Which Road will the Pope Take?

Re: 46
yeah exactly: what a shame. So, who is going to Hell exactly, You or Pope and pope-worshippers?. Or you still want to dodge this inter-faith issue?

mishra: I`d like to know the amusement you recieved from my messages. The issue should always included all the faiths. But people here find it hard to stick to a topic, and you did exactly the same. I said earlier that I was talking about the pope in the ``general context``. I was talking specifically about him and him alone. I would have liked more debate on the original issues (Turkey, Muslim immigration to Europe, his criticism of multi-culturalism in Europe etc.).

Sadly, all those topics have been sidelined by senesless discussion about how the Muslim leaders should act and how Islamic leaders should initiate dialogue etc etc. Only a few hve actually talked about these points. It always ends up being an Indo-Pak, Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Hindu debate, and it doesn`t need to be that way. What a shame.

A.Khan

Amusing set of messages, including some from the author. It now appears that the issue is christian-muslim relations (why call it ``inter-faith`` relations then???) and that somehow the pope owes the muslims something. Why is that I wonder? Why doesnt the religous leadership of islam owe the Christians some ``inter-faith`` relations? Is it a good thing to have islam claim that it ``supercedes`` christianity? Is this a sustainable position in 2005?

It reminds me of the time that I took a ride with a pakistani taxi driver in NYC ten years ago. As I speak hindu/urdu we were in no time discussing peace/amity etc. Somehow the conversation turned to Salman Rushdie, and, of course, there was no doubt in his mind that he should be killed. He saw no contradiction between his claims of peace/amity and the attitude that a muslim ``apostate`` should be murdered. He would have been astonished to be described as an extremist in any way. Something similar is going on in this discussion.

bbabu: This article was never an attack on anyone, it was just an account of sorts of what he has said in the the past and how he might act. There were no flying allegations or anything of that sorts.

Also, anyone can comment on anyone else irrespective of where he/she is from. Too bad you think otherwise. Every article on this website does not need to be about Islamic extremism etc etc. If you think so, then you are one of the few religious bigots hangin around on this website. In any case, I will stop discussing this matter with you because this discussion is going nowhere.

A. Khan

Re# 39

``i think its fair to leave the indian, chinese, japanese, koreans out of the interfaith dialog since they dont have conflicts based on religion amongs nation-states. i would looove to see an interfaith dialog prime-time among

pope and the grand mufti of al-azar
falwell and fazlu
pipes and al-zawahiri

they should start with the first sin, and go to more interesting topics like the role of jews. ``


Nope, they should start with who-is-going-to-burn-eternally-in-Hell issue and that will be the end of the ``Inter-faith Dialogue``.

akpower #38

`` Ozer: I agree Turkey is a multi-faceted country. Its inclusion or the lack of it should be based on what it can bring to the table as far as the EU is concerned. Religion should not form the basis of any decision.

Also, every dialogue of such nature should be free of any suspicions/mistrust. I understand that there is a fair amount of history between most of the faiths in the world, but unless we go with a clear mind and an honest intention, any sort of a forward stride is out of question. ``

EU is more than a free trading treaty. It allows for a common currency, common legal code for business, immigration etc. It is hard to allow for such an agreement with a country where some people think honor killings are alright !!! Some conservative Kurds have such practises. Turkey has evolved a lot. I have nothing but respect for them. But they have distance to go before their culture/religion/other baggage is not an obstacle.

akpower #35

`` bbabu: 1stly mind ur language. We can discuss this issue maturely so please don`t show your calibre by bad-mouthing others. 2ndly, the weakness in faith of Catholics and Christians in general have attributed to the decline. It is a very convenient way to blame it on Muslims. No one has stopped them from going to churches. Besides, the Muslim population in Europe is still very small and not influential at all to cause any such trends. As for Turkey, you answered your own question. It is for the EU to make the decision. The Pope should stay out of it and not make such remarks that might portray a negative image of him in the Muslim world. The EU is a political/economic organization and should not have any thing to do with religion. ``

Sorry if I hit a nerve

The Pope has the right to express his opinion. I hold no brief for him. I do not know anything about the new pope. The article by the original author seems like an pre-emptive attack on the pope with respect to immigration and Turkey. The pope has a bigger say and right to express his opinions on the matter than someone from South Asia. I find the fretting about the Pope comical when you have far bigger rascals in your midst.

My opinion is that Turkey does not deserve to be in the EU as a full member. Give them full trading privileges but no immigration and political rights. That needs to wait for a couple of decades.

Ditto for some of the East European states !!!

Another article from Counter Punch (www.counterpunch.com)

Ciao

****************************************************

Triumph of the Theo-Cons
Pope Benedict XVI, a Rightwing Politician
By VICENTE NAVARRO

In most of the media coverage of Cardinal Ratzinger`s election as successor to John Paul II, he has been presented as very conservative on moral and religious issues. His opposition to legalizing abortion, homosexual marriage, and the ordination of women and his support for continuing the celibacy of priests and other church traditions, all have contributed to his reputation as a profoundly conservative religious person. Not much has been said, however, about his political views, except his being a member of the youth branch of the Nazi Party in Germany (the Hitler Youth). This was mentioned, then quickly dismissed as having no significance, since, as the Herald Tribune (21 April 2005) noted, ``Everybody had to be enrolled in Hitler Youth at that time.`` Otherwise, his political positions have been overlooked, ignored, or set aside as having no relevance.

The reality, however, is quite different. Ratzinger is profoundly political. And his political positions are more than conservative, they are ultra-right-wing. He was one of the most ultra-right cardinals of recent times. I will elaborate on this, but first, let`s dispense with the claim that every young person in Germany at that time was in the Hitler Youth. That is nonsense. Many young Germans, including Catholics, not only refused to join the Hitler Youth but fought against Hitler in a courageous and principled way. In a village near where the young Ratzinger lived (near Marktl ­ a mere 15 miles from Braunau, Hitler`s birthplace), two thousand Catholics signed a petition protesting the Nazi order to remove crucifixes from schoolrooms. In Munich, where Ratzinger later became archbishop, twenty Catholic students were executed in 1942 for distributing anti-Nazi leaflets at the university. They became known as the White Rose -- die weisse Rose. There was an anti-war resistance in Germany, including a Catholic resistance, which Ratzinger never joined, supported, or recognized. Even later, when Germany regained democracy, Bishop Ratzinger of Munich never paid tribute to those who had been killed because of their commitment to liberty and freedom. Among them, incidentally, were many communists, whom Ratzinger had defined as ``scum.``

There is no evidence that Ratzinger was a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer. But there is plenty of evidence that he was an opportunist who went along pursuing his personal ambitions, regardless of what was happening around him. He indicated early in life that he wanted to become a cardinal. And recently ­ a mere two years ago ­ he confided to another person that he expected to become Pope. Spanish public television showed a postcard that Ratzinger sent two years ago to a person in Spain, which he signed ``Pope Benedict XVI,`` the name he took when he indeed became Pope. This contradicts his recent statement that he did not want to become Pope. In fact, when he finally was chosen, reports indicate that he accepted quickly, firmly, and without any hesitation. If he did not want to become Pope, he could have stopped the active campaigning on his behalf by the influential ultra-right Opus Dei. He did not do so.

Let`s return to Ratzinger`s youth. One of the cardinals who most impressed him was Cardinal Faulhaber, then archbishop of Munich, who founded the boarding school where young Ratzinger studied (and later, in 1951, ordained him). Cardinal Faulhaber was an open Nazi sympathizer. According to Ratzinger`s brother, Georg, Joseph joined the Hitler Youth to get a scholarship that would allow him to continue his studies at Faulhaber`s boarding school.

During all his years in Germany, Ratzinger never in his writings publicly condemned the Holocaust, and, as late as 2000, he referred to the Catholic Church`s collaboration with the Hitler regime as a sign of ``a certain insufficiency of Catholics in front of the Holocaust because of the anti-Semitism that existed in the souls of many of them`` (emphasis added). A ``certain insufficiency`` is a dramatic understatement.

Ratzinger did not travel much in his youth and early adulthood. He was in many different ways a typical priest in the most conservative state of Germany, Bavaria. He was close to the Christian Union Party, the political branch of the very conservative Bavarian Catholic Church. This was the most right-wing party in the German parliament after World War II. It governed Bavaria for more than sixty years, establishing a link between Church and state that enormously benefited both the Catholic Church and Ratzinger. Ratzinger was a close friend of the leader of the Christian Union Party, Franz Josef Strauss, who was prime minister of Bavaria for the longest period in German history.

Ratzinger`s ultra-conservatism made him an attractive figure to the Vatican. He was made a cardinal shortly after being appointed bishop of Munich. He was strongly hostile to students protesting the Vietnam War in the 1960s, calling them ``ideological terrorists.`` He was eventually appointed head of the Inquisition (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), soon overseeing a record number of condemnations by that tribunal. One of his priorities as head of the Inquisition was to ban and destroy the Christian liberation movement that had surged in Latin America in protest against the Catholic hierarchy`s support of fascist and ultra-right dictatorships. He was assisted in this task by Cardinal Sodano, a close friend of dictator Pinochet (see my article Opus Dei and the Pope, 8 April 2005). Sodano referred to one of the leaders of the liberation theology movement, Mr. Boff, as a ``Judas of Christ.`` The first decision Ratzinger made when he became Pope, incidentally, was to appoint Sodano his deputy -­ in Vatican parlance, Secretary of State. Moreover, to make sure the other cardinals and bishops would not interpret that appointment as a mere renewal (Sodano was already Secretary of State under John Paul II), Ratzinger stressed that this was a special appointment to last at least four years. Sodano`s fascist sympathies are well documented.

Having been the candidate of Opus Dei (see my previous article), Ratzinger has encouraged Christians to become involved in political life that adheres to his teachings, which are ultra-right-wing. Ratzinger took his name from Benedict XV, the spiritual founder of Christian Democracy, whose primary purpose was to halt the surge of socialism in Europe. Ratzinger has preached anti-communism his entire life, interpreting communism very broadly (as do most ultra-right politicians) to include a lot of left and even center left parties. He has been very critical (hostile may be a better word) of the Spanish social democratic government led by Zapatero, accusing it of being open to moral decay.

Ratzinger has not made any statements about the Church`s concern with social justice or poverty, or similar rhetorical statements, as the previous Pope was inclined to do. Ratzinger is more down to earth and dispenses with these niceties. His primary and only concern is for the purity and strength of the Church as a temporal power. His enormous personal ambition fueled his strategy to be elected Pope from an early stage in the campaign, immediately after the death of John Paul II. Assisted by Opus Dei, very powerful under the John Paul II papacy, Ratzinger`s campaign distributed documents among the cardinals that, according to the Milanese paper La Stampa, presented a picture of decay and moral laxity among the clergy in Europe, Latin America, and the U.S. He wanted to stress that the Vatican had a moral problem on its hands that needed to be corrected by a strong leader. His next step was to give a very uncompromising speech at the opening of the cardinals` meetings to elect the Pope, forbidding all cardinals to make any statements outside the conclave ­ a norm imposed under the threat of excommunication, a Vatican norm that Ratzinger felt he needed to remind the cardinals about, even though most of them (115 of 120) were appointed by John Paul II. A leading campaigner for Ratzinger was Cardinal Sodano. One of Ratzinger`s first decisions, besides making Sodano his right-hand man, was to increase the age of retirement for bishops and cardinals from 75 to 80 years of age, as they had requested.

Surrounded by what the Italian press has called the ``theo-cons,`` Ratzinger has a political project aimed at strengthening conservative forces worldwide, but particularly in Europe, supposedly awash in moral decay. His intervention in political matters is very aggressive. In Spain, for example, the Vatican has given instructions to Catholic civil servants to sabotage enforcement of the civil union law that applies to homosexuals. The Vatican`s hostility to the socialist government of Spain ­ which has eliminated Catholic teaching as a compulsory subject in public schools, while maintaining it as an elective; has made it easier to get a divorce; has legalized homosexuals` civil unions, including their right to adopt children; and is planning to expand the law on abortion, which until now has allowed abortion only on medical and social grounds ­ has reached extreme and overtly hostile levels. Seeing Spain as its territory, the Church cannot accept the secular and democratic processes that have been occurring in that country since the end of the Franco regime ­ one of Europe`s cruelest fascist dictatorships (for every political assassination by Mussolini in Italy, Franco killed ten thousand), supported by the Catholic Church. Today, in Spain, the Church is one of the least trusted and least liked institutions, particularly among the young. Only 14% of young people are practicing Catholics. Actually, this lack of popularity of the Church is evident in all countries. In the Latin American countries, the largest granary of Catholics in the world, the number of Catholics has fallen by 25 million over the past ten years, as they have moved to Protestant churches. And the number of priests is declining most dramatically. Even in the new Pope`s Germany, the most recent poll among university students shows that 83% thought the Church was either in crisis or dying. In this poll, more Germans opposed Ratzinger`s becoming Pope than favored it.

Still, more than 1,200 million of the world`s people are Catholic. And the Church, with 4,700 bishops and 400,000 priests, is a formidable organization that can do a lot of harm. The Vatican`s prohibition of condom use, for example, has been a major factor in the spread of AIDS in Africa. As Mithela Wrong of Nigeria has written (New Statesman, 11 April 05), ``The Vatican has done more to spread AIDs in Africa than all the prostitutes of that Continent combined.`` And the Vatican`s support for oligarchic regimes in Latin America (including Duvalier`s in Haiti) has created enormous poverty. The Pope and many of the cardinals form an ultra-right leadership that has become a source of religious and political fundamentalism that threatens progress worldwide. While much has been written about the threat of Muslim fundamentalism, not much has been said about the threat posed by this Catholic fundamentalism. It is time that people recognized it. As Umberto Ecco recently wrote, ``It almost seems like we are going back to the middle Ages.``

---

Vicente Navarro is Professor of Public Policy at Johns Hopkins University, USA and Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. Navarro contributed an essay on Salvidor Dali`s fascist ties for CounterPunch`s collection on art, culture and politics: Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at: navarro@counterpunch.org

i think its fair to leave the indian, chinese, japanese, koreans out of the interfaith dialog since they dont have conflicts based on religion amongs nation-states. i would looove to see an interfaith dialog prime-time among

pope and the grand mufti of al-azar
falwell and fazlu
pipes and al-zawahiri

they should start with the first sin, and go to more interesting topics like the role of jews.

Raw dust: I said weakness in faith of ``Catholics not Catholicism``. I dont want to get entangled in another sub-issue, but there has been a decline in the number of church-goers in Europe. And pls guyz, I am not generalizing, but that has been the treand in Europe in the last 2-3 decades at least.

Quite a few writers have touched on that, and I have also come across atleast a couple of reports that talk about this subject. That is all i said and meant. As far as the reasons are concerned, i wouldn`t want to delve into them.

Ozer: I agree Turkey is a multi-faceted country. Its inclusion or the lack of it should be based on what it can bring to the table as far as the EU is concerned. Religion should not form the basis of any decision.

Also, every dialogue of such nature should be free of any suspicions/mistrust. I understand that there is a fair amount of history between most of the faiths in the world, but unless we go with a clear mind and an honest intention, any sort of a forward stride is out of question.

Adeel Khan:

“East is East, West is West, never the twain shall meet”. Rudyard Kipling

This myopic phrase runs in tandem with Samuel Huntington`s jibes concerning “A Clash of Civilizations”. Admittedly events in the comity of international relations have exacerbated such anorexic trepidation. This creepy foreboding should be dispelled and redressed.

Turkey, in this regard stands as a litmus test. A reverential bridge between the Orient and the Occident. Tradition and Modernity. Islam and Christianity.

My name is Ozer, and Im half-Turkish. I would like to expand on a theme referred to in your revealing article: The EU and its rapport vis-à-vis Turkey. Although Turkey has walked the tight-rope to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria, Brussels is still reticently lukewarm about signaling the green light to accession, due to various imperatives: mostly strategic and economic.

I feel that Turkey should opt for the “politics of variable geometry” with the EU, signaling a moderated yet close bi-lateral partnership agreement, where she gets to pick certain policy undercurrents without sheepishly bowing down to every Eurocratic whim. Fat cats cozily sitting in Brussels should not eclipse Turkey`s foreign policy flexibility.

Turkey cannot entirely forego Europe, but she can strategically re-align herself with Asia and the Middle East including a de jure rapprochement with the Developing 8 of which Pakistan is a signatory. Turkey stands a lot to gain through the policy of re-alignment: namely an entrée to gas pipelines in Central Asia, vital networks to the oil-rich Gulf states and a strengthening within the OIC via her jealously guarded links to NATO.

That way the Turkish vessel can sail both sides of the blue Bosphorus: Asia and Europe. Anchoring your ship along the beautiful tides of the Turkish Bosphorus requires no sanction. From no one. The limitless existence of its blue is irrevocable. Geographical anachronisms such as “East” and “West” pale into clown-like rhetorical insignificance.

As a half Turkish half Pakistani citizen Im proud of both my ancestries: I do feel that Turkey is the cradle of civilization: a kaleidoscopic bridge between East and West: Istanbul bears testimony to this: with a collage of mosques doting the city side-by-side with a buzzing nightlife, visitors witness an electrically copious embodiment of delicious multi-cultural fusion.

Such diversity is multi-faceted, ranging from the momentous literature of Orhan Pamuk to the luminous fusion cuisine at some of Turkey`s top eateries. Fashion designers too have harnessed silhouettes bearing craftsmanship from both the Orient and the Occident.

Allama Iqbal and Jellalludin Rumi strove hard in exhorting a bedrock of multi-religious multi-cultural synnergy, surely “Chowki” columnists can come up with viable stratagems of how to further a multi-cultural dialogue ? Afterall wasn`t this the raison d`etre of the Chowki electronic forum to begin with ?

The invitation to multi-culturalism is a timeless one.

But time is a revocable privilege !

Mr. Writer care to elaborate what you meant by this
``2ndly, the weakness in faith of Catholics and Christians in general have attributed to the decline.``

what are the weaknesses of Catholicism?

And did you happen to see an inter-faith issue in my #5.?

bbabu: 1stly mind ur language. We can discuss this issue maturely so please don`t show your calibre by bad-mouthing others. 2ndly, the weakness in faith of Catholics and Christians in general have attributed to the decline. It is a very convenient way to blame it on Muslims. No one has stopped them from going to churches. Besides, the Muslim population in Europe is still very small and not influential at all to cause any such trends. As for Turkey, you answered your own question. It is for the EU to make the decision. The Pope should stay out of it and not make such remarks that might portray a negative image of him in the Muslim world. The EU is a political/economic organization and should not have any thing to do with religion.

mohar: Calm your nerves! Dont get agitated. I was talking JUST about the Pope and how he may or may not react to certain issues. I wasnt talking about the Pope in the ``general context of world politics and the overall global situation at present``. So yes, my article had nothing to do with Islamic extremism. Its a shame that most people find it wfully hard to stick to a topic here at chowk.

feroz: I absolutely think that ALL faiths need to be part of this discussion/dialogue. But since most of the socio-econo-political trends in the world depend on countries that our mainly Christian, Muslim and Jew (I know only Israel is a Jew country but we all know how much influence they have on the whole world, especially on US), I think they have to be the prime ``talkers``. Another thing is that these three religions have alot of ``history`` between them, so a more comprehensive dialogue between them is needed to iron out certain differences that still exist. But yes, other faiths should also be part of a larger interaction.

A. Khan

`` A statement such as this easily fits into the thinking of the traditional school of Catholic thought, which is of the view that the ever-increasing number of Muslims in Europe poses a constant threat to Catholic culture. It also tends to project that the decline of Christianity in Europe has nothing to do with weakness in faith of its own people and everything to do with the rising influence of Islam in the continent. Such a view, if accepted by European countries, might further sideline Muslims in Europe by imposing laws and regulations that will push them away from the basics of their religion – like the law that banned headscarves in France. ``

It is natural the church will be concerned about decline in Catholicism. The rising influence of Islam has to do with immigration. Immigration of poor Middle Eastern Muslims is unpopular across every European country. It is a matter of time it gets stopped.

`` Pope Benedict XVI, Mr.Ratzinger’s papal name, has also gone on record to say that he is against Turkey’s induction into the European Union. “Turkey has always represented a different continent, always in contrast with Europe,`` he told the Paris newspaper Le Figaro, “Europe was founded not on geography, but on a common faith. We have to redefine what Europe is, and we cannot stop at positivism.”

This is a disturbing thought which only reflects religious favoritism, if one puts it politely. The idea that an Islamic Turkey cannot merge with a Christian Europe not only is a Stone-Age point of view but also is a slap on the face of Europe’s pronounced multi-culturalism and secularism. He has also mentioned his intention to have a dialogue with Jews, but has yet to say anything similar pertaining to Muslims. ``

I think you are uninformed person or a plain hypocrite or worse a bigot.

Why shouldn`t the EU make its own decision on Turkey ? Turkey has to prove it is worthy of membership in the EU. A country that denies the right of citizens (Kurds) to call themself what they want or speak/write in their own language. Imagine the furor if India put a ban on Urdu and ban on Arabic names.

re: Echoboom # 31

Thanks!

re: Mohar11 # 32

Religious extremism is very resurgent these days.

re: akpower

I have a question for you. When you were talking about an interfaith dialogue between the Abramhic faiths, do you realize it would be a limited dialogue if you do not include Hinduism and Buddhism in this dialogue?

Ciao

Re: # 27
//...There is no connection to Islamic extremism in this article....//

Well, I guess - I will have to drill into your thick head so that you understand the connection. For a start, Read that article posted by ferozk. It`s talking about all sorts of fundamentalism manifesting themselves. With rise of this Pope, the fundamentalism is not limited to muslims anymore. Now catholics have thrown their hats into the ring.

This guy Pope benedickk is a jacka$$ who is emerging a perfect counter-part to Mullahs. Idelologically, there is hardly any difference between these people - it`s the same medieval mindset - ``my faith better than everybody else, secularism is a sin .... blah blah blah.``

This guy Pop dicKkkhead is going pour more fuel to the already burning fire of islamic fundamentalism around the world. He has already made that clear.

Now - do you see the connection?