WHEN POPE BENEDICT met with prominent Muslims in Berlin today, the Benedict of the Regensburg speech was absent. Instead, he spoke approvingly of the flowering of Islam in Europe: “The presence of Muslim families has increasingly become a distinguishing mark of this country.” The tendency of Muslims to take their faith seriously was “thought provocative,” he said, but no impediment to peaceful cooperation. He told the gathering of Muslim leaders:

Dear friends, on the basis of what I have outlined here, it seems to me that there can be fruitful collaboration between Christians and Muslims. In the process, we help to build a society that differs in many respects from what we brought with us from the past. As believers, setting out from our respective convictions, we can offer an important witness in many key areas of life in society. I am thinking, for example, of the protection of the family based on marriage, respect for life in every phase of its natural course or the promotion of greater social justice.

According to Reuters, Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, said after the meeting: “My impression was that the pope wants to launch a new era of dialogue with Muslims. He made it clear that what Christians and Muslims have in common is greater than what separates us.”

Here is Benedict’s speech in its entirety:

Dear Muslim Friends,

I am glad to be able to welcome you here, as the representatives of different Muslim communities in Germany. From my heart I thank Professor Mouhanad Khorchide for his kind greeting. His words show me what a climate of respect and trust has grown up between the Catholic Church and the Muslim communities in Germany.

Berlin is a good place for a meeting like this, not only because the oldest mosque on German territory is located here, but also because Berlin has the largest Muslim population of all the cities in Germany.

From the 1970s onwards, the presence of numerous Muslim families has increasingly become a distinguishing mark of this country. Constant effort is needed in order to foster better mutual acquaintance and understanding. Not only is this important for peaceful coexistence, but also for the contribution that each can make towards building up the common good in this society.

Many Muslims attribute great importance to the religious dimension of life. At times this is thought provocative in a society that tends to marginalize religion or at most to assign it a place among the individual’s personal choices.

The Catholic Church firmly advocates that due recognition be given to the public dimension of religious adherence. In an overwhelmingly pluralist society, this demand is not unimportant. Care must be taken to guarantee that others are always treated with respect. Mutual respect grows only on the basis of agreement on certain inalienable values that are proper to human nature, in particular the inviolable dignity of every single person. Such agreement does not limit the expression of individual religions; on the contrary, it allows each person to bear witness explicitly to what he believes, not avoiding comparison with others.

In Germany – as in many other countries, not only Western ones – this common frame of reference is articulated by the Constitution, whose juridical content is binding on every citizen, whether he belong to a faith community or not.

Naturally, discussion over the best formulation of principles like freedom of public worship is vast and open-ended, yet it is significant that the Basic Law expresses them in a way that is still valid today at a distance of over sixty years (cf. Art. 4:2). In this law we find above all the common ethos that lies at the heart of human coexistence and that also in a certain way pervades the apparently formal rules of operation of the institutions of democratic life.

We could ask ourselves how such a text – drawn up in a radically different historical epoch, that is to say in an almost uniformly Christian cultural situation – is also suited to present-day Germany, situated as it is within a globalized world and marked as it is by a remarkable degree of pluralism in the area of religious belief.

The reason for this seems to me to lie in the fact that the fathers of the Basic Law at that important moment were fully conscious of the need to find particularly solid ground with which all citizens would be able to identify. In seeking this, they did not prescind from their own religious beliefs; indeed for many of them, the real source of inspiration was the Christian vision of man. But they knew they had to engage with the followers of other religions and none: common ground was found in the recognition of some inalienable rights that are proper to human nature and precede every positive formulation.

In this way, an essentially homogeneous society laid the foundations that we today consider valid for a markedly pluralistic world, foundations that actually point out the evident limits of pluralism: it is inconceivable, in fact, that a society could survive in the long term without consensus on fundamental ethical values.

Dear friends, on the basis of what I have outlined here, it seems to me that there can be fruitful collaboration between Christians and Muslims. In the process, we help to build a society that differs in many respects from what we brought with us from the past. As believers, setting out from our respective convictions, we can offer an important witness in many key areas of life in society. I am thinking, for example, of the protection of the family based on marriage, respect for life in every phase of its natural course or the promotion of greater social justice.

This is another reason why I think it important to hold a day of reflection, dialogue and prayer for peace and justice in the world, as we plan to do on 27 October next, twenty-five years after the historic meeting in Assisi led by my predecessor, Blessed Pope John Paul II. Through this gathering, we wish to express, with simplicity, that we believers have a special contribution to make towards building a better world, while acknowledging that if our actions are to be effective, we need to grow in dialogue and mutual esteem.

With these sentiments I renew my sincere greetings and I thank you for this meeting, which has greatly enriched my visit to my homeland. Thank you for your attention!

— Comments —

A reader writes:

I don’t believe the Pope who delivered the Regensburg lecture is ever absent. The Pope really is a man of integrity — I believe. 

Have you read any of the Pope’s books or his homilies? (These commentaries can be very helpful.) The Pope uses simple language, to express multiple depths of meaning. A casual once-over will not reveal those depths. Further, the Pope does not explain himself completely, from the beginning to the end, in chronological order, or even in logical order. He gives you the salient points, only — the essence. 

In the Berlin speech that you cited, the Pope gives us the essence: “inalienable rights”. From that vantage point, look around, and you can see just about everything. 

Do Muslims want to have their own rules within Germany? Then the Pope says the initial query should be, are those rules based on — and consistent with — inalienable God-given individual rights. If yes, we may be able to have a dialogue — if not, then dialogue is impossible. The Pope has staked out a position that he will not retreat from, and that (he shows us) we should not retreat from. 

The Pope once suggested (paraphrasing) that if you are about to read the Bible, first take a leap of faith, trust in God, trust the truth of the Word, and then try to discern the meaning. Don’t try to figure out the meaning first in order to decide if you believe. Well, my starting point in trying to understand Benedict is that I have faith in him. Not the same kind of faith that I have in God, of course, but faith nonetheless seems to be the right word for what I mean. 

I will close by saying that I read your site every day and many of your writings are quite memorable and beautiful.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your kind words.

The pope has expressed many of the truths of the Church in clear and beautiful language, and yes, I have read a number of his writings. Also, I trust that Benedict is well-intentioned, that his words are motivated by fear of civil tensions in Europe.

You say,

[M]y starting point in trying to understand Benedict is that I have faith in him.

Then we are operating from the same starting point. When I looked for Benedict’s speech this morning, I had no preconceptions about what he might say. I had trust that he would say the right thing.

As you point out, Benedict did say that coexistence depends on adherence to the German Constitution. This was a very subtle and indirect reference to shariah. His point seems to be that shariah has no place in Germany, but he does not come right out and say that. His words on this hardly constitute the serious warning that Catholics in Germany need to hear (and his words are always in some sense directed to the faithful), but nevertheless they might be justified in the interests of diplomacy.

The real concern, however, is these words:

As believers, setting out from our respective convictions, we can offer an important witness in many key areas of life in society. I am thinking, for example, of the protection of the family based on marriage, respect for life in every phase of its natural course or the promotion of greater social justice.

The pope here obliterates any meaningful distinction between Christian marriage and Islamic marriage, between Christian social justice and Islamic social justice, between Christianity’s stance against abortion and Islam’s. Islam denies the divinity of Christ. It seeks the negation of Christian marriage, the negation of Christian social justice and the negation of Christianity’s anti-abortion stance. I understand the pope is saying that Europe is essentially post-Christian and in Muslims, we can find allies against secular humanism. But this is false. The Christian as Christian has nothing meaningful in common with the Muslim as Muslim. We should only seek to work together in emergencies, on relief efforts and the like. And certainly Muslims and Christians should peaceably interact in business and in their daily lives. We have much in common as human beings.

These are very difficult things for a pope to say in public, but it is better to remain silent if the truth can’t be spoken.  The pope is on a rare visit to Germany and there are many Catholics who would like to see him. There is only one reason to meet with Muslim leaders under these conditions, and that is to urge them, perhaps in private, to do something about the violent persecution of Christians that continues in various parts of the world and the desecration of Christian sites in Europe. Or better yet, he would urge them, as the Vicar of Christ, to convert immediately.

Torquemada writes:

What are you saying? If Europe is the Faith, and the Faith, Europe, what does this mean?? What is he trying to tell me? As zealous for the Faith that I am, do I become a heretic for suspecting even Benedict of crypto-Mohammedan inclinations? 

For flushing out crypto-Mohammedans I, Torquemada used to be called “”the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order.” I think I know how to spot one.

Laura writes:

I don’t understand how a pope could ever laugh or smile in the presence of a Muslim. That person’s salvation should weigh too heavily on his conscience for anything but stern-faced gravity. 

Buck O. writes:

I wrote this to friends some years ago, about Pope John Paul II. I dug it up when I read your entry. I was irritated and a little irreverent. Many of my Catholic friends just shake their heads. They don’t know what to say. Most of them are secular or cultural Catholics and are simply following a family tradition for their children, just like their parents did. It’s CCD and done.

[An excerpt]

Father Joe (no, he’s real), pastor of a Catholic Church in Mitchellville, Md, rationalizes the act of his weak Pope, who has assumed dhimmie status like most modern liberals have. I’m sure that Father Joe speaks for many of the churches overworked defenders. 

Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran …. he kissed it. (remember toilet Koran and Piss Koran, I mean, Piss Christ and the free speech/blasphemy debate? How’s that holding up?) It’s a display of his and the churches continuing submission to the power of Islam. A kiss is just a kiss…Spin it any way you want. The Pope is so weak and intimidated by Islam’s growing authority, that rather than simply show the Muslim people an appropriate and polite respect, he commits an arguable act of blasphemy against the God of his Bible. His Holiness’s bow and kiss in veneration of Islam’s only icon is idol worship – and worship of the Popes other god, the god of tolerance. 

The Koran (Allah) says, among other things, that Jesus Christ was not crucified. 

Excuse me, you’re the Pope! You’re not the titular head of the Catholic Church, you’re the Vicar of Christ ! For Christ’s sake! 

Kiss all the Muslims, kiss their babies, kiss their washed feet … but don’t kiss their authority – the direct word of their singular God who says that you are illegitimate and a fraud, that every member of your church is a dupe and all of Christendom is false – that the essential foundation of what you believe and preach is a lie! …

Give me a break…. 

Laura writes:

I would like to make one other point in response to the reader who began this discussion.

Given that popes of the past rejected the idea of “fruitful collaboration” on moral issues with Muslims, one has no choice but to reject the statements of a pope. You must either say the popes of the past were wrong or Benedict is.

John McNeill writes:

I do not intend on offending Catholics, but as a nationalist, I no longer recognize the Catholic Church as a legitimate Western institution. By welcoming the immigrant colonists, the Catholic Church
has now established itself as an enemy of indigenous Europeans. I encourage nationalist Catholics to secede or join another branch of Christianity that doesn’t open its arms out wide to Muslim Europe.

Laura writes:

You make no sense at all.

If not for the Catholic Church, Europe would have become Muslim long ago.

The fact that it warred against the spread of Islam in the past, on the firm basis of its promulgated teachings, means that the Church has the necessary foundation to resist it again. Every Catholic has abundant encouragement and support within the historic Church to abhor and resist the spread of Islam in Europe and North America. And there are Catholics today actively resisting the spread of this destructive ecumenism in the Church. For Catholics to leave the Church for this reason is to abandon the Church to progressivism, and Europe to Islam. Just two weeks ago, on the anniversary of 9-11, a priest I know delivered a sermon on the subject. He said that Catholics must not forget that 9-11 was an Islamic attack, and must always keep before their eyes that we are engaged in a dire confrontation with Islam. He said eloquently and with no apologies what no one else in authority was saying during the public commemorations.

Mr. McNeill writes:

What the Catholic Church did in the past is irrelevant today. Whatever gratitude we may owe the Church of the Middle Ages for keeping Islam out (and mind you, I think the Byzantine Empire and Orthodox Serbia played a greater role in that), that gratitude cannot justify continual support for an organization that is now led by a man who actively supports surrender. Leadership defines the nature of the institution, and being how Pope Benedict is considered to be of the “traditionalist” faction does not bode well for the Church as a whole.

I’m glad to hear you’ve met a priest with solid convictions, but a single priest alone will not steer the ship back on course. There needs to be a strong movement towards returning the Church to sanity, and thus far, it does not seem like there’s any such organized opposition to Pope Benedict’s recent behavior, other than some scattered voices of dissent. How much nonsense does one put up before realizing enough is enough? If Pope Benedict’s successor continues to celebrate Muslim immigration, will you still say that Catholics should remain loyal to the Church? What if attempts at reform go nowhere?

If my evangelical Church ever openly embraces immigration, I will leave it. Pure and simple. I cannot be a part of an institution that actively supports the destruction of my nation, even if I’m spiritual brethren with them.

Laura writes:

You talk as if the Catholic Church is a political party or an organization like the YMCA or the Lions Club.

Let me follow your logic to its inevitable implications.

If the most prominent Muslim leaders alive today were to proclaim as one that Islam is not at war with infidels and no longer embraces shariah, as its authoritative texts insist, then I assume that you would henceforth have not the slightest problem with the spread of Islam in Europe. After all, as you say, “leadership defines the nature of the institution.” In this light, it actually makes sense for Benedict to do what he has done, and try to work with Muslim leaders.

My hunch, however, is that you would insist that Islam is a body of beliefs and doctrines. That is all the more true in the Catholic Church which has a body of authoritative teachings in the form of the Magisterium that is higher in authority than any individual pope.

I recommend the Tradition in Action website for a view of the resistance and a critique of some of Benedict’s statements on Islam. Pope Benedict is not considered a traditionalist to traditionalists within the Church. You are very misinformed. And there is indeed organized resistance.You say, “There needs to be a strong movement towards returning the Church to sanity.” But what justification could there possibly be for a “strong movement” if some of the words and actions of two popes negate, as you argue, all the previous history and the beliefs of the Church?

 Michael S. writes:

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. That’s all that matters.

Mr. McNeill is pounding sand.

G. Martin writes:

Some speculations:

Continuing on from Regensburg, though itself was not directed explicitly to Islam, the Pope’s current emphasis again is on reason which is death to Islam. The Pope’s speech to the German Parliament was all about law and its genealogy in the West – he then immediately went to Muslims and spoke about German law. To me this is something like implanting a computer virus in a host network. Of course in this case we mean a good infection, using a different analogy – a kind of immunotherapy targeting orthodox Islam in the Muslim. I wonder if Christ’s Vicar isn’t being surgical given that at present much more might mean death to his flock in the Middle East. He knows Islam is very weak, he knows that a reasonably strong West would utterly overwhelm Islam as a practical issue.

A serious faith, a vital faith, is one that battles with doubt. Otherwise the believer sinks into complacency and his faith becomes a convenience. Doubt is a good thing. For doubt is the engine of inquiry, the motor of Athens. Jerusalem needs Athens to keep her honest, to chasten her excesses, to round her out, to humanize her. There is not much Athens in the Muslim world, which helps explains why Islam breeds fanaticism, murder, and anti-Enlightenment. — The Maverick Philosopher

Laura writes:

The pope’s pronouncements are always and everywhere directed to the faithful, even if he is addressing an audience of non-Catholics. The subtleties you point out are subsumed under his overriding message to Catholics here, which is that Islam and the Church have so much in common they should work together with Muslims (not simply live peaceably alongside them) “to build a society that differs in many respects from what we brought with us from the past.” Not only does this message affirm the Muslim in his beliefs (as opposed to his humanity), it  blurs the all-important distinctions for the ordinary Catholic.

Please follow and like us: