But is he trying to do- start a dialogue, or provoke a fight?

Here is why the Pope would say what he said and why he should be expected to say it:

Still if those paragraphs had been spoken by, say, President Bush (hard as it is to imagine him reading fourteenth-century theological dialogues!) I’d say: this was impolitic and stupid and ought to be apologized for; the world can’t afford for the leaders of western states to venture anywhere near the line of criticizing Mohammed, linking Islam’s religious content (as opposed to the political manifestations of Islamism) with violence, or characterizing Islam as such as evil. No “Operation Infinite Justice,” no offhand references to crusades, no “evil and inhuman,” no “our god is bigger than their god” talk--none of it. Western political leaders now have an obligation born of prudence to go far, far beyond what’s required as a matter of civility.

But, surely, the same is not true of a religious leader.

I don’t expect Catholics to take their theology less seriously than Muslims do; I certainly don’t expect the Pope to take his theology anything less than wholly seriously. And what is a Catholic, committed to the truth of Catholicism, to think of Mohammed’s additions to and transformations of the Christian bible? What is a theologically serious Catholic to think about “what Mohammed brought that was new”? At a minimum he or she will think it false--and, because false, evil in distracting religious believers from an all-important truth. And, since Mohammed’s additions were not limited to a different understanding of Jesus and Mary but also included different understandings of conduct on earth, of government and laws and codes of behavior, the theologically-serious believing Catholic can be expected to think that the additions are morally bad for persons on earth, independent of the falsehood of the claims about God. And, since Christians (and Jews) are theologically committed to seeing Mohammed as a false prophet, they’re hardly likely to feel themselves obliged to offer him the same respect and reverence as those for whom Mohammed’s status as a prophet is central to their declaration of faith do.

LJ:  Reread your article.  It says:

For over a decade now, he has been one of the primary defenders of priests who go to the poorest, most vulnerable people in the world and tell them condoms are the cause of AIDS.

Moreover, how does the writer impute 2 priest’s actions to Ratzinger?  Is there a memo from Ratzinger as Pope saying go preach that AIDS is caused by condoms?  No.  Is there anything other than a second-hand account about 2 priests? No.

So, when it’s the Pope, guilty until proven innocent.  Sweet double standard.

As to the 2 priests, they should be tossed in jail.

Yes, Consi - it does say 10 years and, no, he wasn’t head honcho then - but so what.
Are you suggesting he had no power?
I reckon he had more power than JP2 for a long time, especially since JP started to become a little embarrassing.

Consi: Is there a memo from Ratzinger as Pope saying go preach that AIDS is caused by condoms?

If you hadda left this bit out I woulda said, yeah okay, he’s infallible. 
The problem with the memo business is that many, even very many, acts have been carried out in government and non-government institutions, without a memo.
I shouldn’t need to add, but I will, if you believe all acts are carried out with memo approval or direction, you aren’t living in the real world.
It has happened to me (and why would I think anything has changed).
Back in 1970, whilst on holiday in Vietnam, my Corporal and Squadron Sgt-Maj, ordered me to follow them into the swamp to find a sniper who’d been shooting up the camp.
I mentioned this as part of my application to the Oz govt for an additional pension benefit.
The Government is saying there is no Memo directing us to do so and even worse, there is no fucking Report on record of us having done so. 
You coulda sucked me in if you’d not mentioned the Memo.
Next you’ll be suggesting the scapegoats in the Abu Ghraib debacle did that sorta shit without approval from the top.
That was a joke. No general was fired. 
Which of your presidents said: The buck stops here?
Leaders are always responsible for actions of their minions … always.
Having said all that - you can not dispute that the use of condoms is not approved, under any circumstances, by the Holy Roman Catholic Church which I hope you think is silly (read: fucking pathologically irresponsible) especially in Africa where AIDS is a bit rampant.
If that’s changed, please tell me. 

Oh, just an addition - do I hate catholics?
No. My best mate and favourite woman are both catholics.
I love them both - differently, of course.  .

Yes, Consi - it does say 10 years and, no, he wasn’t head honcho then - but so what.

The article attempts to smear Ratzinger by placing the blame on him for not sacking a particular Cardinal.  This sin of inaction is predicated upon Ratzinger being in the position to “sack” the particular Cardinal.  I pointed out Ratzinger has not been Pope for that long.

When I read the full article, it was as I thought, fueled by prejudice towards the papacy.  It smears Ratzinger as “the primary defender” of these specific priests.  Yet, nowhere does it ever link Ratzinger with either priest’s activities or a defense by Ratzinger of their reported actions. It’s an attempt to demonize the Church’s position, via a cheap attack on Ratzinger that lacks the facts to substantiate such an attack.

Your issues are with the Australian government and whether you were engaged in “operational service” or not.  That is so completely unrelated to the Pope that I have not the slightest notion why you included it or some crazy reference to U.S. generals and Abu Ghraib. Reads like a man rambling.

It is possible that I’m being overly harsh to you LJ, when you are disadvantaged.  It could be that you are receiving a disability pension for mental infirmities.  Are you a few bricks short of a full load?  The light is on, but nodoy is home, right?  The elevator just doen’t go all the way to the top does it? You’re a couplet short of a sonnet aren’t ya pard?  A few banannas short of a bunch?  Just plain not the sharpest tool in the shed?  A dim bulb?  A few screws short? You aren’t playing with a full deck? Only one oar in the water? Not the brightest crayon in the box? A few sandwiches short of a picnic? Chimney’s clogged? Half a bubble off plumb? Not all the chairs are seated at the table?  Not the quickest bunny in the forest? The hard drive is spinning but the OS hasn’t been properly installed? Haven’t seen the ball since kickoff?

Tell us which it is LJ?

It is possible that I’m being overly harsh to you LJ, when you are disadvantaged.  It could be that you are receiving a disability pension for mental infirmities. [follows a long series of insults]

Tell us which it is LJ?

Unworthy, Consi, and unnecessary and counterproductive.  LJ made a pretty good comparison about official denial being a part of large institutions, whereupon you attempted to draw a literal connection.  Institutions often fold their hands, look innocently into the camera, smile and say; “No we didn’t.” Of course that is not proof that they did but that is the maddening thing about it.

As an aside, I would very much like to see the Catholic church stop lying about condoms.  It would save a lot of lives and suffering but the church seems to dig suffering.

LJ made a pretty good comparison about official denial being a part of large institutions,

Yeah, like this:  An apple is red and has seeds.  A corvette I once saw was red.  Therefore corvette’s must also have seeds. 

I’m no fan of the church’s policy on condoms, and would side with you on that.  Would even participate in the discussion.  But introduce it as part of a join me in hating the pope campaign that wasn’t part of this discussion here?  Engage in villification of the pope for something he didn’t do? Bullshit.  References to an Iraqi prison relate back to the Vatican?  Get real or get medicine.

Make references to personal stories that have absolutely no relevancy to a topic at hand here, well, I’ll call it out and amuse myself in the process.  Want to have an intelligent discussion that warrants something more, I’m game to.  A poster takes cheap shots, I’ll return them with cheap shots at the poster.

Consi: It is possible that I’m being overly harsh to you LJ, when you are disadvantaged.  It could be that you are receiving a disability pension for mental infirmities.  Are you a few bricks short of a full load?  The light is on, but nodoy is home, right?  The elevator just doen’t go all the way to the top does it? You’re a couplet short of a sonnet aren’t ya pard?  A few banannas short of a bunch?  Just plain not the sharpest tool in the shed?  A dim bulb?  A few screws short? You aren’t playing with a full deck? Only one oar in the water? Not the brightest crayon in the box? A few sandwiches short of a picnic? Chimney’s clogged? Half a bubble off plumb? Not all the chairs are seated at the table?  Not the quickest bunny in the forest? The hard drive is spinning but the OS hasn’t been properly installed? Haven’t seen the ball since kickoff?

I know it’s really none of my business, but I’d like to second DOF’s opinion that it does not in any way help your case to get downright nasty, Consi. You seem to be using this tactic increasingly in your arguments here. In the past you’ve made some good points (even though I usually disagree with them) and done so civilly (unlike, say, Daryl Cantrell).

I’d just like to add (for whatever it’s worth) that, despite my intense personal aversion to Ratzinger, I actually agree with much of his speech. If I understood it correctly, he was pointing out that the violence inherent in Islam today is quite obviously counterproductive to world peace. The problem is that Islam, unlike Christianity, has not undergone the effects of the Enlightenment, and the Pope opined that this is something that needs to happen (which I would also agree with). I do see some irony in the head of the Catholic Church calling for an end to violence, yet I cannot ultimately disagree with the meat of his speech.

Whether or not he had some darker intent involved in delivering the speech is beyond my knowledge and, frankly, concern.

Consi: It is possible that I’m being overly harsh to you LJ, when you are disadvantaged.

All those ‘a few bales short of a full load’ things were very amusing ... and water of a duck’s back, mate.
I thought of saying that to someone here once.
Got half way through it and realised I was being rather childish. 
You brought up the memo business and I responded with a personal story which was relevant to the point. You chose to dismiss the whole memo reference once you realised how silly it was.
The one about apples and corvettes was far from what I suggested but still amusing.
What I said about memos was -

Me: I shouldn’t need to add, but I will, if you believe all acts are carried out with memo approval or direction, you aren’t living in the real world.

As soon as I noticed you left that alone and went skirting round the sides looking for apples and corvettes I realised what I was dealing with.

Consi: That is so completely unrelated to the Pope that I have not the slightest notion why you included it or some crazy reference to U.S. generals and Abu Ghraib.

Again, I was answering your throw away reference to memos.

I’m no fan of the church’s policy on condoms, and would side with you on that.

And that, dear Consi, is what was at the base of my comments -

Having said all that - you can not dispute that the use of condoms is not approved, under any circumstances, by the Holy Roman Catholic Church which I hope you think is silly (read: fucking pathologically irresponsible) especially in Africa where AIDS is a bit rampant.
If that’s changed, please tell me.

You obtusely preferred to miss what I was saying and I’m not surprised. You will defend the Holy Roman Catholic Church against anyone who attacks her (it’s not a him, is it?)
You’re a tightly and very well programmed catholic with blinkers - a bit of tautology, methinks – but I forgive you.
And yes, I am a bit of a loose cannon and some of my wires have become disconnected but that’s to be expected after so many years of substance abuse.
Notice I didn’t have to resort to too much childishness and ad hominem?
That’s cos I still luv ya.

Consi- when a number of widely spread members of the same organisation tell the same lies, then the suspicion has to be if not sactioned, at least the ‘CEO and Board are turning a blind eye’. No one in the Metropolitan Police ever said to recruits (at least officially) ‘Don’t worry about crimes against blacks, and treat all foriegners as criminals’ the force was still found to be Instiutionally Racist- i.e. did not proactively stop such ‘nod and wink’ messages being passed on.  The difference with the catholic church is we know that the head is anti-condom, so is even more likely to turn a blind eye (rather than just not do enough to stop such lies).

Talking of lies…

Perhaps the best way to stop suicide bombers would be to make it widely known that 72 Virgins is a mis-translation/typo.  It should probably read 72 RAISINS (misplaced ‘squiggle’ 100’s of years ago!).

Alternatively drop thousands of leaflets with pictures of Right wing UK MP Anne Widdecombe pointing out she is famously a virgin…

Consi, I’ve had a coupla hours to allow your amusing little tirade to seep through my few remaining, but still-connected, synapses.
Thanks DoF and Sadie for your support.
I, too, think Consi’s changed a little - I wonder What happened to him whilst he was on sabbatical.
I can only hope it was a productive time rather than a destructive personal tragedy.
Somehow he got fired up – he used to be so much more analytical but with the above he left far too many obvious holes unattended.

Another story of ‘memos’, or the lack of them, comes to mind, although it was in the movie: A Few Good Men - a coupla guys were advised to beat up another with No Memo to fall back on.

I could be wrong but, did Nixon send any written (are there other types?) memos to his minions to play the Watergate game?

Me: The problem with the memo business is that many, even very many, acts have been carried out in government and non-government institutions, without a memo.
I shouldn’t need to add, but I will, if you believe all acts are carried out with memo approval or direction, you aren’t living in the real world.

Are you living in the real world, Consi?
You failed to comment on that one. 

Consi: The light is on, but nodoy is home, right?

It’s Noddy. Get it right!
Next you’ll be suggesting your bo was affected. 

Therefore corvette’s [sic] must also have seeds.

What?  Ratzinger sn’t [sic] even been Pope for 10 years.

Mate, you don’t usually make so many mistakes.
I didn’t really manage to get under your skin, surely. 

As for ...

As to the 2 priests, they should be tossed in jail.

This more than adequately proves my point.
Fuck the minions; don’t sully the masters.
Are we still having fun? 

It takes a while for the rain of discussion to filter down to an aquifer of clarity, but it came to me while I was at the gym yesterday doing cardio and switching among several channels of nothing on the televisions. 

The main criticism of any Catholic official who decries conversion by the sword (or any related conflict) is that at one time, that was Catholicism’s main strategy.  How hypocritical!  Just look at the Crusades!  The Inquisition!

I did many foolish, destructive and even morally wrong things in my youth, too.  I am not obliged to justify those things today, or excuse them or be consistent with them.  Indeed the opposite: I am obliged to repudiate the things I did wrong, and sometimes even to oppose them among young people with whom I interact. 

More hypocritical would be to bury hard-won lessons.  It is up to others to hear or ignore the message.  Or even to react violently to it; that is on them.

Foolish consistency really is the hobgoblin of little minds.  Who can speak with more authority on liquor: the drunkard or the one who has finally set aside the bottle?  Only the latter knows the full strength of temptation.

The Catholic church today is responsible for a great deal of human suffering.  If they figure it out - sooner the better - should they keep silent because of guilt or speak because of experience?  One is not disqualified in the present from speaking about one’s own wrongs in the past.  Nor must one become perfect before addressing any evil.

Perhaps the best way to stop suicide bombers would be to make it widely known that 72 Virgins is a mis-translation/typo.  It should probably read 72 RAISINS (misplaced ‘squiggle’ 100’s of years ago!).

Here’s what causes people to become suicide bombers blowing up civilians.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/35815/
Religion is just one part.

In fact all muslims don’t even make suicide bombers, extreme right wing site (just check ads), StrategyPage, had some months ago short article about fact that in Afghanistan there’s very little local suicide bombers… because local tribal definitions of honourable death doesn’t cover dying when blowing bomb but more like in fight against enemy warrior.

As to Topic:
If anyone would have said same things from Catholic church 500 years ago he would have been burned alive… or more propably tortured to death because burning alive would have been too fast death.

In the British Media muslims seem to portray themselves as victims of anti muslim feeling- the attack against Iraq happened because it was a Muslim country. They seem to define themselves as Muslim.  This then means anything said against them as a person is perceived to anti muslim.

Have fun with this one, Les.

He shows up every once in a while, whenever the straps aren’t tight enough.

Yep. Gives me another IP range to ban.

zilch: But [what] is he trying to do- start a dialogue, or provoke a fight?

Consi: This line of thinking is borne out of a prejudice against the Pope.

Consi, I don’t know the Pope personally.  I do know his girlfriend’s viola da gamba teacher (but I’m not here to spread rumors, my lips are sealed), and my co-worker here knew him when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.  And I’m not prejudiced against Catholics in general- after all, the lovely mother of my kids is Catholic.  And I like mackeral too- especially saba.  Mmmm… saba.

Not only that, but it could reasonably argued that, as an atheist, I have no business commenting on matters of faith.  The article you cited intimated as much, saying that the Pope as a religious leader has a responsibility to his flock, and only if he were a political leader could his speech be reasonably construed as impolitic.

This would all be well and good, if everyone were nice and minded their own business.  But unfortunately, not everyone is nice; and it’s disingenuous in the extreme to regard the Pope as just a religious leader, whose statements have no political and social repercussions.  The Pope, willy-nilly, is also a political figure, and has a wider responsibility to the world than merely trying to spread current Catholic dogma.

Of course, no one can force him to assume that responsibility.  In fact, I believe that not assuming responsibility is one of the chief problems of humankind, at many levels.  But if the Pope doesn’t accept the responsibility, I can sure as hell be critical, even if I’m not a Catholic or a Christian or a theist at all- I live on the same planet he does, and what he says affects me.  That has nothing to do with prejudice, any more than my being critical of the Pope’s stance on condoms does.

But perhaps the Ratzinger simply didn’t realize what the reaction to his comments would be.  He does seem to be more of a theologian than a diplomat.  I’ll tell one story about him (not the other one), and you decide whether it’s relevant or not.  About twelve years ago, my current co-worker Lena was a student in a cloister.  On day, they had an important guest- Cardinal Ratzinger.  Lena was nervous, because she had to serve him at the table.  But all went well, and at the end the good Cardinal said to Lena: “Du bist ein braves Mädchen.  Kauf’ dir ein Eis” ("You are a good girl.  Buy yourself an ice cream").  And he gave her a coin- ten cents.  This probably would have bought Ratzinger an ice cream in his youth, but was not enough for a tenth of an ice cream cone for Lena.  Her comment on Ratzinger after telling me the story was “Nett, aber weltfremd” ("Nice, but unworldly” [as in “inexperienced-in-the-ways-of-the-world"- another great German word with no good English equivalent]).

But Ratzinger is obviously not stupid- I’ve heard him speak.  And he’s had time to learn something about the world now.  So I’ll stick with my criticism.

zilch:

Just saw this.  I don’t think your mind will change, but what you propose is that the Pope puts politics above theology, something you are critical of the religious right for engaging in here in the US. Furthermore, the Pope is hardly carries the political weight that many attribute to him. 

As a further update on Islamic intimidation here is one:

French anti-terrorism authorities Friday opened an inquiry into death threats against a philosophy teacher who has been forced into hiding over a newspaper column attacking Islam, legal officials said.

Robert Redeker, 52, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a “book of extraordinary violence” and Islam as “a religion which… exalts violence and hate”.

He told i-TV television he had received several e-mail threats targeting himself and his wife and three children, and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist Internet sites.

“There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: ‘This pig must have his head cut off’,” he said.

What exactly is one to say to our Muslim brothers that would express concern about this yet is not cloaked in double-speak?  zilch, I appoint you the ghost writer for the Pope.  What do you have him say?

Consi: I didn’t say that the Pope should put politics above theology.  Perhaps “politics” is the wrong word anyway.  What I meant is that he should consider the likely reaction, given his influence, to what he says. 

As to what the Pope should say to our Muslim brothers, that’s a hard one.  Perhaps he could have offered to meet with Muslim leaders.  I don’t know if that would help, however.  It’s hard to imagine any way out of this mess now.  My only hope is to educate the girls- build schools.  And stop supporting corrupt leaders.  But who isn’t corrupt?

zilch:

I can agree with think before you speak.  That is a tough thing to do though without compromising one’s own integrity and being guilty of conspiracy via silence or being accused of such. Seems to me like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t for the Pope.

But who isn’t corrupt?

Good question with too few answers.

If the Pope can’t think of what to say to the Muslims, he might at least address this.

Separate thread issue.

zilch, if someone with your intellectual firepower can’t think of what should be said, you must really think the Pope is bright to find answers where you have failed to. Or you just hold him to an entirely different standard altogether.

Consi, since I’m an atheist, it’s not really my job to think of stuff for the Pope to say.  However, a nice start would be to tell all Catholics that it’s all right to use condoms.  He is in a position to save many lives by simply making that statement, and I’m willing to bet a large sum of money that God wouldn’t even get mad at him if he did.

zilch:

Nice bait and switch.