The motives behind the Benedict bashing

You have to read Dennis Prager’s whole article about the illogic driving the current round of Pope Benedict bashing.  It’s wonderful.  To whet your appetite, I’ll tease you with these two paragraphs:

Another example is Karen Armstrong, the widely read ex-nun scholar of religion. She has written of Pius XII that his “apparent failure to condemn the Nazis has become a notorious scandal.” Moral and logical consistency suggest that she would welcome a pope who did confront today’s greatest evil. But she has joined those condemning Pope Benedict. She wrote (putting these arguments in the mouths of affronted Muslims with whom she sympathizes): “the Catholic Church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself . . . under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.”

The argument is so illogical that only those who attended graduate school or Catholicism-bashers could find it persuasive. First, how do you condemn the silence of one pope when confronted with the greatest evil of his time and condemn another pope when confronting the greatest evil of his time? Second, if indeed the Church is guilty of condoning evil in the past, why does that render it “hypocritical” (her term for Benedict’s condemnation of Islamic violence in God’s name) to confront evil in the present? If my grandfather was a murderer, am I a hypocrite for condemning murder?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jg says

    Thanks to Dave Schuler at Neo’s site, here is a link to the English text of the Pope’s address yesterday (9/25)

    http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18874.php?index=18874&lang=en#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

    Praeger highlights something most may not know well (I don’t): Religious politics, both within the Catholic church and outside.
    I’ve always found it helpful in the morass of claims to look for facts, rather than listen to the opinions flaunted. Hopefully my post will provide one current fact, that is, the text of Benedict’s message.

  2. mamapajamas says

    Dennis Praeger has hit yet another home run.

    One thing that this Benedict bruhaha has accomplished is that we’re TALKING about Muslim violence and the “moderate” Muslims lack of response to it. Their lack of response is being taken as approval of the violence in many quarters.

    Are there ANY Muslims out there who think that shooting a nun and burning Orthodox and Anglican churches is a slight… uh… overreaction to a statement from the Pope? The Orthodox and Anglican churches fought entire WARS to separate themselves from Rome, and the nun was just attending sick people.

    That is making us wonder what the HELL is going on in the Islamic world.

  3. says

    Muslims respect power, as should we all. Why should they side with the weaker faction, won’t that just get them killed to no benefit?

    I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter what they think, it is a matter of what they will do. In those terms, terrorism has more control over group behavior than any “moderate” individual.

    Hell is a good choice, because it is hell on earth. The temptation of heaven, included you know. Curiously, they also have angels and devils there, and devils calling angels devils, and angels calling devils devils. So confusing.

Leave a Reply