The Pope
Takes a Dive
by
Andrew Walsh
Few jobs often involve a steep learning
curve, as Pope Benedict XVI learned last fall when he discovered that the
sort of blunt talk he specialized in as a cardinal could cause big headaches
coming from the lips of the Vicar of Christ.
In a September lecture given at the University
of Regensburg, Benedict quoted a 15th-century Byzantine emperor’s attack on
Islam: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will
find things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the
faith he preached.”
This statement, to many, came as the capstone of
a series of progressively tougher remarks about the failure of Muslim
leaders to condemn terrorism and complaints about restrictions on Christian
practice in Muslim countries.
But the pope was apparently surprised by the
result, laconically described by the Financial Times as “enraged
Muslims across the world.”
Among the most visibly enraged were Muslims in
99-percent Muslim Turkey. That presented a particular problem for the pope
because he was scheduled to make a four-day formal visit to that nation at
the end of November.
The planned story line for the trip had to do
with focusing world attention on the hard lot of Turkey’s small Christian
population; urging the Turkish government to ease its restrictive
regulations; and advancing ecumenical relations with Eastern Orthodoxy by
way of discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the
senior Orthodox Christian prelate in the world.
But because of what happened in September, the
story line turned out to be: Benedict in the lion’s den.
The advance pieces in the newspapers featured
headlines like Newsday’s “Pontiff’s Journey a Trip Into Turmoil” and
the Financial Times’ “Turkish politicians head out of town to avoid
Pope’s visit.” CNN’s standing logo for the trip was: “When Faiths Collide.”
The weekend before the visit, 25,000 angry
Islamists filled the streets of Istanbul, “brandishing placards, which read
‘Pope don’t test our patience’ and chanting Allahu Akbar,” reported
Amberin Zaman and Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times on
November 27.
Anne Barnard of the Boston Globe found
posters at the same rally depicting “a pig with the face of Pope Benedict
XVI plastered to its head and a cross painted on its pink belly.” The
Turkish government, she reported, had suppressed posters with the slogan
“Ignorant and Sly Pope, Don’t Come.”
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a
devout Muslim, took to Italian television to say “We have never allowed
ourselves to insult the prophets of other religions. Our faith obliges us to
show respect. Therefore, it is our right to expect the same treatment of
other religions.”
Erdogan’s particular version of respect included
a plan to fly out of Ankara’s airport for a NATO meeting in Latvia just a
few minutes before the pope’s planned arrival.
“Benedict now finds himself in an unfamiliar
position as he embarks on the most important mission of his papacy,” David
Van Biema wrote in Time’s November 27 cover story. “Having thrust
himself to the center of the global debate and earned the vilification of
the Muslim street, he must weigh hard options. Does he seize his new
platform, insisting that another great faith has potentially deadly flaws
and daring to discuss them, while exhorting Western audiences to be morally
armed? Or does he back away from further confrontation in the hope of
tamping down the rage his words have already provoked?”
Just to make life more difficult for Benedict,
the European Union went out of its way to announce that it was putting
Turkey’s application for membership on hold because of a dispute between
perennial rivals Greece and Turkey. As a cardinal, the pope had also spoken
out against Turkish membership.
So John Allen, the National Catholic Reporter’s
crack Vatican correspondent, hardly seemed to be understating the case on
ABC’s “Nightline” November 28 when he said of the pope, “Almost everywhere
he puts his foot down on this trip there are potential landmines waiting to
go off.”
Yet for those with eyes to see, signs emerged in
the week before the visit that Benedict would not be taking a hard line in
Turkey. The Vatican announced, for example, that he was adding a visit to
Istanbul’s Blue Mosque to the agenda. It was the Christian Science
Monitor’s Yigal Schleifer who put together the pieces on November 28,
predicting a charm offensive and citing Benedict’s pre-trip statements in
Rome.
“I want to send a cordial greeting to the dear
Turkish people, rich in history and culture,” the pope said in his weekly
Sunday address. “To this people and their leaders I express feelings of
esteem and sincere friendship.” Schliefer noted that “Vatican officials have
also recently said the papacy does not oppose Turkey’s joining the EU,
though as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the pope did not support it.”
The Monitor went on to note that the
Turkish prime minister had belatedly decided to stay at the airport for a
while to meet the pope and that the Turkish religious officials who had most
bitterly criticized Benedict in September were softening their line.
Ali Bardakoglu, the head of a government agency
that oversees Turkey’s mosques and imams, had said in September that
Benedict nursed “hatred in his heart for Islam.” But Schleifer spotted a new
quote from Bardakoglu in the German magazine, Der Spiegel. “Whenever
a religious leader visits other countries, it means that religious leader is
ready to engage in dialogue,” he said. “That’s important. If we want to get
a grip on the world’s problems, we have to speak to each other.”
Turkey’s leadership was also putting out the
word. “Protesting the pope’s visit does Turkey no good, and Muslims no
good,” columnist Ali Sirmen wrote in the secular Istanbul newspaper
Cumhurriyet—which is “close to the army,” the Irish Times
reported November 30.
And so it turned out to be. As soon as he got
off the airplane in Ankara on November 29, Benedict told Prime Minister
Erdogan he supported Turkey’s application for EU membership. He then went
reverently to the tomb of Kemal Ataturk, founder of Turkey’s secular
republic. He listened respectfully when Bardakoglu made a tough speech about
Islamophobia. Next day, he was on the cover of every Turkish newspaper
waving the red and white Turkish flag.
Agence France Presse reported that Posta,
the biggest selling Turkish daily, carried the November 30 heading: “The
pope wins Turkey’s heart.” Hurriyet’s headline read: “I love
the Turks.”
Pre-visit protesters had been hyperventilating
over the possibility that Benedict would make Christian gestures—crossing
himself, or, perhaps even dropping to his knees in prayer, as Pope Paul VI
did in 1967—on a visit to Hagia Sophia, the Christian cathedral that had
been turned into a mosque by Muslim conquerors in 1453. But Benedict
restrained himself.
The pope even scored an unexpected iconic
moment, standing shoeless in the Blue Mosque, facing Mecca, and joining
Istanbul’s grand mufti in a moment of silent prayer.
Western journalists, too, agreed that the Pope’s
trip was stunningly successful in easing tensions. The headlines captured
the general sentiment: “Pope, Defying Expectations, Ends Turkey Trip on a
High Note,” offered the Religion News Service. “Papal visit to Istanbul
mosque caps campaign to overcome Islamic anger,” noted the Associated Press.
“Pope Benedict XVI was greeted in Turkey with a
lecture on how the Christian West scorns Islam. He left with Istanbul’s
chief Islamic cleric speaking lyrically of better days ahead between the
faiths,” AP’s Brian Murphy wrote. “Few predicted how boldly and with such
apparent success the pontiff would seek to remake his battered image in the
Muslim world during four days of speeches, sermons, and symbolism that
included an instantly famous moment of silent prayer in a mosque while
facing Mecca.”
“The Pope finds successful visits move in
mysterious ways,” concluded the Financial Times.
The visit didn’t do a great deal to advance its
original agenda. To be sure, Benedict visited Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew in his headquarters, as well as Istanbul’s Armenian Orthodox
Patriarch, and the city’s small Catholic cathedral. And he and Bartholomew
signed an agreement to step up ecumenical dialogue and cooperation.
But there was no sign of progress in persuading
the Turkish government to relent on policies that seem designed to slowly
strangle the 1,500-year-old Patriarchate of Constantinople: refusing to
recognize ownership rights to churches, schools, and cemeteries, stripping
it of property, and forbidding it to operate its seminary independently.
A handful of American reporters did do stories
about the plight of the Greek and Armenian minorities in Istanbul—notably
the Boston Globe, New York Times, and Newsday. On the
whole, however, the American news media offered far less insight into the
condition of the Orthodox community and its relationship with the Roman
Catholic Church than did British, Irish, or Canadian reporters.
That feeble quality was exemplified in a
National Public Radio “Morning Edition” report that ran on November 30. When
host John Ydstie asked reporter Ivan Watson about the Orthodox service
attended by the pope and what it meant for the two churches, Watson
responded, “Well, we had these bearded Greek Orthodox priests also dressed
in very elaborate vestments. They were golden embroidered…chanting their
prayers and hymns in Greek.”
American journalism did better at capturing one
interesting dimension of the story: the fact that many of the pope’s
theological supporters seemed to be spoiling for a confrontation.
In Time’s November 27 issue, David Van
Biema noted that Benedict was “a far more compelling and complex character”
in many eyes precisely because he had managed to “reanimate the
clash-of-civilizations discussion by focusing scrutiny on the core question
of whether Islam, as a religion, sanctions violence.” Van Biema then quoted
Helen Hull Hitchcock of St. Louis, the head of the “conservative Catholic
organization Women for Faith and Family: ‘He has said what needed to be
said.’”
In a column entitled “What the Pope Gets Right”
that appeared in the same issue, the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus argued that
“by decrying the use of violence in the name of God, Benedict is challenging
Muslims to confront hard truths.” Benedict, Neuhaus wrote approvingly, “has
not retreated from his challenge of Islam. Moreover, under his leadership,
the Vatican has taken a much stronger line on insisting on ‘reciprocity’ in
relations with Islam. Mosques proliferate throughout cities in the West,
while any expression of non-Islamic religion is strictly forbidden in many
Muslim countries.”
Similarly, in the December 4 issue of
Newsweek—which appeared on newsstands before the visit—Catholic scholar
George Weigel forcefully outlined the Turkish government’s “violations of
basic human rights” in the restrictions it imposes on Christians and
especially the Orthodox. In his peroration, Weigel asked, “Might Benedict
XVI’s pilgrimage to Turkey focus the world’s attention on the stranglehold
the Turkish state attempts to exercise on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
and his people, such that the stranglehold begins to ease?”
Yet, as Benedict was leaving, the Turkish
government reasserted its refusal to acknowledge that the patriarch was
anything other than a local Turkish religious leader. And the Turkish
republic’s president announced he was suppressing aspects of a new law
designed to assuage human rights activists and that would have acknowledged
the validity of some of the patriarchate’s complaints about expropriation of
property. But few American journalists commented on that.
Nor did many of the formerly outspoken
conservative Catholics. It fell to the New York Times’ Ian Fisher to
ask the quite reasonable question December 3: “Has the pope gone wobbly?” in
a story headlined: “The Pope Without His Sting.”
“Supporters
have long depended on Benedict XVI for brave talk, even and maybe especially
if it was unpleasant to hear,” Fisher wrote. “With his big brain and the
heft of the Roman Catholic tradition behind him Benedict has stood for a
remarkably clear idea: there is truth, and we won’t retreat from it.”
Fisher found some worried friends of Benedict.
“He has signaled to Islam that there are concessions he can make, and
reactions other than outrage in the face of intimidation and violence,” he
quoted one blogger. “It’s a shame, we needed Benedict and his withdrawal
from the debate is a considerable loss.”
Philip Lawler, editor of the Catholic World News
website, grimaced but found a way to get behind Benedict’s trip to Turkey.
Acknowledging some unhappiness among Benedict’s conservative supporters
about the cave-in on EU membership and the visit to the mosque, Lawler
insisted that Benedict “continued to raise in Turkey the same issues he
always has: concern for religious freedom, respect for religious minorities,
denunciation of violence in the name of God.
“I haven’t seen any backtracking since
Regensburg,” Lawler told Fisher. “I’ve seen questions posed in a different
manner. And I’ve seen a concern that he doesn’t want to offend people by the
way in which he poses the questions. But he’s still determined to have those
questions posed.”
OK.
|