The Pope and the Ex-president
Michael D. Kerlin
Issue date: 10/25/06 Section: Op-Ed
- Page 1 of 2 next >
As Pope Benedict XVI scrambled to explain why he quoted criticism of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, he issued a few qualifiers. In one, he said his address had been "an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect."
These words reminded me of another famous qualifier. Former Harvard president, Larry Summers, just before wondering aloud whether differences in "intrinsic aptitude" might explain women's under-representation in the sciences, told his audience he wanted "to provoke" them.
So the Pope wanted frank and sincere dialogue and Summers wanted to provoke. These don't seem particularly evil ambitions. And yet both men faced outrage after their statements. Many female academics and scientists, as well as their male counterparts, rallied together to condemn Summers. The pope sparked angry reactions among even moderate Muslim leaders, such as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of Turkey. Ordinary Muslims gathered to protest the pope and, at the extreme, to burn churches and even murder a nun.
Why so much fallout from reasonable attempts at frank and provoking dialogue? Both men overestimated their roles as intellectuals and underestimated their roles as leaders. Neither leader recognized that his high-profile position alters what observers consider acceptable.
As a former professor of philosophy, the Pope may view himself as a public intellectual. But he is also a head of a state, and the spiritual leader of a billion people. Many non-Catholics, however naively, view the pope's words as representative of the thoughts and feelings of all Catholics.
Fortunately for Catholics, and Christians more broadly, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups have consistently identified "the West"-an amorphous geographic and cultural entity, not a specific religion-as the real enemy.
That was until the pope stepped in and risked adding religion to the mix of characteristics that define the enemy. In addition to the church burnings, an Al Qaeda related website posted a warning threatening a broader war against "worshippers of the cross."
These words reminded me of another famous qualifier. Former Harvard president, Larry Summers, just before wondering aloud whether differences in "intrinsic aptitude" might explain women's under-representation in the sciences, told his audience he wanted "to provoke" them.
So the Pope wanted frank and sincere dialogue and Summers wanted to provoke. These don't seem particularly evil ambitions. And yet both men faced outrage after their statements. Many female academics and scientists, as well as their male counterparts, rallied together to condemn Summers. The pope sparked angry reactions among even moderate Muslim leaders, such as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of Turkey. Ordinary Muslims gathered to protest the pope and, at the extreme, to burn churches and even murder a nun.
Why so much fallout from reasonable attempts at frank and provoking dialogue? Both men overestimated their roles as intellectuals and underestimated their roles as leaders. Neither leader recognized that his high-profile position alters what observers consider acceptable.
As a former professor of philosophy, the Pope may view himself as a public intellectual. But he is also a head of a state, and the spiritual leader of a billion people. Many non-Catholics, however naively, view the pope's words as representative of the thoughts and feelings of all Catholics.
Fortunately for Catholics, and Christians more broadly, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups have consistently identified "the West"-an amorphous geographic and cultural entity, not a specific religion-as the real enemy.
That was until the pope stepped in and risked adding religion to the mix of characteristics that define the enemy. In addition to the church burnings, an Al Qaeda related website posted a warning threatening a broader war against "worshippers of the cross."
Be the first to comment on this story