The Pope’s lecture at Regensburg, which has aroused the protests of the Islamic world, is also picked over by German commentators. Writing in Die Welt (20/9), Gernot Facius opines: “ When the smoke of the guns of Islamic indignation has cleared, it will be seen that the dialogue between Rome and the Islamic world has not in the least been interrupted. It will even be reinforced“. […] “ That there is no alternative to inter-religious dialogue is a self-evident truth. But especially in Germany, where there already exists a lively culture of dialogue, we ought not to expect too much from the dialogue between the monotheist ‘Abrahamite’ religions . […] The dialogue with Islam cannot be based on mere actuality: the consequence would be frustration. The dialogue must develop its own pace and have a long-term perspective. It will only be fruitful if it is theologically grounded and aimed at an analysis of the fundamental questions. These include the relation with violence, with human rights and with freedom – including the religious freedom of Christians in Islamic countries. Whoever ignores these pillars of a sincere dialogue so as not to anger the interlocutor, will not promote peace”. The weekly Der Spiegel (18/9) dedicates its cover story to the same question: “ In his lecture on the relation between reason and faith in God, (the Pope) wanted to clarify the point that no one can commit violence to spread religion. In this intention he rather hid himself behind the words of a Byzantine emperor. But otherwise he argued his case in the manner of men of learning: Prof. Josef Ratzinger had returned to Regensburg. An indicator of God who did not think that the words of a Pope would be heard in the city as in the rest of the world. But in this way he preached ‘urbi et orbi’. No doubt the Pope… would not have so violently alienated the Islamic world if he had not cited the criticism of a Byzantine emperor“. “What exactly did the Pope wish to say in Regensburg?” asks Henri Tincq in the French daily LE MONDE (20/09). “That dialogue must be frank. No longer the dialogue of good intentions… of appeals, as repetitive as they are ineffectual, for peace between religions as a foretaste of peace in the world. What the new pope calls for is a dialogue founded on reason: are there, yes or no, seeds of violence in holy scripture? Are there, in Islam as in the other confessions, critical claims that permit a free hermeneutic – a right of interpretation – of scriptural texts? Are there – continues Tincq – magisterial authorities able and free to enunciate what is right, denounce what is wrong, and persecute fundamentalism?”. According to the journalist we cannot “hold our tongue on such questions. Many moderate Muslims pose them every day, either openly or in a clandestine manner, for fear of reprisals”. The CATHOLIC HERALD ( 15/09) comments of the “ amiability” of Benedict XVI. His recent journey to Bavaria – says an unsigned comment – “ demonstrates that it is wrong to divide Joseph Ratzinger, as many have done, into two different persons: the severe, polemical guardian of the faith and the gentle pope with an amiable character: there is in fact a perfect coherence between the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Supreme Pontiff” who recently explained that he “wanted to present Christianity as a positive option”. For this reason, continues the English Catholic weekly, “there were some who were surprised by the force of his homily in Munich, in which he declared that even many apparently devout and active Catholics suffer from deafness when it comes to God”. According to the author of the article “ the first proof of a Vicar of Christ must be orthodoxy; geniality is a wonderful added bonus”. “Yesterday in St. Peter’s Square, the applause of the crowd redoubled” is the eloquent title of an editorial in the Italian Catholic daily AVVENIRE (21/09 ), dedicated to Wednesday’s general audience, the first after the furore over Benedict’s lecture in Regensburg. Marina Corradi observes that “in spite of the unspoken apprehension that was circulating in Rome yesterday, the people waiting for the audience were double the expected number , as if to say that they wanted to express their solidarity by their presence alone. Almost as if they wanted to bring a silent witness: we didn’t believe what was accused. We cannot believe in a Pope who is a fomenter of hatred, of a Pope who is against someone”. “As if, above or below the slogans shouted out and the spinning of confused and menacing words, they knew how to separate the objective facts from their amplified and deformed echo”. Faced by the tired appearance of Benedict XVI, says Corradi, the faithful were “as if at home” and “ applauded his explanations warmly and at length” as if to say “we already knew it, we never doubted it”. Theirs was a “ choral and massive presence, faces of men and women who did not want to leave alone this man who is Pope”.
