reflectivepundit: Mass-Mediated Trouble: The Pope's Treatise and Its Aftermath

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The protests by Muslim leaders and the violent reactions in a number of countries to a recent speech by Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Germany underline the problematic side of news reporting and global communication. I have read the text of the long speech in which the Pope cited what he himself characterized a “brusque” remark by a Byzantine emperor that Islam teaches the spreading of faith by violence. Most of the pope’s remarks focused critically on the West’s obsession with reason. In the end, Benedict called for a “genuine dialogue between cultures and religions so urgently needed today.” But what was reported and transmitted to the whole world focused mostly and most prominently on Benedict’s rejection of religious violence according to the Muslim concept jihad.

It was certainly unwise that the pope selected an offensive citation from the Middle Ages as the starting point of a rather complex, scholarly treatise—particularly given his earlier expressed skepticism of the usefulness of constructive dialogue between Catholics and Muslims. At minimum, he should have clearly distinguished between mainstream Islam and its interpretation and practice by militant Islamists. Still, even as I reread the text of the pope’s speech, I do not discover anything that would explain, forget justify, the outrage that many Muslims have expressed and some acted upon—including reportedly by killing an Italian nun in Somalia.

The media bear some responsibility here in that most news reports highlighted Benedict’s remarks that, as Ian Fisher wrote in the New York Times, “could inflame Muslims, at a time of high tension among religions…” But whereas Fisher at least reported on the main arguments of the speech as well, many other press accounts were far less complete.

The press in Europe examined the speech and the furor it caused at considerable length and addressed the issue whether any aspect of Islam simply cannot be criticized without causing anger and violent reactions among Muslims. But there was not exactly a rush to examine the pope’s lecture and its aftermath on the opinion pages of the U.S. media. Obviously, the topic was deemed by many editorial writers and columnists too risky to explore. So it was left to some pundits in the blogosphere to deal with the incident. Bill Press, for example, who obviously did not bother to read the full text of the controversial lecture, posted the following comment on the well-known Huffington Post site:

It’s a good thing the Pope has apologized for insulting Islam, but what I want to know is: What the hell was he thinking?

And if, as he now says, he doesn’t agree with the comments of Emperor Manuel Paleologos II about the teachings of Mohammed—why’d he quote him in the first place?

What is he trying to do, start World War III?

The post ends with the advice, “Next time, maybe he’ll think before spouting out.”

While that’s precisely the advice the commentator should heed, his not at all helpful remarks underline the need for thoughtful inter-personal and mass-mediated debate about the most important issues of our time—including the peaceful coexistence of and cooperation between the various world religions.

P.S. Under the headline "Enough Apologies," columnist Anne Applebaum writes today, Tuesday and a day after I posted my comments, on the uproar over the pope's Regensburg speech in the Washington Post.