He lists the major eras of violence of the 20th century--interestingly enough, not seeing fit to include Communism--and advises that "one of the great challenges today is to reckon with that violence, and to wrestle with what religious beliefs and institutions have done to either quell or incite it." By way of an example of an unsatisfactory response to human violence, he relates the story of his students who decided the Nazis weren't Christians based on Jesus's Judaism. This tactic of self-exoneration, he says, like that of many Muslims after Sept. 11, forestalls any study of the "how their religious tradition might have contributed to these horrors." He concludes with the argument that the Catholic church must be an active participant in the dissociation of religion and violence.
The Society of St. Pius X's traditionalism is a phenomenon William Martin observes throughout Christian movements in America. Indeed, he often associates American anti-modernism with intolerance--in one case, specifically with "anti-Semitic and pro-fascist themes" (21). This would indicate that there is a tendency in religious circles, regardless of time period or geography, to feel enmity towards other beliefs. Indeed, Prothero asserts a "long-standing connection between religion and violence."
On the whole, I agree with Prothero, particularly in that religion has been at the root of historical violence in many cases. I think he is particularly on point when he advocates distancing the Vatican from anyone who seeks to pardon the historical wrongs of the Nazis. He sets out, however, to show that the Pope's pardon of the bishops is an act of sympathy, but he does not ever prove that. There is no examination of the Pope's reasons for either excommunicating them or forgiving them. Rather, the essay seems to ramble towards a more global look at the related topic of religious intolerance.
1 comment:
David,
This is a very thorough and perceptive critique of Prothero's argument. I also found it somewhat disjointed insofar as it seemed to begin optimistically concerning Benedict's ability to be an ecumenical Pope as John Paul II was. However, by the end of the article, Prothero seems to lament the fact that anyone could deny the Holocaust, although this doesn't really serve his critique of the Pope.
Holocaust deniers are few and far between. Many are religious extremists and noted anti-Semites such as Iranian president Ahmadenijad. I agree with Prothero on the note that the Roman Catholic Church should distance itself from such people who deny something which is irrefutable. These men who remain outside modernized society cannot be included in one of the world's largest organizations. As Prothero argues, Benedict should lead by example and seek to reach out to other faith groups. Reaching out to the fringe groups that deny such a sensitive and painful memory like the Holocaust is not the manner in which the Pope can create a feeling of mutuality within the major faiths.
Post a Comment