Benedict at Regensburg

A collection of resources from Catholic Studies at UCSB

Home | Media Scrapbook | Annotated Bibliography

Introduction: Reading the News

The sources that follow are drawn mainly from news and opinion publications within about a month and a half of Pope Benedict XVI's lecture at the University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006. They are arranged chronologically in three broad topical categories, each of which is briefly treated here. Hopefully this arrangement, together with these notes, will offer a useful and accessible collection of representative sources: a starting point for interpreting this event.

Undoubtedly, Benedict's speech and what followed it counts as an event, so far as the bombastic powers of mass media and world opinion in the 21st century have defined the word. The speech itself seemed to make no such claims. If anything, Benedict was at his most personal. It was given on the first trip as Pope to his native Germany, before the faculty of a university where he had lectured forty years earlier, "in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors." In total contrast, the media erupted with images of violent protest in the Muslim world, outcry from politicians, and the two cents of every commentator who could spare the change.

Now, as the media has turned to other things, the speech has become an event in other ways. It should be remembered as Benedict's first encounter with fragile world opinion in his papacy. Never before, too, have so many people gotten the chance to examine a single text of his and publish their answers to it. These, in turn, offer a cross-section of the state of world opinion on religious authority, dialog, and the possibility of a "clash of civilizations," which has been on a great many minds particularly since September 11, 2001.

The Speech and Its Meaning

Collected in this section are mainly op-ed articles in which commentators offer their readings and understandings of the speech. It begins with the speech itself and includes follow-up remarks released later by the Vatican.

The first reactions were certainly the least subtle. Those who were quickly offended often failed to note that the most upsetting statements were not Benedict's own words but that of Manuel II, a medieval Byzantine emperor. As time went on, commentators started reading more closely. Some read the text and saw that it was in fact not an accusation against Islam, but an appeal to all people of faith to choose reason between cultures over violence. As such, it appears particularly suited to the age of terrorism. This, a few days later, was the interpretation adopted by the Vatican and Benedict's own subsequent remarks.

Nevertheless, there are others who were not so generous. There are certainly other layers at work in the text, and commentators began to notice them. A large part of it considers the role of Hellenic culture in Christian tradition, part of an ongoing debate particularly among those trying to rethink the Church's approach to missionary activity in nonwestern cultures. Here Benedict makes a characteristically conservative stand, arguing against a stripped-down tradition for export. One writer included here reads Benedict's idea of religious reason as an attack on science, perhaps reflecting on the Pope's recent seminar on the question of evolution. Others astutely place it in line with Benedict's ongoing attack on secular relativism in Europe and his insistence on the continent's cultural debt to Christianity. A few suggest that this reason is synonymous with exclusively Christian reason, from which Islam or any other religion would be necessarily excluded.

There are those also who argue that Benedict made a mistake. Perhaps, for instance, he didn't realize the extent to which the world is listening to his every word. Or perhaps he should have permitted an expert on Islam to review the speech before its delivery (sources say he didn't). But, reflecting on the pattern of Benedict's past work, one commentator contends that the Pope knew exactly what he was saying and who he was saying it to.

One aspect of the speech that has been rarely commented on is the third element of its title, "Faith, Reason, and the University." It was presented at a university, and Benedict speaks in idealized terms about "the University" in general at both the beginning and the end. With these in mind, it is possible to read many of the other themes, from the role of science to secularism to faith and reason, as actually enveloped by a thesis about the need for revived emphasis on theology in the modern university: "theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences." Thereby it is possible to understand the speech as being far more parochial in scope than most commentary has assumed. But: is it possible for a pope to be parochial, even if he wants to?

If anything, the text is many-layered. It covers a lot of ground in just a few pages, which helps to explain why so many people might react to it strongly in so many different ways.

The Kinds of Reactions

Here are mainly the more visceral reactions to Benedict's speech at Regensburg. More than anything, it was the violence in the streets of Muslim cities that brought the Pope's remarks onto the world stage. In the first week of October, a Turkish airplane was hijacked as a statement against him. The outcry was reminiscent to many observers of the Danish cartoon controversy of the previous year. A number of prominent Muslim leaders declared the speech to be a first volley in a war on Islam, and legislatures in several countries issued declarations demanding the Pope's apology. After a few days he ended up apologizing for the misunderstanding, though never for the speech itself. Within about a month, though, the violence of the reaction settled in a muddle of apparently peaceful subtlety, as a group of major Muslim scholars released a careful and rather civilized open letter to Benedict.

The response of Europeans and Americans has been certainly less extreme than in the Muslim world. There were no significant street demonstrations. Op-eds and blog postings were about the extent of it. The Italian senate went so far as to issue a resolution in support of the Pope, and Hillary Clinton voiced similar feelings. Such quietness in comparison to the Muslim world may appear surprising, considering the speech's special concern for the fate of the West. Nevertheless, this point is pervasive while understated in comparison to the remarks about Islam, which may be less central to the argument while much more incendiary in presentation.

Larger Forces at Play

Many commentators in the aftermath of the Regensburg speech were eager to connect it to larger trends and polemics. One of the most common reflections, as represented both in the West and in the Muslim world, was revulsion at the violent demonstrations by Muslims, particularly given the call for reason rather than violence that the speech was supposed to convey. Remembering the Rushdie affair and the cartoon controversy, such should alert us to the dire need for articulate reason in modern, public Islam.

At the same time, people on both sides argued that the speech reflected poorly on the new Pope, particularly on the prospects for his effectiveness in inter-religious dialog. In comparison to John Paul II, who led a world prayer meeting at Assisi and left a note at the Wailing Wall, Benedict's Catholic exclusivism appears to be coming to the fore and causing problems there. Some, on the other hand, suggest that the crisis following the speech might serve as an opportunity for renewed inter-religious effort. To that end, soon after Regensburg, Benedict called a summit of Muslim leaders to Castel Gandolfo in an attempt to clear up misunderstandings.

Without a doubt, the whole event cannot be interpreted apart from the axial world events surrounding it: war in Iraq, terrorism, globalization, electronic media, neo-imperialism, secularization, and so on.

Epilogue: The Trip to Turkey

Many who took a hand at interpreting the Pope's speech in September were also anxiously aware of what he had already planned for late November - a short trip to Turkey, Benedict's first time in a Muslim-majority country since assuming the papacy. It was timed exactly 27 years after his predecessor's visit there. Originally, the trip was intended to be a show of support for Turkish Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, who have endured some repression and restriction under the increasingly Islamist government. Such barriers to religious freedom also make trouble for Turkey's bid for European Union citizenship, which Benedict has previously opposed.

The effect of the remarks at Regensburg, however, changed the meaning of the trip to Turkey considerably. Two and a half months later, Turkey represented an opportunity for Benedict to make amends for the damage caused by his words and to set a new, more positive tone for interreligious dialogue. Following the speech, the Turkish man who shot Pope John Paul II, still in prison, warned Benedict that his life would be in danger if he proceded with his visit. Perhaps for the better, the visit hardly caused so much of a stir as the speech. Benedict made the second visit of any Pope to a mosque (John Paul II was the first). He also indirectly suggested his support for the possibility of Turkey's entrance into the EU. Turkish protesters followed Benedict along his journey, but they did not block his progress.

Ultimately, the time in Turkey was not an equivalent reply to Regensberg. It was diplomatic and cordial, and did not match the speech's performative effect in the world media or on the proverbial Arab streets. Nevertheless, Benedict did demonstrate his idea of the right thing to do, deeply aware that the world was watching with Regensburg in mind. Consequently, his behavior in Turkey is worth studying as the Pope's working exemplar for the interreligious encounter.

Clearly there was a lot of media noise surrounding the speech, and this compilation is an attempt to weed through it. If anything, there is tremendous variety in how people reacted, and at times, exceptional eloquence. No interpretation, of course, would be complete without a close reading of the speech itself. An appreciation of its subtlety, and perhaps its ambiguity, goes far toward explaining both the bewildering variety of reactions as well as their desperate timeliness.

2006, UCSB Catholic Studies