'The world listens carefully to the words of any Pope." Thus spake the New York Times, before delivering a vigorous rap on the knuckles to Pope Benedict for upsetting Muslims. Well, no, actually, the world does not usually listen carefully to the words of any Pope. Mostly, the world settles for soundbites quoted out of context by elements of a media salivating at the prospect of a controversy, writes Breda O'Brien
Yet it might be proof that God moves in mysterious ways, that so many journalists have had to sweat in order to précis the Pope's thoughts. The speech might have received no publicity at all if it were not for one controversial paragraph. In the version of the speech released by the Vatican, Pope Benedict refers to the "startling brusqueness - a brusqueness that leaves us astounded" of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologos, when the emperor addresses a learned Muslim.
Manuel states: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The crime of quoting a source critical of Islam, even while distancing oneself from it, has sparked riots and the Pope has been threatened with death. It may not have been directly related, but Sr Leonella Sgorbati, an Italian, was assassinated in Somalia along with her bodyguard.
Giorgio Bertin, bishop of Djibouti and Somalia, said: "The death of an Italian with a Somali, a European with an African, a white with someone almost black, a Christian with a Muslim, a woman with a man, tells us that it is possible to live together as we die together."
Sr Leonella's last words were "I forgive". Believe it or not, friction and disputes between religious believers were not the major focus of Benedict's address. He did address "conversion by the sword", but only to illustrate a point about the nature of God. "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
It seems to have been overlooked in most of the commentary that he was speaking in a university about the role of universities, and challenging the idea that only research based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence can be considered reasonable or scientific. When he taught at Regensburg decades ago, the university was proud of its two faculties of theology and it was accepted even by unbelievers that it is reasonable to explore the question of God.
Increasingly, western thought has been impoverished by the belief that "only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific". He went on to say that "by its very nature, this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one that needs to be questioned." He is challenging the belief that religion is a purely personal and subjective matter. The world's deeply religious cultures see this exclusion of religion from the public square as "an attack on their most profound convictions".
In other words, by either excluding theology and philosophy from the domain of "real" science, or trying to make them fit within the boundaries of the scientific method, damage is done to those wishing to explore important questions. Benedict was making an appeal for room in the arena of ideas for questions about the nature of human beings, and the existence of God.
In a world where education is increasingly becoming a commercial commodity, and technology often imprisons the human spirit rather than liberating it, he was calling for a broad, liberal approach to ideas. Not an appeal for a return to pre-Enlightenment times, or a call to disregard scientific progress, but a plea for a more inclusive vision of reason.
For Benedict, ideas matter. They shape the culture, as they filter into popular consciousness. He wants to debate whether truth is dependent on cultural contexts, or whether there may be ideas that are true in all places and all times. Ironically, the exclusion of religion from the public square, and the relegation of it to the purely private, is a concern that Muslims share.
The belief that everything is relative, and that there are few or no universal norms, is also troubling to Muslim minds.
In short, Benedict's lecture should have annoyed more the kind of people who normally froth at the mouth when William Reville suggests in his science column in this newspaper that God might exist.
Of course, Benedict could have made his point without referring to an obscure 14th-century debate. However, if one cannot quote a medieval emperor in a university, where can you do so? Still, given the sensitivities of the Islamic world, it might have been better to choose another example.
Yet it is also true that there are two approaches to dialogue. One approach politely ignores all differences, and concentrates only on what you have in common. While retaining immense respect and tolerance for the beliefs of others, the other acknowledges that real differences that are not easy to overcome.
Benedict regularly initiates dialogue with those who do not agree with him, as evidenced by his invitation yesterday to Muslim ambassadors to the Vatican and Italian Islamic leaders to discussions on Monday.
Recently, a former student of his received an invitation to a private seminar with Benedict and offered to withdraw because he is an atheist. The reply was that the Pope was well aware of his views and would very much like him to attend. In similar vein, Benedict had an amicable meeting with Hans Kung, while remaining poles apart theologically.
Real progress in dialogue cannot be made by papering over differences, but by creating spaces where differences can be explored in safety in a creative way. Universities are one such place, although by no means the only one. Even if he bears some blame for choosing a reference that served to obscure rather than illuminate his major point, it is truly a pity that Benedict's appeal to reason met with such an unreasonable response, and by no means only from elements of Islam.
One of the glories of being Pope must be that everyone, including the New York Times, knows better than you how to be one.
bobrien@irish-times.ie