Pope John Paul II’s name is being used by many commentators to support their attacks against the Islamic center proposed for a building two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The pope had agreed to withdraw a convent near Auschwitz, as William McGurn pointed out in an Aug. 3 Wall Street Journal column. Others have followed on this, including some commentators who’ve taken very extreme positions.
As discussed in a July 31 post by J. Peter Nixon, there may be some similarities. But to focus on this one decision by John Paul in order to make a case against the Islamic center and to ignore his many dramatic attempts to find common ground with Muslims, as some commentators have done in recent days, is a disservice to his memory.
So I will offer an anecdote about how John Paul handled a potential dispute with Muslims over “sacred ground.” In this case, the sacred ground was Manger Square in Bethlehem, where Pope John Paul celebrated Mass on March 22, 2000.
The pope had just finished his homily, ending with “Assalamu alaikum,” when the Muslim call to prayer broke forth from the loudspeakers at a mosque that bordered on Manger Square. It seemed, at first, like a rude intrusion on the historic Mass the pope was celebrating in the Jubilee year. But John Paul sat quietly and listened as the muezzin sang God’s praise; he seemed to be savoring the moment. It was as if the Muslim prayer mingled with the Mass.
Just before the Mass ended, it was announced that church and mosque officials had coordinated the call to prayer, which had been delayed to accommodate the pope’s homily. It was a small matter, really, but this cooperation stirred the crowd, mostly Arab Christians, to cheers, applause and even to tears. A sacred space had been shared, and everyone was the better for it.
This story of John Paul II at Manger Square is a beautiful example of where we hope we are eventually heading.
Moreover, the comments by many Mosque critics that Christians could not build a church in Saudi Arabia seem to indicate that they believe that because many Middle East countries do not permit freedom of religious belief means that we should retaliate in our own country that does celebrate such freedom. Wrong.
However, I find myself questioning the fool’s erand that we have undertaken prior to 911 of involving ourself in the internal affairs of faraway lands that consider us as meddlers. I am reminded of the difficult admonition to “not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot”, which I take to mean to deliver your help to those most likely to want it. Even Star Trek’s “prime directive” told us not to alter the trajectory of other cultures.
I agree that invoking JPII’s name in defense of the anti-mosque argument does a disservice to the late pope’s name. The Manger Square anecdote is in keeping with JP II’s many efforts to reach out to Muslims. For example, in 1985 JP II visited Morocco at the invitation of King Hassan, and he addressed a group of Muslim youth:
"Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common, as believers and as human beings. We live in the same world, marked by many signs of hope, but also by multiple signs of anguish. For us, Abraham is a very model of faith in God, of submission to his will and of confidence in his goodness. We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection.
It is therefore towards this God that my thought goes and that my heart rises: it is of God himself that, above all, I wish to speak with you; of him, because it is in him that we believe, you Muslims and we Catholics. I wish also to speak with you about human values, which have their basis in God, these values which concern the blossoming of our person, as also that of our families and our societies, as well as that of the international community. The mystery of God, is it not the highest reality from which depends the very meaning which man gives to his life? And is it not the first problem that presents itself to a young person, when he reflects upon the mystery of his own existence and on the values which he intends to choose in order to build his growing personality?"
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/august/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850819_giovani-stadio-casablanca_en.html
And when JP II passed away in 2005, his death was mourned in many corners of the Islamic world:
http://www1.albawaba.com/en/news/arab-muslim-leaders-mourn-pope-john-paul-ii-death
I am not sure how edifying the conflict between Catholics and Jews was over the issue of the Carmelite Convent near Auschwitz. But I do think there are significant differences. I think the Jews would have objected to any non-Jewish religious presence at Auschwitz. They were not objecting to the Catholic presence on the grounds that the Catholics perpetrated the Holocaust and their presence was therefore objectionable. However, in the case of the mosque, the implication by those who oppose its presence is that Muslims attacked the World Trade Center, and consequently any Muslim presence nearby is offensive.
Here’s an aspect of the issue I haven’t seen discussed yet, except in my own post over on Mirror of Justice, which I will quote:
Some claim the area near “Ground Zero” is too sacred for a mosque, but there is going to be 2.6 million square feet of office space and 500,000 square feet of retail space on “Ground Zero.” One wonders what restrictions will be in place to turn away potential tenants whose presence would constitute sacrilege.
My partner reminded me that the Drawing Center, which was originally to be part of the International Freedom Center, was for all practical purposes shoved out when it could not give a sufficient pledge of self-censorship to Governor Pataki’s demand for an “absolute guarantee” that it would operate in such a way as to have “total respect for the sanctity of the site.” The International Freedom Center was eventually abandoned. (I am relying on this article, for information.)
I hope we do not have to engage in a debate over every potential tenant of the new Word Trade Center complex. Should Victoria’s Secret be barred because displays of women’s lingerie too profane? How do you parcel out retail space when it is located not just near — but on — “hallowed ground”?
Before 9/11, the WTC was a wholly commercial setting and when whatever will be built is built, it will once again be a wholly commercial setting. Unless one accepts that commerce is America’s real religion and commercial space is sacred space, the WTC can hardly be called sacred space.
Before 9/11, there were sacred spaces all around the WTC, including St. Peter’s Church and St. Joseph’s Chapel, Trinity Church and St. Paul’s Chapel, (among others). These played an important part in offering prayers, rest and respite to the injured, and the responders. And as we see from the example of the pastor of St. Peter’s (and probably from the rector at Trinity Church as well), the actual sacred spaces will welcome the Islamic Cultural Center without judging that it profanes the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, dead.
My PoliticsDaily colleague Jeff Weiss posted this on his Facebook page:
How about this analogy for the New York mosque controversy? As if the Catholic Church wanted to build a church near an elementary school. Do you blame the entire CC for the actions of the abusive priests and the subsequent cover-up, such that a church near a school seems disrespectful? Do you blame all Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 attackers such that any mosque in the zip code seems disrespectful?
I suggested making it a seminary (if only we were building seminaries!) instead of a church, to shapren the point.
Catholic elementary schools mere footsteps away from Catholic churches and rectories are a fact of life. This analogy does not happen.
And even Shanley didn’t shout Deus vult when he sodomized his victims.
Slightly off JPII, but on the Islamic Cultural Center, Michael Gerson, WashPost columnist and former Bush speech writer has something to say about Obama’s comments: “A president does not merely have opinions; he has duties to the Constitution and to the citizens he serves — including millions of Muslim citizens. His primary concern is not the sifting of sensitivities but the protection of the American people and the vindication of their rights.” Whole thing here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081502151.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I think the analogy was building a Catholic church near a public school.
PS: The Gerson column is very good, and raises (higher) the question of what his former boss would say, and if he’ll say anything.
BTW, Felapton, I recall a number of abusers did couch their grooming and abuse in terms of religious duty. Also, Shanley is actually not the best example, as his case is much more ambiguous in terms of abuse than many others.
Read Full Article »