This Looks Interesting

If you like Venn diagrams, that is. John DaFiesole at Disputations has his own take on the Pope and Islam controversy.

It does seem to me that there are some questions that should be answered before we can draw conclusions about what happened and what it means (Other than the first question, my answers are still very tentative):

1. Did the Pope intend to insult Islam or Muslims? (He says no and I accept this.)

2. Did he anticipate the reaction?

I'm not sure. Did any of the Vatican "apologies" express surprise?

3. Why did he cite this particular quotation and not some other?

There's been some speculation about this. I'm not aware of the Holy Father has
addressed this directly himself. The fact that he hasn't withdrawn or amended
the citation (yet) might be salient. His overarching purpose in the address was
to direct attention to the crippling of dialogue between the West and the rest of
the (religious) world. And that, he argues, is because the Western tradition has
divorced reason and faith, thus rendering conversation with believers
increasingly impossible. In that context the citation just shows the opposite error
(fideism in contrast to rationalism), in this case imputed to Islam by the
penultimate Byzantine Emperor.

4. Would some other citation have achieved the Holy Father's intention without
lending itself to manufactured rage?

That would depend on the answer to the previous question, wouldn't It?

5. Was this citation imprudent (in the old fashioned sense of being an error of
judgement, even if no malice was involved)?

First, what were his goals? Were they necessary? Does walking on eggshells
when dealing even tangentially with the Moslems make things better or leave
more possibilities for real dialogue eventually? Or did this incident
open up the space for at least some Moslems to discuss some of the basic
issues that separate the fanatics from the rest of us? Gee, the more I look into
it, the less I know.

6. Did the citation and subsequent furor make matters materially worse for
Christians worldwide?

Yes, but against the relentless backdrop of threats, legal (Sharia) harassment,
assault, rape, murder and forced conversions it hard to tell if this is numerically
significant. What was the percentage or fraction increase, compared over time,
of such incidents before and after the Regensburg address? We won't know
that for a year or so.

7. If so, is the Pope responsible for this?

Christians and others have been held hostage in Islamic lands for centuries.
What is the best way for us to help them? Is there a danger we will simply
assume their status in trying to spare them further violence? What are the
prospects that the fanatics won't simply keep raising the ante each time we
find a way to accommodate them? (Are these questions ever going to end?
Doh!)

8. Under what circumstances, if any, may a Catholic speak publicly in a way that
she might anticipate some violent reaction that causes suffering for others,
even if she clearly speaks truthfully and intends no insult or harm?

I'll need to read up on Moral Theology, but my first guess would be that only
a morally necessary statement would be justified in the abstract. But
suppressing the truth to avoid violence doesn't seem like a good long-term
strategy. Are there alternatives?

More questions? (Doh!) Forget it. I'm going on a trip. I expect this to be all sorted out when we get back. (You have a week.)