volume-i-of-the-trilogy &laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed

Have a good read!

To new visitors: If you want to know more about the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics, and so much more, hit the blog header above and scroll down to the table of contents, and then down to all the opening pages of the Trilogy. Cheers!

AN EXCERPT FROM THE REUTERS/TRILOGY DIALOGUE:

TRILOGY: "In calling into question my defense of the Pope’s prudence in this matter, wondering if this defense was naive, Reuters was actually calling into question the prudence of the Pope, questioning if he were not naive in all this. In other words, the word naive that fell on me was an easy way to aim this at the Pope in some way get away with it."

REUTERS: [Well, you'll just have to find that response in the links provided above.]

REUTERS RESPONDS TO MY TRILOGY BLOG POST ABOUT THE POPE’S BAPTISING THE ANTI-ISLAMIC MUSLIM: MAGDI CRISTIANO ALLAM (PART 4)

Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:45:28 +0000

Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor of Reuters, sent in this letter in the combox, but it deserves it's own post here. Thanks, Tom, for the opportunity to make more clarifications. Maybe we don't have to agree to disagree!

[Trilogy comments in brackets and in red]

Dear Fr. di Lorenzo, thanks for your kind words about my blog post and your interesting comments.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on a number of points you mention. [Well, disagree, until that which provides an opportunity for agreement comes along! I'm sure you agree!] For example, that Pope Benedict prayed in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque in the direction of Mecca is a fact. [I agree.] He was facing the mihrab (placed to show the direction of Mecca) with Grand Mufti Mustafa Cagrici and moving his lips. [I agree.] As he left, journalists heard him tell Cagrici “Thank you for this moment of prayer.” [I'll grant you that.] Denying this [Never!] and calling it malicious does not undo these facts. [Actually, what I said was: "Your comment seems to be downright malicious." That's an important distinction. There's a reason why that malicious bit might seem to be the case to any reasonable reader of the article. The lead-in phraseology seems to indicate that the Pope was praying to Allah in the manner any Muslim would do. Here is what was written: "Muslims around the world protested and the pope, who said he did not agree with the Byzantine emperor he had quoted, sought to make amends by visiting the famous Blue Mosque in Istanbul and praying towards Mecca with its imam." Now, that does leave the impression that, for a moment, anyway, Pope Benedict converted to Islam. I say that for what should be the obvious reason that no Muslim would be placated by the Pope visiting the Mosque only to pray, say, a Lépanto style "Hail Mary" or two. The Pope was taken off guard as they turned, but could certainly have been praying to the Triune God, or asking for the intercession of the Mother of God. I say that he was taken off guard for the reason you mention yourself: He offered thanks for a moment to pray. Also, his reactions were one of someone taken off guard. The Pope, you might notice, isn't driven by political correctness, and doesn't do things, even at the spur of the moment, simply to please people. Those who don't know that don't know him at all. To 'read' Pope Benedict through the lens of the usual politically correct, lowest common denominator of rubbish that is ever so common among religious leaders of every stipe and kind is -- how to say it? -- mistaken. I can understand the temptation to do that, given all the rubbish others come up with, but really, you have to admit that Pope Benedict doesn't change his mind on religions or morals or doctrine or... well, you get the idea. ]

The passage about playing naïve or actually being naïve referred to your comments on our news story from Vatican City — [Why should the Pope baptising anybody be a surprise move? [Indeed!] He’s Catholic. Did you forget?] and [If you write the story, it’s not his fault!].[True again!] The implication is that the media made this up [I'm sure both Magdi Allam and the Pope knew that there would be plenty of media attention. The point is that the attention could have focussed much better on the meaning of the Baptism itself, which is the message. The spokesman, whom I know very well, later focused on religious freedom regarding Magdi's presence that night, but that freedom from coercion and proceding in love is presumed for the Baptism itself. That is all important to understand in the context of interreligious dialogue. Really: all important.] and the baptism actually merited much less attention. [The more attention, the better, if it reflects more of the truth of what was actually happening.] When Italy’s best-known Muslim gets baptised publicly by Pope Benedict and this was kept secret until one hour before the ceremony [ lest he or the Pope or the crowds be endangered or inconvenienced in any way by wild protests that you, of all people, know could happen for something like this.], this is certainly a surprise and a big news story. [Absolutely. Had to be that way. But, the message, even in this case, or especially in this case, is in the Baptism itself.] Trying to say otherwise is not credible. [Yet, we have to understand that all this isn't primarily about the circumstances of the person who is getting baptised. To say otherwise would be to completely misunderstand the Pope and the Sacrament of Baptism. To say that Magdi is the point or even primarily the point is to miss the point altogether. That would mean that the Baptism itself is essentially unimportant, and that having a photo-op of Magdi and the Pope together is what is important. Throwing in the reaction of certain individuals to speak about the imprudence of the Pope (or his being naive) reduces the Baptism itself to one-up-manship. The Pope is not interested in utilitarian, political usages of a Sacrament. And a quieter ceremony would not place more emphasis on the Sacrament and less emphasis on a religio-political message of some kind. That relgious, political message does exist, of course, but it must be understood that the message is the Sacrament of Baptism, a message of freedom and love before which the critics' criticism falls away, if they take the time to consider what Baptism is. If anything, a very public Baptism of just such a person as Magdi emphasizes all the more that the message is the Baptism itself. All are equal before the redemption of God, utterly, regardless of any other circumstances. If someone desires Baptism, then he is to be baptised, regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't mean that Magdi or the Pope were unaware (naive) of the circumstances, just that they undestood that this principle of religious freedom exercised in love can never, ever be subject to prudential adjustment. If it is, it is the end of religious freedom, indeed, of the freedom of man. And that's no mere hyperbole. If one does not understand the intensity of what is happening here, one is truly very naive.]

In your latest post, you somehow reinterpret this sentence about being naïve as an indirect charge by us that the pope was naïve. You write: “In other words, the word naive that fell on me was an easy way to aim this at the Pope in some way get away with it.” Sorry, that comment was meant for you and other bloggers who tried to tell their readers the Allam baptism was not a surprise. [See the comments above. Whatever anyone else had to say, I don't know.] No amount of reinterpretation can aim it at the pope. [with the exception of my comments above, in which the naive bit falls on someone else's shoulders altogether, does it not? That's a question. However, I do fully understand that the fact that the Sacrament is the message, especially in the face of the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics, is not immediately evident in the face of what is, in fact, truly sensational. It is precisely for this reason that this Baptism is -- I hate this phrase -- a teachable moment. If one gets this fact, with this Baptism, that the message is the Sacrament iteslf (though that Sacrament does have undeniable religious and political effects), then one will get everything about this Pope, starting with Regensburg.]

That said, nice meeting you in the blogosphere! [Likewise. Truly. Again, there are plenty of explosive articles just waiting to be written, whose seeds are in the Trilogy, and not only about the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics. I think there may be some opportunities in the future to communicate about this. Chapter 32 has a few interesting bits...]

All the best, [and to you.]

Tom Heneghan
Religion Editor, Reuters

========================
I should add that the phrase I use about Mr Magdi Allam -- anti-Islamic -- does not mean that he is against Muslims, but has something against Islam.

To new visitors: If you want to know more about the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics, and so much more, hit the blog header above and scroll down to the table of contents, and then down to all the opening pages of the Trilogy. Cheers!

INDEX: REUTERS/TRILOGY DIALOGUE

Have a good read!

REUTERS RESPONDS TO MY TRILOGY BLOG POST ABOUT THE POPE’S BAPTISING THE ANTI-ISLAMIC MUSLIM: MAGDI CRISTIANO ALLAM (PART 4)

Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:45:28 +0000

[Trilogy comments in brackets and in red]

Dear Fr. di Lorenzo, thanks for your kind words about my blog post and your interesting comments.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on a number of points you mention. [Well, disagree, until that which provides an opportunity for agreement comes along! I'm sure you agree!] For example, that Pope Benedict prayed in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque in the direction of Mecca is a fact. [I agree.] He was facing the mihrab (placed to show the direction of Mecca) with Grand Mufti Mustafa Cagrici and moving his lips. [I agree.] As he left, journalists heard him tell Cagrici “Thank you for this moment of prayer.” [I'll grant you that.] Denying this [Never!] and calling it malicious does not undo these facts. [Actually, what I said was: "Your comment seems to be downright malicious." That's an important distinction. There's a reason why that malicious bit might seem to be the case to. any reasonable reader of the article. The lead-in phraseology seems to indicate that the Pope was praying to Allah in the manner any Muslim would do. Here is what was written: "Muslims around the world protested and the pope, who said he did not agree with the Byzantine emperor he had quoted, sought to make amends by visiting the famous Blue Mosque in Istanbul and praying towards Mecca with its imam." Now, that does leave the impression that, for a moment, anyway, Pope Benedict converted to Islam. I say that for what should be the obvious reason that no Muslim would be placated by the Pope visiting the Mosque only to pray, say, a Lépanto style "Hail Mary" or two. The Pope was taken off guard as they turned, but could certainly have been praying to the Triune God, or asking for the intercession of the Mother of God. I say that he was taken off guard for the reason you mention yourself: He offered thanks for a moment to pray. Also, his reactions were one of someone taken off guard. The Pope, you might notice, isn't driven by political correctness, and doesn't do things, even at the spur of the moment, simply to please people. Those who don't know that don't know him at all. To 'read' Pope Benedict through the lens of the usual politically correct, lowest common denominator of rubbish that is ever so common among religious leaders of every stipe and kind is -- how to say it? -- mistaken. I can understand the temptation to do that, given all the rubbish others come up with, but really, you have to admit that Pope Benedict doesn't change his mind on religions or morals or doctrine or... well, you get the idea. ]

The passage about playing naïve or actually being naïve referred to your comments on our news story from Vatican City — [Why should the Pope baptising anybody be a surprise move? [Indeed!] He’s Catholic. Did you forget?] and [If you write the story, it’s not his fault!].[True again!] The implication is that the media made this up [I'm sure both Magdi Allam and the Pope knew that there would be plenty of media attention. The point is that the attention could have focussed much better on the meaning of the Baptism itself, which is the message. The spokesman, whom I know very well, later focused on religious freedom regarding Magdi's presence that night, but that freedom from coercion and proceding in love is presumed for the Baptism itself. That is all important to understand in the context of interreligious dialogue. Really: all important.] and the baptism actually merited much less attention. [The more attention, the better, if it reflects more of the truth of what was actually happening.] When Italy’s best-known Muslim gets baptised publicly by Pope Benedict and this was kept secret until one hour before the ceremony [ lest he or the Pope or the crowds be endangered or inconvenienced in any way by wild protests that you, of all people, know could happen for something like this.], this is certainly a surprise and a big news story. [Absolutely. Had to be that way. But, the message, even in this case, or especially in this case, is in the Baptism itself.] Trying to say otherwise is not credible. [Yet, we have to understand that all this isn't primarily about the circumstances of the person who is getting baptised. To say otherwise would be to completely misunderstand the Pope and the Sacrament of Baptism. To say that Magdi is the point or even primarily the point is to miss the point altogether. That would mean that the Baptism itself is essentially unimportant, and that having a photo-op of Magdi and the Pope together is what is important. Throwing in the reaction of certain individuals to speak about the imprudence of the Pope (or his being naive) reduces the Baptism itself to one-up-manship. The Pope is not interested in utilitarian, political usages of a Sacrament. And a quieter ceremony would not place more emphasis on the Sacrament and less emphasis on a religio-political message of some kind. That relgious, political message does exist, of course, but it must be understood that the message is the Sacrament of Baptism, a message of freedom and love before which the critics' criticism falls away, if they take the time to consider what Baptism is. If anything, a very public Baptism of just such a person as Magdi emphasizes all the more that the message is the Baptism itself. All are equal before the redemption of God, utterly, regardless of any other circumstances. If someone desires Baptism, then he is to be baptised, regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't mean that Magdi or the Pope were unaware (naive) of the circumstances, just that they undestood that this principle of religious freedom exercised in love can never, ever be subject to prudential adjustment. If it is, it is the end of religious freedom, indeed, of the freedom of man. And that's no mere hyperbole. If one does not understand the intensity of what is happening here, one is truly very naive.]

In your latest post, you somehow reinterpret this sentence about being naïve as an indirect charge by us that the pope was naïve. You write: “In other words, the word naive that fell on me was an easy way to aim this at the Pope in some way get away with it.” Sorry, that comment was meant for you and other bloggers who tried to tell their readers the Allam baptism was not a surprise. [See the comments above. Whatever anyone else had to say, I don't know.] No amount of reinterpretation can aim it at the pope. [with the exception of my comments above, in which the naive bit falls on someone else's shoulders altogether, does it not? That's a question. However, I do fully understand that the fact that the Sacrament is the message, especially in the face of the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics, is not immediately evident in the face of what is, in fact, truly sensational. It is precisely for this reason that this Baptism is -- I hate this phrase -- a teachable moment. If one gets this fact, with this Baptism, that the message is the Sacrament iteslf (though that Sacrament does have undeniable religious and political effects), then one will get everything about this Pope, starting with Regensburg.]

That said, nice meeting you in the blogosphere! [Likewise. Truly. Again, there are plenty of explosive articles just waiting to be written, whose seeds are in the Trilogy, and not only about the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics. I think there may be some opportunities in the future to communicate about this. Chapter 32 has a few interesting bits...]

All the best, [and to you.]

Tom Heneghan
Religion Editor, Reuters

========================
I should add that the phrase I use about Mr Magdi Allam -- anti-Islamic -- does not mean that he is against Muslims, but has something against Islam.

INDEX: REUTERS/TRILOGY DIALOGUE

Have a good read!

REUTERS RESPONDS TO MY TRILOGY BLOG POST ABOUT THE POPE’S BAPTISING THE ANTI-ISLAMIC MUSLIM: MAGDI CRISTIANO ALLAM (PART III)

Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:12:47 +0000

Upon further reflection, I think that last paragraph of the Reuters follow-up article is worse than I thought. Here are some pictures of what we are talking about taken from magdiallam.it, that is, the baptism of the anti-Islamic Muslim Magdi Allam by Pope Benedict during the televised around the world Easter Vigil at Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome:

Now, the reporting of Reuters, which called into question the commentary made on this Trilogy blog, made me think of the David and Goliath story, except in a re-written version, whereby Goliath, a warrior for the Philistines (in this case, Reuters against the Pope), thought he made a deal with King Saul (the observers), to the effect that when little David, the warrior-boy for the Jews (in this case, Pope Benedict for the Catholics), went out to do one-on-one battle with Goliath, he would be stripped even of his sling (well, the Trilogy blog, more or less!), remaining apparently vulnerable.

From wikimedia commons (from a Jewish manuscript in France from the 13th century)

Of course, Pope Benedict has zero need of this Trilogy blog to rush to his defense! Zilch! Zippo! The power of truth always but always wins out in the very end, no matter what.

However, maybe a comment from the Trilogy blog is not out of order. As it is, in calling into question my defense of the Pope's prudence in this matter, wondering if this defense was naive, Reuters was actually calling into question the prudence of the Pope, questioning if he were not naive in all this. In other words, the word naive that fell on me was an easy way to aim this at the Pope in some way get away with it. This is clear from the rest of the article, in which experts, Muslim and Catholic, were called in just for this end. However, taking the sling away from David wouldn't have stopped David way back when. Pope Benedict will simply continue with what elsewhere has been called his Marshall Plan. It is the Lord who is the Lord of history.

I personally think that the Trilogy and Goliath should just shake hands and be collaborators, but only if Goliath stops being a Philistine while I try to be an even better Jackass (spoken with the irony of the Trilogy)! I hope no one takes offence with my language. I mean no harm! We can work together on these kinds of things. I know you all want to be objective and helpful to the whole world. We can do this, helpfully, together. As it is, I think I remember meeting some of the named journalists in a rather turbulent part of the world some years ago, and was impressed with the required fearlessness and level-headedness they possessed. You're blogrolled!

One last note: in the Reuters article pretty much everyone had their picture included, except for your's truly. Of course, I wouldn't have minded for an instant had my picture been used.

For those first time visitors to the Trilogy who are interested in reading about the murderous intrigue of interreligious politics between Jews, Catholics and Muslims, click on the blog header and scroll down for the table of contents and all the opening pages of the Trilogy. Have a good read!

INDEX: REUTERS/TRILOGY DIALOGUE