sprinkled with holy water, to use for his nefarious purposes.

(BTW, finding an e-mail comment notification with the subject line "Catholic Ninjas" in my inbox probably made my day.)

Be afraid, be very afraid...

[tree_and_leaf]

There are very few situations that can't be improved by the addition of the phrase ' Catholic ninjas'...

And he's hiding a nunchaku under his monk's habit. A blessed weapon sprinkled with holy water, to use for his nefarious purposes.

Unfortunately, Jesuits don't wear habits... because they're Plainclothes Ninjas, and could be anywhere. ANYWHERE, I tell you!

He probably has a big black coat for the purpose of concealing the nunchaku, though.

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Wooops. I should have remembered that Jesuits are always plain-clothed. My clerical trivia knowledge seems to have become a bit rusty.

But a coat will do the trick, too.

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh, I only know that because I used to share a flat with a Jesuit (I mean, someone who's subsequently become one)

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Are you in on their Catholic gunpowder plots then?

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[tree_and_leaf]

Not in any detail, obviously, or they'd have to kill me or force me to become a nun. After all, I'm a schismatic and therefor untrustworthy be definition.

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Quite so. I must have forgotten about the Anglo in Anglo-Catholic.

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[tree_and_leaf]

I'm shocked, shocked...

I'd be a lousy Catholic, really.

Re: Anglican Plots

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I think it is time that someone wrote a 500 page thriller about sinister Anglican plots. It starts perhaps, with scheming in install the ‘correct’ Archbishop of Canterbury, and ends with the Wrath of God striking York Minster.

Of course, arguably the modern established Church of England is the result of sinister plots to overthrow monarchs and seize land and property from its rightful owners...

Re: Be afraid, be very afraid...

[aervir.livejournal.com]

You'd be nice and sane. Most of the devout Catholics among my circle of friends and acquaintances are a bit ... hard-core, for lack of a better word.

Re: Anglican Plots

[tree_and_leaf]

That would be great, wouldn't it?

Of course, arguably the modern established Church of England is the result of sinister plots to overthrow monarchs and seize land and property from its rightful owners...

So where did it all go wrong?

Re: Anglican Plots

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

So where did it all go wrong?

Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828?

Re: Anglican Plots

[tree_and_leaf]

Maybe the problem sprang from being an established church, and relying on legislation instead of proper conspiracies?


... anyway, I think things could only be improved by some Anglican Ninjas. The trouble with Dr Williams, as far as I can see, is that he hasn't got the killer instinct...