Unspun

Benedict II: Unspun spunned by the media?


A loyal reader who tries to keep Unspun honest has sms’d saying that we may have been spunned by the media where the Pope was concerned. The quote in the media, he said, was out of context.

Not one to fight shy of being wrong in pursuit of unspinning the spin, Unspun, outdid Dan Brown and delved into the Vatican’s records. There we found the full text of Pope Benedict’s speech. The relevant passage:

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H – controversy) edited by Professor
Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed 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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.

Unspun is still trying to digest the whole text but it seems evident that Unspun might have to do a mea culpa, of sorts. The Pope was evidently quoted out of context. As we read it, he did not mean to endorse the quote or idea that what Mohammed brought was …evil and inhuman. He merely quoted it to demonstrate the point of view of the emperor. So, sorry Pope, Unspun jumped the gun.

Having said that, however, Unspun must say that the Pope badly needs a new speechwriter. All the goodwill and the learnered minds in the world are quite hopeless if they cannot make complicated ideas sound simple; simple ideas sound important to the layman and his lesser cousin, the journalist. Our advice is to keep the paragraphs short or you’ll give the faithful and those less so migrane just trying to follow yolur arguments.

In this case, the Pope has been guilty of being obscure, the Press of quoting him out of context, the Vatican Spinmeisters of inept press handling and Unspun of being spun.

The only one coming out smelling of roses is my loyal reader whom I shall call Kay. He’s not a Catholic but I’m sure the Vatican could spare him a prayer or two for keeping Unspun well, unspun, and the light of truth shining.

unspun
, , , ,
, ,

4 responses to “Benedict II: Unspun spunned by the media?”

  1. myrick Avatar
    myrick

    I would agree on the need for plain speech for public speeches — but it also should be noted that the speech was for an academic audience (and at a university where he taught theology). So it was more likely a return to academic form of address to an audience that no doubt included former colleagues. t’s certain that there was no expectation that the speech would cause riots (as he is an experienced lecturer, he more likely expected members fo the audience to fall asleep).

    Like

    Reply
  2. Rasyad A. Parinduri Avatar
    Rasyad A. Parinduri

    The pope said “…the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam…”.

    Pope calls the emperor an erudite person. So, I thought Pope had this emperor’s opinion in high regard. Until his “apology”, that is.

    Btw, here is Karen Armstrong’s take on this issue. And here’s another from Juan Cole. Of course, some of you may say that they are too sympathetic towards Islam.

    Like

    Reply
  3. unspun Avatar
    unspun

    Myrick: Yes but benedict has to realize that he is no longer a lecturer but a Pope. The level of scrutiny he will receive as a Pope is exponentially higher than he was a mere Cardinal or lecturer. He has to expect that everything he says will be flattened and dumbed down for public consumption. There is little space for the cut and thrust of intellectual parrying at that level without it being misconstrued.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Myrick Avatar
    Myrick

    Fair enough. Though I think even public officials can wear more than one hat in public. It should be posible to speak as the leader of a church (with the pointy hat) or an academic (with the motar-board and tassel). Wearing both hats at once would look silly.
    For instance, if Ben Bernanke were speaking before his alma mater I wouldn’t consider anything he said as representative of the views of the Federal Reserve. Actually, that’s only partially true. As a reporter I would still jump all over anything Bernanke said if it had even the slightest hint of news value — but I would not consider it to be as important as what says during Senate testimony.
    Yes, that means I am more-or-less conceeding the point to you.

    That said, having read the Pontiff’s remarks I don’t believe either the outrage or media coverage is justified.
    The cartoon-riots were unacceptable, but those cartoons were clearly intended to provoke, so the reaction was understandable (even though physical actions were unjustified).
    In that case my reaction was: “I disagree with what you say, but support your right to say it.”

    On the Pope’s comments, I would guess that 99 percent of the people commenting on this (myself included) have absolutely no idea what he was going on about.
    With this, after having read the speech, my reaction is: “I don’t have a clue what you are talking about and have no real desire to find out. I’d rather be watching cricket than engage in a debate about the Reformation and dehellenization (whatever that is). And I can’t stand cricket! However, it’s marginally less boring than theology and they do sell beer at matches. That said, I still support your right to say whatever the heck you said.”

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to unspun Cancel reply