Hugh Hewitt interviewed Father Joseph Fessio, Provosty of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, on January 5 and posted a portion of the interview on his website. This was a very interesting exchange. Father Fessio is part of a group that has long met for topical discussions with Joseph Ratzinger and groups of Graduate Students, a practice that is apparently continuing now that Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI. Their most recent meeting discussed Islam. A couple of quotes struck me.
First, regarding the spread of Islam and the response to it by Christians in the West...
"... I want to say without exaggeration, and without trying to become histrionic here, I see the trends...I've seen them for years, in Europe, of depopulation as you've mentioned. And their immigration is coming from the South, which is mainly Islamic. And there are, I think there are 98 Islamic countries in the world, and 97 of them do not have religious freedom... And that's what's going to happen to Europe. Once there's an Islamic majority...it's going to eliminate religious freedom...and therefore, Western civilization as we know it. However, in the United States, we also are not having children. There's abortion. There's contraception. There's the ideal of a one or two child family. But where is our immigration coming from? From Ecuador, from Mexico, from Cuba, from Guatemala. And these people are Christians. And so, I believe without being...you know, having hubris as an American, I believe that Christians in the United States are the ones who will be able to save not just Christianity, but Western civilization, if we maintain our fidelity to the scriptures, our fidelity to Christ, our fidelity to family life, and our fidelity to fertility and fruitfulness in marriage."
That 97 of 98 Islamic countries do not have religious freedom is probably not something one will hear analyzed on CNN. The fact that the west is depopulating largely as a result of sexual attitudes - low birth rates - means that as Muslims immigrate to western countries, they quickly gain an increasing proportion of the population. His phrase is telling "Once there's an Islamic majority (in Europe)...it's going to eliminate religious freedom." Not if but when.
He then makes the case that in the United States, we also have a shifting population where the majority will eventually be Hispanic. But because the immigrants from south of our border are largely Catholic or Protestant as opposed to Islamic, the North American continent may not suffer Europe's fate. Interesting how he includes fidelity to Christ and the Scriptures and to fidelity to family life. Catholics see human sexuality as part of Christian mission, that is, our children are our gifts to the world from God. Protestants may not accept Catholic views of contraception, but the effects of low population growth ought to be obvious. It isn't too much of a stretch to apply the numbers to a loss of Christian influence in the world, or at least in Europe.
I was a bit troubled by a later statement regarding how Muslims apply the Koran to political life compared with how Christians apply the Bible. He speaks of a proposal by a Muslim scholar that Islam can only enter dialog with modernity by reinterpreting the Koran. Ratzinger offered an observation...
"Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there's a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was...I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that's why he's Pope and I'm not, okay? That's one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning."
If by "adapted" he means "applied", I agree. Christians have long taken the words of scripture and attempted to apply principles from scripture to changing situations. A classic case is how missionaries deal with polygamy, generally not condoning or allowing men to take multiple wives with the blessing of the church, but not always requiring converts who come to the faith with more than one wife to toss second wives out on the street.
But the undercurrent of what Benedict seemed to say is troubling for two reasons. It somewhat reasserts a notion that Protestants still reject in Catholicism, that because the Bible is both a divine and human book, it is the job of the church hierarchy to determine what it means - almost as if the words themselves carry no meaning of their own. It is analogous to the "living document" theory those on the left apply to the U.S. Constitution. What does he mean by "adapt" and "interpret"? Just as a few Supreme Court justices found the right to abortion in the "aura of the penumbra" of the constitution and had no need for any actual text on which to base such a sweeping decision, an "authoritative" interpreter of scripture can find "meanings" that are not explicitly in the text. It the text is subservient to the interpreter, the text means what the interpreter says it means.
It is more troubling that one could easily take Fessio's recollection of Benedict's words that Islam is rigid because they see their holy book as dictated by God and immutable and apply it to Protestant fundamentalism with some sort of equivalence. I don't see that connection. Belief that the Bible is "inerrant" does not automatically equate to "my interpretation of the Bible is infallible" and then jumping to a radical military/political absolutist mentality. There may be a point to Benedict's comparison. But I'm not sure that tyranny only comes from believing in the infallibility of a text. I seem to recall a bit of tyranny coming from other sources as well, such as believing that there is no God and that man must forge his new "modern" way, or from believing in the infallibility of a religious institution. Medieval Popes and Communist dictators did not need an infallible text, and most who believe in Biblical inerrancy are staunch supporters of democracy.
Nor should we forget that "adapting" and "interpreting" scripture in light of modernity is exactly what revisionists in the Catholic and Episcopal and many Protestant churches are attempting to do to destroy the very "family values" Fessio lauds. Because the Bible is a "human" book, the Episcopal Church can "interpret" it in such a way as to allow the ordination of gay priests, blessing of same sex unions and consecration of an openly gay Bishop who once had a wife and daughter. Certainly Fessio does not mean what Episcopal revisionists mean when he uses words like "interpret" and "adapt", but the point remains - is the Scripture an unchanging standard or not?
Having said that, Christians do and usually have "applied" scripture in light of the changing times. Most Christians see the Bible as a book which describes unchanging principles rather than a book full of rigid commands and restrictions. What distinguishes the Bible from the Koran is its historical and narrative nature. In the stories of Abraham, David, Hosea, Christ and the Apostles we get to see how the character of God provides moral principles which do not change but which are applied with both justice and compassion. So Jesus could heal on the Sabbath, associate with prostitutes. Peter could preach to Gentiles and Paul could evangelize in Italy. What distinguishes Christianity from Islam is the central principle of forgiveness - redemption. That's what humanizes and softens the moral restrictions of the Judeo-Christian God. We don't have to stone the adulterer any longer. We do continue to say "Go and sin no more".
No comments:
Post a Comment