Astonishingly, the Vatican announced, recently, that the Pope, Benedict XVI, would visit Turkey on November 28.
This is astonishing because, on September 12, the Pope gave a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany, which unleashed a veritable fire-storm. Thousands, if not millions, of Muslims around the world protested, and threatened the life of the Pontiff. Innocent Catholics in many places were threatened, even killed, for the “crime” (one can only assume) of being of the Pope’s faith.
Commentators have remarked how these responses to the Pope’s comments, to some degree, validate the claims his attackers say he was making, that is, that Islam is a religion of violence.
Of course, in the lecture itself, Benedict repeated remarks of a Byzantine emperor, and offered his reflections upon those remarks. The Pope prefaced his repetition of the remarks by saying they “sound quite brusque” to modern listeners.
The Byzantine emperor in question was engaged in a dialogue with a Muslim sultan. One must remember that, at the time the emperor made his remarks, the Byzantine Empire, which had once stretched from Greece through modern Turkey, the Middle East, and across all of northern Africa (including Egypt), consisted of only the city of Constantinople and a few other small parts of Medieval Greece. Named after the Emperor Constantine, the city was the capital of the Roman Empire, and after that empire split, of the Eastern Roman Empire. For hundreds and hundreds of years, Muslim invaders had attacked the Byzantine Empire and it was not long after the emperor who the Pope quoted had died, that the Byzantine Empire fell to the Muslims one and for all.
Thus, the emperor asked if Islam was “too violent” a religion, or, put better, whether violence (coercion) was too central to how Muslims understood the demands of Islam. When the Pope repeated the emperor’s question, hordes of Muslims poured into the streets in protest.
Doubtlessly, they received an inflamed account from the Western press — notoriously hostile to Catholicism — of what the Pope actually said. Still, it is worth reflecting on their reaction and the question that underlies it. On September 15, one of the world’s greatest legal philosophers, John Finnis of Oxford University, gave a public lecture devoted to this topic.
Professor Finnis’ analysis is searching, complex and thorough — traits for which he has long been noted — and anyone wanting the argument in detail should consult the published lecture. But suffice it to say, in summary, that the issue of coercion in religion was a central concern. As I interpreted what was said, Professor Finnis suggested that coercion was so contrary to the essence of religion as to make any religion that practiced it “unreasonable,” thereby providing reasons why public authorities could rightly (legitimately) treat such a religion differently (more harshly) than religions that did not advocate coercion. Finnis suggested it was reasonable to judge the actions of advocates of/for a religion differently on the basis of the reasonableness of their actions. If a religion demanded that non-adherents be coerced, it was incompatible, in its essence, with classically liberal, constitutional democracy and human natural rights.
This is food for thought for Muslims, and for all people of good will. If Islam needs reform, if reformers can reveal peaceful (non-coercive) threads in Islam, threads hidden beneath the boots of tyrants for centuries, now is their time. The Catholic Church uncovered a similar understanding during its ecumenical council, Vatican II, in the early 1960’s. In stating clearly that there could be no legitimate coercion in religion, it did not repudiate its doctrines or its divine legitimacy; rather, it uncovered (or emphasized) a theme that had been present from apostolic times, though sometimes largely observed in the breach.
October 19 was the feast of St Isaac Jogues. His example is one all believers, of whatever stripe, would well-remember. St. Jogues was a missionary to the Indian tribes of North America. These tribes violently opposed his mission, even to the extent of severing his thumb and index finger so that he would be unable to celebrate Catholic mass (the Pope made an exception to canon law, however, to enable him to do so). St. Jogues did not seek to impose Catholicism violently upon the Iroquoi (yes, there have been instances in the past when Catholics did do that). Rather, he loved the Iroquois so much, and believed so deeply in the life-giving truth of the God he served, that he suffered violence from them rather than violate their own human dignity.
In the face of threats of violence against his person, it is astonishing that Benedict XVI would journey to Turkey, a country that threatened to “dis-invite” him following his talk in Regensburg. But he is planning to go. Certainly he goes as did St. Jogues, as a peaceful missionary. One prays that he does not go as a sheep among wolves, that he will have a more peaceful reception than did St. Jogues. Certainly his journey is proof of this: the Catholic Church, at least, has renounced, loudly and publicly, coercion in religion. One hopes Islam will do likewise.
Bill Saunders is the Senior Fellow and Director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Life & Bioethics. The views expressed are his and are not meant to represent official institutional views of FRC.
