« JewishEncyclopedia.com | Main | The Evil Of RealPlayer »
April 06, 2006
JP2 And The Quran
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I had never heard you address this on your show or Blog – though I’m certain you are familiar with it and have covered it before. But what gives about the story of JPII kissing the Koran?! I’ve seen it mentioned enough times by serious Catholics to accept this must have happened. However, I don’t know the context of this event or any other details so I can only wonder what our late Holy Father might have been thinking… Your thoughts?
This question has come up over the years, and I know that I've addressed it on the show (though I don't have the faintest idea in what episodes), but I don't seem to have done so on the blog, so here goes. . . .
First, I've reprinted the famous picture of the event above so that people can see what is being talked about.
Based on the picture alone, I would not be sure what is happening. The book is ornate and could be something other than the Quran. From the looks of it, it could be a book of the gospels.
However, the former Chaldean patriarch--Raphael Bidawid--was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:
On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi'ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope's love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.
At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam [SOURCE].
What, then, is one to make of the event?
It seems that there are a number of possibilities:
1) The FIDES news agency misquoted the patriarch.
2) Patriarch Bidawid was mistaken about what happened. It was not the Quran but something else.
3) John Paul II kissed the Quran but didn't know the nature of the book he was kissing.
4) John Paul II kissed the Quran and knew that this is what he was doing.
I would love to think that either option (1), (2), or (3) was the case, but I have no evidence that any of them was the case.
The most likely one of the three, to my mind, would be (3), because so far as I know, John Paul II was not an Arabic speaker and may not have understood the nature of the book that he was being presented with.
People shove all kinds of books into the pope's hands at audiences, and if the pope was under the impression that the thing to do with a gift in Iraqi culture is to kiss it as a sign of respect to the one who gives the gift then he might have kissed it reflexively, not even understanding the nature of the book.
While this is possible, I think it likely that an interpreter explained the nature of the gift that was being given on this occasion. This still leaves the possibility that the pope kissed it as part of Middle Eastern politeness rather than as a gesture of respect for the book itself.
I have heard claims that in some Middle Eastern cultures that this is a typical gesture of respect for one giving a gift, but I have asked Chaldean friends of mine whether this is the case in Iraqi culture and the answer was a definite "No." "The pope put his foot on the neck of all Chaldeans with this action" was the response I was given. (Just to make things clear, putting your foot on the neck of someone is a bad thing in Iraqi culture.)
Still, the pope may have been under the mistaken impression that this was the appropriate thing to do when receiving a gift in their culture. He can't be an expert on every culture in the world, and he could get this wrong.
Or maybe he didn't.
Maybe he knew it was the Quran and kissed it anyway, not as a customary gift giving response, but for some other reason.
What might that reason be?
It certainly wouldn't be that he believes in Islam or believes that Islam is on a par with Christianity. If he believed either of these two things then he (a) wouldn't be the earthly head of the Christian faith and (b) wouldn't have approved the publication of Dominus Iesus, which asserts the salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.
Any attempt to represent him as thinking one of those things doesn't even get out of the gate.
So what might he have been thinking?
We're only speculating here, but two things spring to mind as what JP2 might have been thinking:
1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.
2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.
Of these two, I would conjecture that the latter would have been uppermost in John Paul II's mind, though the former may not have been absent.
John Paul II was a man who was enormously concerned with world peace and interreligious harmony. As a young man he lived through the horrors of World War II, which had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace.
As a mature man he lived through the Cold War that repeatedly brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster, and this also had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace. The constant threat of nuclear warfare hung particularly heavily over Europe--which would have been the chief battleground in a conflict between the Soviet Union and the West--and (particularly on the heels of WWII) it deeply impressed the "find peace at any cost" message on his generation.
As a result of the Cold War, the nations of western Europe were forced into an alliance (NATO) whereby their centuries-long enmities (as between France and Germany) had to be suppressed for the sake of common survival. Negotiation became the key to survival in western Europe, and the same message was driven home to those in Eastern bloc countries, such as John Paul II's native Poland.
By letting the US shoulder the main burden for the military defense of Europe (during and after the Cold War), many Europeans of John Paul II's generation absorbed the idea that negotiation was paramount and could solve virtually any problem. It wasn't until the events of the Global War On Terror that this idea began to be seriously called into question many in European circles.
As a result, as a man of his generation, John Paul II--for the best of motives--may have overestimated both the need for and the utility of gestures such as the one exhibited in the Quran-kissing event.
If the former pontiff did understand that the gift was a Quran and if he wasn't under the impression that kissing a gift was a standard response in Iraqi culture then I would suppose that he did so out of a desire to foster peace and interreligious harmony, but it would still have been a mistake to my mind.
The Quran, whatever elements of truth it contains, also contains venomous attacks on the divinity of Christ and on Christian doctrine and these make it inappropriate for the Vicar of Christ to kiss it under any circumstances.
John Paul II also may not have been attending to the gravity of the false elements in the Quran. Even if he knew them, he may not have been thinking about them and may have acted on the spur of the moment, without fully thinking through his action.
Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.
It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24994/4601805
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference JP2 And The Quran:
» Keegan from Keegan
Rickey Todd Aydan Haden Drake [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 25, 2006 4:42:21 PM
» Why Did Pope John Paul II Kiss The Koran? from Roman Catholic Blog
Speaking of Islam, James Akin has a good article on the infamous Pope John Paull II Koran kissing incident: JP2 And The Quran Your thoughts on this incident? Please keep them charitable. [Read More]
Tracked on May 5, 2006 8:59:06 AM
Comments
Naive Jimmy Akin, why can't you just accept the logical explanation, which is that JPII was secretly a Mason and used this act of iterreligious osculation to signal that he hated the Latin Mass and rejects all Tradition before Vatican II?
Posted by: Jordan | Apr 6, 2006 12:17:44 PM
Anyone interested in Dave Armstrong's discussion of Pope John Paul II kissing the koran can find it here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604152818/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ394.HTM
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 6, 2006 12:18:42 PM
"Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions."
You mean, this can't be used as a proof that everything since Vatican II is invalid and constitutes an abandonment of the faith?
This isn't a decisive blow for sedevacantism?
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that those who eat chicken flavored ramen noodles on Fridays during Lent won't be going straight to hell.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 12:26:02 PM
1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.
2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.
And then there's option 3, which in a way combines the two:
3) One can respect a person or a book without believing it to be true, because respect is not an attitude limited towards truth claims (which point 1 seems to assume, perhaps inadvertently). One can respect sincerity, zeal, and religious faith even if all of it is misdirected. Further, one may respect a literary work which conveys these elements even if one feels that the literary work is fundamentally false. (In other words, we don't have to agree with George Eliot's non-theistic humanism to respect Adam Bede, a book intended to teach these values. Our respect for the book may have nothing to do with its truth claims.)
Respect directed at the Qu'ran may ultimately be respect directed at the faith, the zeal, etc. that it represents, not at the partial truths it may or may not complain. And in this sense, I don't think that showing respect to the Qu'ran is actually a mistake. There is much to respect about Islam, even if one doesn't agree with it.
What was unfortunate about the kissing of the Qu'ran, then, was not that it was a mistake for JPII to show respect, but that his action was so open to misinterpretation. Part of this undoubtedly stems from the fact that for Christians, kissing the Bible DOES indicate respect for its divine inspiration, not just respect for it as a witness to human faith. So, if this were JPII's motive (not that we know), I'd say that the specific gesture he used was unfortunate, but that the desire to show respect for the text as a way of showing respect for the faith and good-will of many who revere the book was not a mistake.
Posted by: Spacemouse | Apr 6, 2006 12:42:10 PM
Very thorough, carefully thought-out, scupulously honest, both charitable and uncompromising. Must have been hard to write this one. Muchos kudos.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2006 12:52:19 PM
There is much to respect about Islam, even if one doesn't agree with it.
What was unfortunate about the kissing of the Qu'ran, then, was not that it was a mistake for JPII to show respect, but that his action was so open to misinterpretation.
"Misinterpretation" is a slippery word. If I decide to use a word with a familiar, widely understood meaning, while personally choosing without explanation to use this word to mean something quite different, I cannot then suggest that those who take the word in the familiar, widely understood sense have "misinterpreted" me. I can't even say that my usage was "open to misinterpretation." It would be more honest to say that I misused the word.
When a priest kisses the book of the gospel, or when a Catholic kisses a crucifix, holy medals, or other sacramentals, we all know what such a gesture means. Given that, IF the pope knowingly kissed the Koran, that seems to me an essentially a false and scandalous gesture, whatever meaning such an action (again, IF the pope did it, and knowingly) may have had in his own mind.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2006 1:06:52 PM
Could be good for a picture caption of the week picture.
"I'm not sure what this stain is, it kind of smells like bacon."
Posted by: anonymouse | Apr 6, 2006 1:42:44 PM
Well handled, Jimmy. A fair and nonbiased (to either side) analysis. Bravo.
Posted by: JJ | Apr 6, 2006 2:26:02 PM
Um, I see no radtrads in the blog entry or the comments box. Why are y'all early commenters spouting venom?
Posted by: John | Apr 6, 2006 2:30:00 PM
Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions.
Like the man who was present said, "It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope's love for the whole of humanity".
The infallibility of love is what counts.
Posted by: arthur | Apr 6, 2006 2:38:43 PM
+J.M.J+
>>>Still, the pope may have been under the mistaken impression that this was the appropriate thing to do when receiving a gift in their culture. He can't be an expert on every culture in the world, and he could get this wrong.
A Coptic (Egyptian) Catholic friend of ours explained that kissing a gift as a gesture of respect to the giver is a custom in the Middle East. It's possible that the custom is more common in Egypt than Iraq, though. I think your surmise is plausible.
As for his attitude toward Islam, didn't the former Pontiff say something less-than-flattering about it in _Crossing the Threshhold of Hope_?
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Apr 6, 2006 2:49:37 PM
"Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions."
John,
You are absolutely correct. I beg your pardon. This is something I am praying about. It is so easy to lapse into uncharity when one is banging away at a keyboard, rather than talking face to face.
Mea Culpa.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 3:15:10 PM
Sorry, that last post (my apology) was in response to this from John;
" Why are y'all early commenters spouting venom?"
The other quote was still floating around on my clipboard, I guess.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 3:16:58 PM
I don't see anything wrong with him kissing the Koran. Some people may choose not to do so, for prudential reasons, and I respect that. But the Koran is at heart a good back. I can read the Koran and draw much inspiration and spiritual encouragement from it. Does it also bear elements of a vehement disagreement with some Christian doctrines? Yes. Does it contain accounts of history that may not be wholly moral? Yes. But it is no more a depraved book than the Talmud. Kissing is a sign of respect, and I could say I do respect the Koran as a holy book, although I don't believe it to be A holy book (in the sense that the Bible is), just as Pope Benedict can have a sincere respect for Martin Luther, even though he was a heretic. Would we react in horror if a Catholic gave Martin Luther a kiss?
Posted by: Jason | Apr 6, 2006 3:17:08 PM
"Yes. But it is no more a depraved book than the Talmud"
Huh?
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 3:18:27 PM
Should read: "...at heart a good BOOK"
Posted by: Jason | Apr 6, 2006 3:18:29 PM
"Huh?"
Some people lambaste the Talmud as a depraved book, because it was written by post-Christian Jews. But the Talmud is at heart a good book of Jewish spirituality, just as the Koran is at heart a good book of Muslim spirituality. It's not perfect, no. But we don't have to make it out to be "The Satanic Bible". John Paul praises its titles for God in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope".
Posted by: Jason | Apr 6, 2006 3:20:16 PM
Iraq is not, at heart, an Arab country. There are Bedouins and other folks of Arab descent who live there, but most of Iraqi culture comes from the old Persian Empire. (Iran, the Kurds, and Afghanistan are also heavily influenced by the old Persian stuff.) They pronounce Arabic very differently than most of the Middle East does (and a lot of folks speak Farsi or Aramaic or other languages, anyway). If you add that there's been a lot of separation for a long time between Sunni and Shiite, it shouldn't be surprising that customs would differ a lot.
Posted by: Maureen | Apr 6, 2006 3:40:04 PM
jason, are you serious?
Posted by: tim | Apr 6, 2006 3:56:00 PM
But the Koran is at heart a good back. I can read the Koran and draw much inspiration and spiritual encouragement from it.
I felt the exact same way. I mean, who can read the following and not get warm fuzzy, spine-tingly feelings of inspiration?
"They ask the (O Muhammed) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger..."
Posted by: BillyHW | Apr 6, 2006 4:08:40 PM
This is one of the reasons that I can't take much of Catholic apologetics seriously.
If Martin Luther or John Calvin had kissed a copy of the Koran, we protestants wouldn't hear the end of it.
If Karl Rahner, Hans Kung or Richard McBrien had kissed the Koran, that would have been proof of their liberalism.
But if JP the Great kisses the Koran (assuming he knowingly did) well it's not such a big deal.
Doesn't this sound like moral relatavism (sic) to you? It sure does to me.
Give me a break.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Apr 6, 2006 4:21:49 PM
I felt the exact same way. I mean, who can read the following and not get warm fuzzy, spine-tingly feelings of inspiration?
Why does that offend you? Do non-Christians have to believe in Jesus to appreciate the Bible as an inspirational book of literature? Do non-Jews have to believe that God would slaughter first-born children to appreciate much of what the Old Testament has to offer?
Jeb,
If you read in the Koran that "Allah" had slaughtered the first-born of a nation, or commanded Mohammed to "utterly destroy them, make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them" (Deut 7), would you not recoil in horror? But because the Bible says it, we control our natural reaction. Why? Because we believe the Bible is credible. EVERYONE explains away "hard passages" when it comes to their own faith. They may be right, they may be wrong. But it's not dishonest to do so. If you believe in something, you are going to try to reconcile it as best you can.
tim,
Yes, I am serious.
From the beginning of the Koran:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Keep us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.
Why couldn't I draw the same kind of inspiration from this I would from Plato or Shakespeare? I don't necessarily agree with everything they've written.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 6, 2006 4:46:51 PM
This is one of the reasons that I can't take much of Catholic apologetics seriously.
If Martin Luther or John Calvin had kissed a copy of the Koran, we protestants wouldn't hear the end of it.
If Karl Rahner, Hans Kung or Richard McBrien had kissed the Koran, that would have been proof of their liberalism.
But if JP the Great kisses the Koran (assuming he knowingly did) well it's not such a big deal.
Doesn't this sound like moral relatavism (sic) to you? It sure does to me.
Give me a break.
Care to actually interact with some of Jimmy's points or can we just chalk this up to the usual worthless meta-analysis?
Posted by: Scott W. | Apr 6, 2006 5:23:59 PM
"If Karl Rahner, Hans Kung or Richard McBrien had kissed the Koran, that would have been proof of their liberalism."
In that case, it would have been FURTHER proof of their liberalism. Context is everything, or do you think we should judge JPII by this incident in isolation?
Did you hear that Billy Graham recently (apparently) endorsed Hillary Clinton as President? Do I judge him by this statement, or by his whole life's work? Isn't it prudent to evaluate it in the context of the positions he has taken consistently in the past?
I'd allow that he and JPII are allowed a few aberrations. Karl Rahnern, Hans Kung and the rest don't need to kiss the Q'uran to prove their liberalism. It is evident in everything they do.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 5:54:55 PM
Tim J,
Ok, let's leave Rahner et al out of it. (Although since Rahner has been rehabilitated by the Vatican I don't know by what grounds you consider him a liberal.)
What if Martin Luther or John Calvin had done this -- wouldn't this have been exhibit A in any catholic apologists bag of tricks?
If "John Paul the Great" kissed the Book of Mormon or the New World Translation would you approve of it?
I don't think it was an aberration (consider the Assisi spectacles) but is it totally irrelevant? Why is JP II given a free pass?
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Apr 6, 2006 6:01:41 PM
"If "John Paul the Great" kissed the Book of Mormon or the New World Translation would you approve of it?"
Jeb-
Nobody said they approved of it. Where did you get that idea? Jimmy said it was a mistake. I agree. That does not mean that anyone ought to therefore be able to use it to smear the entire pontificate of JPII.
You seem to be very willing to use it as a handy club with which to beat JPII, and then rail about how we would do the same thing if it were a Prot or a Lib.
Please read Jimmy's post again. Neither he, nor anyone else excused it. It bothers a lot of Catholics. It bothers me, but I will not judge the man by this one incident.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 6:08:44 PM
NOt that I'm about to go around Koran kissing, but Jason does have some good points. There really are parts of the Koran that are very beautiful reflections on God, inspired in large part by the culture's contacts with Judaism and Christianity.
Of course, there are also really long boring parts, and questionable parts, and then some really more long boring parts.
Posted by: Eileen R | Apr 6, 2006 6:11:22 PM
Oh, I see someone's brought the Book of Mormon into it. I've read both, and the Koran is actually an authentic literatry product of its time.
The Book of Mormon is a guy trying to write a book that sounds like the Bible.
The Koran's an authentic religious expression. The Book of Mormon is a hoax, even if we respect Mormons.
I wouldn't kiss either, as stated above, but they're not equivalents.
Posted by: Eileen R | Apr 6, 2006 6:17:11 PM
Scott W: I think his answer to your question is "No".
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 6, 2006 6:18:25 PM
Reading the Q'uran for inspiration reminds me of the dad who wanted to teach his kids a lesson about the kind of movies and shows they watched.
They sometimes wanted to watch programs and movies that had foul language or nudity, and would defend it by saying "Well, there is only a little nudity. Most of the movie is okay.".
One day the dad made a big batch of brownies, and the delicious smell went through the whole house.
The kids were ready to dig in, when the dad said "Oh, you ought to know, I put some dog poop in there.".
The kids were disgusted and indignant that he had ruined the brownies.
Then, looking surprised, the dad said "But, it was only a tiny bit. Most of them should be fine.".
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 6:19:06 PM
Actually, I see a lot of similarities between the whole Mormon thing and Islam.
The Q'uran is also cobbled together from other religions.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 6:22:22 PM
Tim J,
I'm not saying you or Jimmy approved of it. I do find the willingess to overlook it curious. As I pointed out, no Catholic would overlook it if Luther or Calvin did it.
In fact, with respect to JP II I think the man did try pretty consistently to downplay to the uniqueness of Christianity. The Assisi events are one example. The whole dispute about whether he was annointed as a priest of Shiva (or whatever it was) in India is another. His statements about hell were rather nebulous as well.
JP II did some admirable things. I commend him for his stand against homosexuality and abortion. But when it came to an unambigous message about the need for conversion to Jesus Christ, he was quite lacking.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Apr 6, 2006 6:30:37 PM
What if Martin Luther or John Calvin had done this -- wouldn't this have been exhibit A in any catholic apologists bag of tricks?
Um, no.
What would that prove? Only that Luther and Calvin were fallible men who made mistakes and errors in judgment, sometimes bad ones. Luther and Calvin themselves would say the same, as would all good Lutherans and Calvinists. No controversy there.
Catholic apologetics is fundamentally positive, not negative. Bashing the Reformers could never be exhibit A. Exhibit A is always going to be why Catholicism is true, not why Protestantism is false.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2006 6:42:55 PM
I do find the willingess to overlook it curious.
Funny how the willingness to overlook it included writing an entire blogpost about it.
Posted by: paul zummo | Apr 6, 2006 6:43:05 PM
If I decide to use a word with a familiar, widely understood meaning, while personally choosing without explanation to use this word to mean something quite different, I cannot then suggest that those who take the word in the familiar, widely understood sense have "misinterpreted" me.
You can if you're Alphonsus Ligouri. ;-) It's called equivocation. It isn't sinful in all circumstances, at least not according to some of the most beloved Catholic moral theologians.
More seriously, even with the list of items you mention, does kissing them really mean the same thing? Kissing the icon of a saint is not the same as kissing a Bible (one is a representative of a member of the communion of saints, and one is the written word of God) and neither of those is at all the same as kissing your pet or your infant nephew.
I do see your point, but I think it depends on the idea that kissing such an object could only have one primary meaning, and I'm not sure that's true.
Still, I do agree that it was an unfortunate gesture to use.
Posted by: Spacemouse | Apr 6, 2006 7:17:26 PM
The kids were ready to dig in, when the dad said "Oh, you ought to know, I put some dog poop in there.".
The kids were disgusted and indignant that he had ruined the brownies.
That's a cute story, but not exactly a good philosophy for life.
To quote Pope Pius XII: "The Church has never held the doctrine of the pagans in contempt, but purified it from all error and crowned it with Christian wisdom."
By your logic, we shouldn't read Origen, or even St. Thomas Aquinas, since he argued against the Immaculate Conception, which is now a dogma. We might eat that poop and die! :P
(Sorry for the multiple posts, Jimmy. This will be my last.)
Posted by: Jason | Apr 6, 2006 7:22:54 PM
+J.M.J+
Here's what JPG actually had to say about the Koran:
Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.
Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.
From Crossing the Threshhold of Hope, pp.92-93.
We have to look at the Koran-kissing incident in the light of the Pontiff's personal attitude toward that book. He obviously does not consider it equal to the Bible, so his gesture must clearly mean something else.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Apr 6, 2006 7:23:18 PM
"That's a cute story, but not exactly a good philosophy for life."
Okay, Jason. It's just a story, and not presented as anything else.
But it does make my point. You may find some worthy things in the Q'uran, but I maintain that you will find absolutely nothing of value in it that is not better and more fully expressed in the Holy Scriptures.
Why go out for hamburger when you have steak at home?
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 6, 2006 7:55:55 PM
The answer may be in JP2's May 5, 1999 general audience speech (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2muslm.htm)
Posted by: Mike S | Apr 6, 2006 8:13:05 PM
We have to look at the Koran-kissing incident in the light of the Pontiff's personal attitude toward that book. He obviously does not consider it equal to the Bible, so his gesture must clearly mean something else.
Thank you for posting that, Rosemarie. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
Posted by: Alan Phipps | Apr 6, 2006 9:22:30 PM
One more thought. Did the Pope REALLY kiss the book or did he just pretend to kiss the book? (something like just touching the tip of his nose to the book).
My opinion is that he was caught between committing an act of disrespect (in an ecumenical mission), and an act that may be criticised by fellow Christians, and at the spur of the moment decided to act in a way that would offend Christians rather than Muslims, since we are supposed to be the more understandable and forgiving sort of people.
Those of us who've lived in non-Christian countries would have had similar experiences when attending a social event composed of people with a different religion. Do I eat meat consecrated to idols or not?
Posted by: Francis DS | Apr 6, 2006 9:44:58 PM
The way I remember this was explained by Vatican spokemen almost immediately after it happened, was that John Paul was kissing the book for the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary that it contained.
Posted by: NonAnonymous | Apr 6, 2006 11:09:46 PM
I was going to say, but someone else above has pretty much said it, that it's silly to think that if you really look at JPII's actions as a whole, you don't get a clear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can begin with his very first encyclical, out just a few months after his election - The Redeemer of Man - and work your way forward.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | Apr 7, 2006 3:09:37 AM
I wonder if this kiss, much like the apologies to all the people wronged by the Church over the centuries, was not an act of charity from the Pope. Just an idea, but I remember these things bothering me too, and I wondered what the Pope would say if I asked him: "Holiness, why?" Might he not smile and say, "Must a man deserve an apology if it serves peace?" Sort of a turning the other cheek thing.
After all, I'm sure the apostles were all shocked and asking the questions above (it: What is He DOING??) when Christ allowed himself to be taken, put on trial, scourged, crucified. It was that surpeme caritas of which only God is capable. Perhaps kissing a koran is something like that.
Posted by: Stefan of the North | Apr 7, 2006 5:18:20 AM
Hmmm Well seems that Jimmy is like an ostrich, and Jason seems to suffering same myopia.
Jimmy: This is the pope who has the distinction of being the first pope to pray in a Muslime mosque. He invoked the blessing of St. John the Baptist over "Islam." He made numerous addresses and speeches to the Muslim people, always encouraging them to continue make their contribution to "a new human family"
He knew what the Quran was. He knew what it contained. He kissed it with full knowledge and intention, because he valued what Islam and Catholicism shared in common.
[No one knows why JPII kissed the Koran, and he never made his reasons public while he was alive.]
That's precisely where I disagree. This might be true if no one had ever heard of JP2 before, if no one knew anything about him, if we were just shown this picture of a man kissing the Quran and were made to answer "why is this man kissing this book?"
Then it might be charitable to pile up the excuses - maybe he didn't know what book it was, maybe he was mistaken about how to show a gesture of thanksgiving in that culture, maybe he was completely clueless, etc.
But we're not in the dark on JP2. All of his other interactions with Islam - and there were plenty of them - show us without a shadow of doubt that he knew what he was doing, and had reasons for doing it. Over and over again he commended Muslims for their belief in "the one God," and encouraged them to live well in their own religion, to make a contribution to the "new human family" and the cause of world peace. He constantly made reference to the things shared in common by our two religions - and all of this shows us exactly what his mindset towards Islam was.
All of his actions and gestures would lead us to expect that he would kiss the Quran if ever given the chance, because he venerates it as a holy book belonging to a praise-worthy religion.
I'll let John Paul II have the last word:
Quote:
Christians and Moslems, we meet one another in faith in the one God, our creator, our guide, our just and merciful judge. We strive to put into practice in our daily lives the will of God, following the teaching of our respective holy books. (Documentation Catholique, Jul. 7, 1985)
And Jason, the Talmud was NOT written by "post Christian Jews" (what kind of term is THAT??!) It was compiled by anger Pharisees and Saduchees who were bereft at the loss of more of their Jewish community to Christianity. Let's look at a section from the Talmud that you so greatly respect: verse 5:4 of the tractate Niddah. 'it is like a finger in eye' Rabbi Litman explains what it means: "This refers to the hymen of a girl younger than three years old. The Sages believed that in the case of toddler rape, the hymen would fully grow back by the time the girl reached adulthood and married. Therfore, though violated, she would still technically be counted as a virgin and could marry a priest. It's an analogy: poking your finger in the eye is uncomortable, but causes no lasting harm."
Oh! Let's not forget what the Talmud says about Our Mother:
Tract Kallah, 1b:
"Once when the Elders were seated at the Gate, two young men passed by, one of whom had his head covered, the other with his head bare. Rabbi Eliezer remarked that the one in his bare head was illegitimate, a mamzer. Rabbi Jehoschua said that he was conceived during menstruation, ben niddah. Rabbi Akibah, however, said that he was both. Whereupon the others asked Rabbi Akibah why he dared to contradict his colleagues. He answered that he could prove what he said. He went therefore to the boy's mother whom he saw sitting in the market place selling vegetables and said to her: 'My daughter, if you will answer truthfully what I am going to ask you, I promise that you will be saved in the next life.' She demanded that he would swear to keep his promise, and Rabbi Akibah did so—but with his lips only, for in his heart he invalidated his oath. Then he said: 'Tell me, what kind of son is this of yours'? To which she replied: 'The day I was married I was having menstruation, and because of this my husband left me. But an evil spirit came and slept with me and from this intercourse my son was born to me.' Thus it was proved that this young man was not only illegitimate but also conceived during the menstruation of his mother. And when his questioners heard this they declared: 'Great indeed was Rabbi Akibah when he corrected his Elders'! And they exclaimed: 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who revealed his secret to Rabbi Akibah the son of Joseph' "
Must I continue??
People let's get our heads out of the sand and see things for what they really are: a spiritual battle between good and evil. Satan has and will continue to use Judaism and anything else Islam, etc to be tools, instruments to wage war against us that believe in the One, True, Apostolic church that Christ instituted in whatever way he can. Don't fall for it!
Posted by: Heather | Apr 7, 2006 6:58:59 AM
Francis:
"4: Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall." (1 Cor 8:4-13)
It's clear from this passage that eating meat consecrated to idols is fine, unless you cause scandal to your brethren in such case you should abstain. Thus in the case you're talking about you could eat it and not sin.
Posted by: | Apr 7, 2006 7:19:53 AM
Heather I would laugh at your nonsense if I wasn't sad at such a display of hate and bitterness...
Posted by: | Apr 7, 2006 7:25:53 AM
It's times like this when I remember Catechism #2478:
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved" - St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22.
In light of what our late Holy Father has written about Islam, how can we not interpret this action in the context of the man's life and public teaching? Do we really want to reduce the sum of his teaching down to the worst possible explanation of one action. I would expect the media to do that, because the media has no memory. But we are Catholic Christians. Let us especially remember this during Lent (myself included).
Posted by: Alan Phipps | Apr 7, 2006 7:30:36 AM
Sorry, that last paragraph should not have been in italics!
Posted by: Alan Phipps | Apr 7, 2006 7:31:31 AM
+J.M.J+
The "finger in eye" statement in the Talmud is not meant to justify child-rape, just to rule that a girl violated against her will should still be considered a virgin for the sake of the marriage dowry later in life. A virgin's dowry was higher than that of a non-virgin, so the rabbis were saying that child molestation should not be held against a victim.
They were in no way saying that it wasn't a crime to molest a girl. The Talmud strictly forbids sex outside of marriage, and raping a three year-old girl certainly qualifies as such.
As for the second statement, it does not refer to Christ, but to another "prophet" named Yeshu who lived around 100 AD. After all, Rabbi Akibah lived from c. 50 AD to 135 AD - he was not alive at the time of Our Lord!
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Apr 7, 2006 7:32:11 AM
