Here are two podcasts from The Hugh Hewitt Show that may useful in helping us understand what the Pope was saying in his Regensburg lecture.

Former Cardinal Ratzinger student, Father Joseph Fessio, on the Pope’s speech last week at Regensburg University

Father Richard John Neuhaus of First Things reacts to the controversy over Pope Benedict’s comments on Islam

The current pope has elevated to a higher importance the issue of reciprocity (e.g. if Muslims can freely preach in Christian Europe, then Christians should be allowed to freely preach in Muslim countries). This item — reciprocity — is not well-received by all Muslims. Below is a cut-and-paste from the Turkish Weekly:

Reciprocity Key for Dialogue With Islam: Pope Print

Wednesday , 17 May 2006

Pope Benedict XVI said on Monday, May 15, that reciprocity is the cornerstone of a successful dialogue with Islam.

“The importance of reciprocity in dialogue is more and more evident,” the pontiff told a Vatican conference on immigration to and from Islamic countries, according to the Italian news agency (AGI).

He said Christian minorities in Muslim countries should be given the same rights Muslims generally have in Western countries.

Pope Benedict hoped that “Christians who emigrate to countries with a Muslim majority find welcome and respect for their religious identity” without naming any countries.

The one-day conference was called to address the Church’s growing concern over the number of Muslim immigrants in Europe and how to ensure peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims in countries with an Islamic tradition, according to Italy’s ANSA news agency.

Islam guarantees the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) the same basic rights enjoyed by Muslims, chiefly freedom of religion.

“Christian Proposal”

Pope Benedict said that “religious problems” faced by some Christians should not stand as an obstacle to present the “Christian proposal” to the world.

“We are living in times in which Christians are called to cultivate a method of open dialogue on religious problems, not renouncing presenting to interlocutors the Christian proposal in coherence with their own identity,” he said.

This was a reference to the Church’s position that, even without aiming to convert, Christians had a duty to spread the gospel message and proclaim the word of Jesus to all, according to Reuters.

The Pope said the question “deserves particular reflection, not only because of its extent but also because of the religious and cultural characteristics of the Muslim identity.”

“Individual believers are called to open their arms and their hearts to each person, whatever country they are from, leaving it to the authorities responsible for public life to establish the laws held opportune for healthy cohabitation.”

The pontiff said Christians “must open their hearts particularly to the small and poor.”

Protestant and Orthodox churches are spearheading a drive with the Vatican to forge a code of conduct on religious conversion and proselytism.

The initiative is aimed at addressing long-standing concerns about how far religions around the world can go to seek out new faithful.

Several press reports have warned that missionary work in poor Muslim provinces basically in Africa and Asia is taking place under the guise of aid relief.

Italian News Agency (AGI) via IslamOnline.net & News Agencies
May 16, 2006

Vatican

The problem is when either party is insisting that each of them is wrong. And even worst is when they started blowing their tempers to each other in teh full view of the media. To thsi is wher is got sooooooo ugly. Why cant they settle their differences in a more civil way?

Arroyo appointee and PCGG commissioner Camilo Sabio, like most Arroyo cabinet officials and military people, refused to attend hearings to testify and answer questions relating to their work, especially re anomalies and possible corruption issues in their departments.

From the Malaya:

A DEBATE on a two-decade-old executive order issued during the revolutionary government of President Corazon Aquino resulted yesterday in a shouting match between Sen. Richard Gordon and Camilo Sabio, chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government who has been under Senate detention since Tuesday.

Sabio appeared at the resumption of the Senate investigation on the reported anomalous losses of the Philippine Holdings Corp. (PHC) but remained defiant and refused to answer questions from senators.

Read the whole thing. I’m effin’ glad somebody from the Senate finally GOT ANGRY about the snubbing of hearings and the evasiveness that Arroyo officials have been displaying since GLORIAGATE came out last year.

And this is not the first time an Arroyo official refused to answer questions and claimed to be sick.

Remember Norberto Gonzalez?

As for Gonzales, he is still in contempt of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee chaired by Sen. Joker Arroyo for refusing to answer questions on the Venable contract that he signed. First, he feigned illness so that he would be confined at the Heart Center instead of in the Senate; then he asked for a “medical leave” so that he would be set free temporarily while still undecided on having a “heart bypass operation.” Then he returned to work at the National Security Office without answering the senators’ questions on the Venable contract. And the contempt citation and the questions were forgotten by the senators, especially Senator Arroyo, as though they were suddenly stricken with amnesia. Not a peep out of them.

More on Norberto Gonzalez and the secret Venable deal from PCIJ.

This is a speech given by Pope Benedict in a meeting with Muslims last year in Cologne. I hope you will find it helpful.

Dear Muslim Friends,

It gives me great joy to be able to be with you and to offer you my heartfelt greetings.

As you know, I have come here to meet young people from every part of Europe and the world. Young people are the future of humanity and the hope of the nations. My beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, once said to the young Muslims assembled in the stadium at Casablanca, Morocco: “The young can build a better future if they first put their faith in God and if they pledge themselves to build this new world in accordance with God’s plan, with wisdom and trust” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, 1985, p. 500).

It is in this spirit that I turn to you, dear and esteemed Muslim friends, to share my hopes with you and to let you know of my concerns at these particularly difficult times in our history.

I am certain that I echo your own thoughts when I bring up one of our concerns as we notice the spread of terrorism. I know that many of you have firmly rejected, also publicly, in particular any connection between your faith and terrorism and have condemned it. I am grateful to you for this, for it contributes to the climate of trust that we need.

Terrorist activity is continually recurring in various parts of the world, plunging people into grief and despair. Those who instigate and plan these attacks evidently wish to poison our relations and destroy trust, making use of all means, including religion, to oppose every attempt to build a peaceful and serene life together.

Thanks be to God, we agree on the fact that terrorism of any kind is a perverse and cruel choice which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very foundations of all civil coexistence.

If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress towards world peace.

The task is difficult but not impossible. The believer – and all of us, as Christians and Muslims, are believers – knows that, despite his weakness, he can count on the spiritual power of prayer.

Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace. The life of every human being is sacred, both for Christians and for Muslims. There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values.

The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition. This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. It is a message which must be heeded and communicated to others: should it ever cease to find an echo in peoples’ hearts, the world would be exposed to the darkness of a new barbarism.

Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.

During my Meeting last April with the delegates of Churches and Christian Communities and with representatives of the various religious traditions, I affirmed that “the Church wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions, in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole” (L’Osservatore Romano, 25 April 2005, p. 4).

Past experience teaches us that, unfortunately, relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding. How many pages of history record battles and wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing, the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity. The defence of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization. In this regard, it is always right to recall what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said about relations with Muslims.

“The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…. Although considerable dissensions and enmities between Christians and Muslims may have arisen in the course of the centuries, the Council urges all parties that, forgetting past things, they train themselves towards sincere mutual understanding and together maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all people” (Declaration Nostra Aetate, n. 3).

For us, these words of the Second Vatican Council remain the Magna Carta of the dialogue with you, dear Muslim friends, and I am glad that you have spoken to us in the same spirit and have confirmed these intentions.

You, my esteemed friends, represent some Muslim communities from this Country where I was born, where I studied and where I lived for a good part of my life. That is why I wanted to meet you. You guide Muslim believers and train them in the Islamic faith.

Teaching is the vehicle through which ideas and convictions are transmitted. Words are highly influential in the education of the mind. You, therefore, have a great responsibility for the formation of the younger generation. I learn with gratitude of the spirit in which you assume responsibility.

Christians and Muslims, we must face together the many challenges of our time. There is no room for apathy and disengagement, and even less for partiality and sectarianism. We must not yield to fear or pessimism. Rather, we must cultivate optimism and hope.

Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends.

The young people from many parts of the world are here in Cologne as living witnesses of solidarity, brotherhood and love.

I pray with all my heart, dear and esteemed Muslim friends, that the merciful and compassionate God may protect you, bless you and enlighten you always.

May the God of peace lift up our hearts, nourish our hope and guide our steps on the paths of the world.

Thank you!

now we’re talking.

as you said, you have a personal bias against a mass display of flag initiated by politicians. i have the same feeling. every May, Manila’s cultural office adorns the street of Manila with our flag. the first thing that i ask myself, how much did they spend and how much did they pocket. i have no trust in whatever government projects. i always equate one to corruption. once they have put up our flags, they simply leave them to the elements. instead of being inspired, i instead feel sorry for our flags and the people at city hall are smiling their way to the banks.

yes, that is what we are trying to do. form a citizen’s movement to display our flag with pride and respect. but we will go beyond that. hopefully, through our flag, we could inspire the practice of GOOD CITIZENSHIP even to our magtataho. it is nice to know that we have a kakampi.

i am part of another group, Flag Society. i will open up to them the possiblity of pursuing the taxpayer’s suit about the flag law. since the group is apolitical, political color will not be an issue.

Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709

i do have a personal bias against the mass display of flags, for a practical reason. if it’s a citizen doing so, that’s fine -but when government does it, government breaks its own rules and probably ends up spending a fortune for what? degrading the flag.

a citizen’s movement to display the flag with pride is unquestionably good -best of all, if accompanied with an effort to respect the flag while displaying it.

i wanted to file a taxpayer’s suit about the flag law, but haven’t found a group willing to do so (and then the political crisis made me set the idea aside as it would become politically colored). and there are too many members of Congress who sponsored the flag law to support any revisiting or revision.

Thank you for the response.

Unfurling the biggest flag is not and should not be an end in itself. It is a step in the direction of raising our sense of nationhood. We can engage on endless debates on what is wrong in our society but it will be just that, debates. You and other known personalities may wield some level of influence in this powerplay but at the end of the day, we Filipinos remain divided. The attempt is in the direction of forging unity. I have no problem if you put politicl color in the activity. But for me, the flag has no political color.

My personal vision is seeing Filipinos displaying our flag proudly. When I ride the LRT, I see some ordinary homes displaying our flag. Be it on their roof top or their windows. It is a common sight to see vehicles with our flag. Some even have flaglets. But unfortunately, it is also commonplace to see torn and tattered flags. NO the flag will not solve our problems. It may not build a taho factory for our magtataho. But it may inspire our magtataho to do his sacred duty as a Filipino, to vote wisely come referemdum or election day and other sacred duties as a Filipino citizen. It is not about our magtataho seeing a big flag on tv. but it is about a sustained campaign coming from the middle class to inspire those who have less in life. Had the attempt been successful, my question would have been what’s next?

Yes, breaking the record may be trivial but our flag is not. You put emphasis on the record breaking attempt and I put emphasis on our flag. As you said, we need to get rid of our flag law. Have there been attempts in that direction? I have read sometime ago in your Inquirer column with regards to your stand on this issue. I don’t find any disagreements with your arguments. Then what? Do you think it is an advocacy worth pursuing?

Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas!

i consider all guinness book of world records-based efforts trivial. period. of course such efforts are fun, and we’re not the only ones addicted to them -the malaysians are, too- an d if people want to spend their money on it, fine. but it’s trivial.

also, my point -and i’ve made it time and again- about our flag is, if we want to adopt a more sensible and permissive attitude towards the flag, then get rid of the flag law. as it is, the law practically invites defiance because it’s impractical and difficult to enforce, and badly written (carelessly put together). but the law’s there and so the choice is: trivialize it, and thus contribute to the trivializing of all our laws, or make it more human and amend it.

i am not convinced that just because we unfurl the biggest flag, people’s attitudes will change in any positive and enduring way -and i still think trying to discuss things with a mangtataho is more productive than his seeing a big flag on tv. but that’s just my opinion. you, me, and that mangtahaho are all facing a possible referendum very soon and i hope to god he’s made to think of the constitution instead of guinness book of world record-breaking stunts.