Pope or Politician?

Even though I slept through most of my political philosophy class last semester (it was a 9 a.m. class-what would you expect?), I do recall being awake for the lecture on Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" In the essay, Kant encourages people to use public reason-stating their opinions as citizens as a means of effecting change-but prohibits the voicing of personal views while holding public office, as doing so may lead to dissent and social disorder.

This essay, written during the Enlightenment, sheds light on the recent scandal regarding statements about Islam that Pope Benedict XVI made in a speech given at the University of Regensburg. Though the Pope maintains that quoting 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus-who stated that Mohammed brought "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached"-was meant as a renunciation of violence in the name of all religion, he is having a hard time rationalizing his words to the world given that the brutality of other religions was never referenced. Did the Pope forget about the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? If he truly wanted to renounce violence in all religions and not voice an opinion about Islam, why not account for these and other instances of blood that was shed by his own followers in the name of the Christian faith?

As much as I agree with the Muslims who were offended by the ignorance of the Pope's speech, I am not going to waste words criticizing what the Pope said or suggesting what he should have said instead. Nor am I going to take the moral stance by stating how he cannot fulfill his public duty of helping to build peaceful relations among nations when he privately portrays Muslims as murderers. As far as I'm concerned, I would care just the same if the Pope voiced his views on the integrity of the owners of Tasti D-lite ("You liars-I knew it was too good to be true!"). The point is not what the Pope's personal intolerances are, but rather, that he has voiced them in a public arena while holding the position of pontiff. As Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said, "The Pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion."

While I applaud freedom of speech and expression, like Kant, I realize that placing a little duct tape over a public official's mouth is often necessary for safety's sake. When the Ann Coulter-loving Columbia conservatives who lounge in Lerner say that anyone wearing a turban most likely has an explosive device strapped around his or her body, it is very unlikely that someone will physically retaliate against their offensive remarks. When the Pope expresses a similar opinion in public, however, three churches in the West Bank city of Nablus are fire-bombed by a guerrilla group called the Lions of Monotheism, an Italian nun is killed in Somalia, effigies of the Pope are burned, and protests are organized by Muslims across the globe. When the pontiff speaks, he isn't just representing himself, but he is also acting as a mouthpiece for the Vatican as well as the 1.1 billion people around the world who practice Catholicism.

And what has the Pope done to alleviate the situation? Instead of withdrawing his remark or apologizing for the uproar he has caused, the Pope has stated that he is "very upset" that his speech offended Muslims, but has not expressed regret for the content of his speech. As Turkish State Minister Mehmet Aydin stated, "You either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not at all." Not only has the Pope not regretted or revoked a remark which severely distorts Islamic philosophy and history, but he also now claims that the passage was said in "respect with the Muslim faith" and "does not express in any way my personal thoughts."

So your ignorant remarks really do express the thoughts of the 1.1 billion Roman Catholics around the world? Thanks, Father.