The Art of Non-Apologetic Apology

Pope Benedict 16 has nothing to apologize for! That was not intended for his apology, but sorrow for the foolish reaction to his comments.

Ain't Google Great?

Nevermind, I found it.

Hey E-Favorite, Concerned:

Who wrote that book? I wanna look it up and get it.

Pope Benedict XVI in his ‘Meeting with the representatives of science,’ Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006, gave the lecture titled, “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections.”

From that speech:

“It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn… The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

“I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

“In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” …
“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

“At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry…

“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

The whole speech can be read here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

An invitation to Muslims and non-Muslims to express critical comments:

Points to note:

Please read the lecture in its entirety before making comments, so as not to miss the context.

Please read the Pope's statements which caused furore in the context of the whole speech. The topic was ‘faith and reason’, not Islam.

The Pope was NOT issuing a papal statement or delivering an official papal speech.

The Pope was visiting his university where he had been a professor for several years and the talk was privately addressed to the faculty at the university.

The German Muslims it seems had very little problem understanding the context of the Pope’s statements. They agreed that it was a diplomatic blunder to have forgotten that as a Pope even a private lecture at a university at which he had taught for many years, had political ramifications. But they did not hold it against the Pope for having given a lecture as any university lecturer would.

Would a Muslim university lecturer or any Muslim be held to account for mentioning the crusades in relation to Christianity, in the context of any lecture, discussion, whether private or public?

E. FAVORITE,

No problem. The book shows that good people have been thinking alike across the globe for many milleniums. And that these good thoughts are part of personkind's innate common sense and have basically not changed over these same many milleniums.

Hi, Concerned - just wanted you to know I got "Jesus and Buddha" - and am enjoying it. Thanks for suggesting it.

Atonement is part of apology and repentance.

The definition:

a·tone·ment (ə-tōn'mənt)
n.
Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

Professor Crossan's take on the Christian theology of atonement:

From his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

It appears that virtually none of the so called apologies so in vogue would get past step one.

What I find most galling is the "I accept full responsibility" line. What follows is, in nearly every case, absolutely no consequence for the act. Thus, the statement is meaningless. At this rate, I think I can accept responsibility for any number of things, so long as nothing happens as a result.

Then there is "I'm sorry you were offended". As you point out, that just shifts the problem to the other side.

In any case, nobody seems to ask the relevant question "What are you going to do about it? Apart from the required week or two at a rehab spa."

Although John C. posted about Janet Reno, I think he will find the non-apology has been raised to an art form in this administration. 3000+ troops merits more than "Mistakes were made".

My (dis)favorite all-time nonapology: Janet Reno on the subject of burning human beings alive at Waco: "I accept responsibility." Now don't bother me, I have other people to burn.

Professor Crossan has it mostly right about the apologies and pseudoapologies of the three people in the news.

One thing I might add, though, is that Imus made an apology that seemed sincere in its form, but it would be more believable if he didn't have a long history of remarks at least as offensive as the one that got him fired. For example Newsweek notes that he once referred to Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz as a "boner-nosed, beanie-wearing Jew boy". Seven years ago!! He once called singer Gloria Estafan "this little Chihuahua-looking 'ho." These and many other horrific remarks are well documented on TomPaine.com and elsewhere.

Also, Professor Crosssan didn't mention the tactic of a fourth current newsmaker -- don't apologize for anything, just say you don't remember.

i notice that you mentioned the popes non apology apology. he never said it was an apology so why do you call it a non apology apology. sort of bates the question. he did not have to apologize for quoting another pope who said that forced conversion were evil. is that something you need to apologize for? those that should apologize are the millions that rioted and demanded the death of the pope.

Jacob!:

Man, you weren't supposed to smoke it till I got there! Quit bogarting all the good stuff! And pass the Cheetos.

To Jacob Jozevz:

((((Ground control to Major Tom))))...what have you been smoking??

Am I the only Catholic here? The steps Crossan lists are a modern version of what we are supposed to go through in the sacrament of reconciliation. Contrary to what some Protestants and others may think, confession and reconciliation are not mechanisms for "clearing the slate" to go and do the same thing all over again. Part of the process is to reach an understanding of why your action (or words in this case) was wrong: How it helped to make hurt and inbalance more powerful in the world through you.

I fear that Benedict's pseudo-apology came more from his position of authority than from his heart as a Christian.

Despite my best attempts to interpret the four steps, I cannot find anything "religious" about the repentance he describes (although it is consonant with the views he has expressed on previous questions).

I don't know about other ancient acts of repentance, but the biblical act of repentance implies a confession to God, since a transgression against another person is also one against God. (See Psalm 32, for example.)

The description here is incomplete because it cannot account for transgressions for which sufficient reparations are impossible. It also seems to imply (although here I am not sure) that one can, through examination of one's character, one can avoid wrongs that require forgiveness. An alternative Christian understanding of repentance suggests that it is necessary because we are impossible sinners, and only God can restore the relationships that are broken through sin.

Professor Crossan,

Welcome back!! We missed your wisdom in the "is Islam a violent religion debate.

With respect to the topic.

Imus should have resigned on his own and entered therapy for his penance.

Wolfowitz should resign and pay back the World Bank for what they paid his girlfriend with interest as his penance.

The Pope should fire his speech writers and then he should "Crossanize" the Koran with the best experts he has on the history of Islam.

I'd really like to know what your answer to the question is, which was "what is the relationship of apology (repentance) to forgiveness?", which I take to mean should these people be forgiven because of their apologies, or should we expect repentance in order to forgive?