I'm still jet-lagged from a trip, and there's not enough time to write more thoroughly, so here are some fragments:
• The full text of the Pope's apology reveals that the Pope has not recanted that part of his speech -- that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." If journalists had bothered to read the full text -- well, they wouldn't have understood it anyway, so the point is moot. But assuming they weren't so lazy, or so ignorant of the philosophical context of the Pope's remarks, that is far more pointed than an intemperate quotation from a Byzantine emperor. It says that Islam downplays the intellect of God in favor of the will of God, while Greek philosophy and Christian philosophy acknowledge the importance of both. That is a crucial departure between the two religions, and it is telling that no Muslims, so far as I can tell, have objected to it.
• At a protest outside Westminster Cathedral in London, Muslims issued veiled threats against Pope Benedict's life, and spouted blasphemies against Jesus. (So much for "respectful dialogue.")
• TigerHawk sounds one of my regular themes, that "liberals, such as the editors of the New York Times, refuse to condemn them because they believe that Muslims are incapable of choices. I may deplore the choices of these rioting Muslims, but the New York Times holds them in contempt, regarding them as nothing more than wild animals." TigerHawk refers to the New York Times editorial chastising the Holy Father for "sow[ing] pain" among tender-hearted Muslims.
• Speaking of the NYT, their contemptible editorial deserves a little more attention. "The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue," the editors intone. "But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims." According to Merriam-Webster, foment means "to promote the growth or development of: ROUSE, INCITE; 'foment a rebellion'." The editors are thus plainly stating that the Holy Father deliberately promoted discord ("active quarreling or conflict"). By misinterpreting the Pope's words as deliberately offensive, aren't the editors guilty of the same crime?
• If you have not already done it, read the Pope's original speech so you can see it in context.
And the NYT Times and its wholly owned mouthpieces at the Boston Globe wonder why their newspapers are fast sinking in circulation.
Please remember at least one of your readers is a working journalist and committed Catholic. That's me. No one likes to be called stupid.
Now lazy -- that's a fair assessment of most religious reporting, in my experience.
Sorry for the broad brush. To be precise, I said that journalists are ignorant of philosophy, not stupid. (Though many of them are indeed stupid.) I meant mainsteam journalists, who are disproportionately secular compared to the general population.