An apology for the centuries of violence the Catholic church supported politically, financially and spiritually may have been a sounder place for Pope Benedict to start his condemnation of religious-based violence in other religions since 2006, when he linked Islam with terrorism. Difficult to do given the papal infallibility doctrine, but part and parcel of the reconciliation he admirably still seems to be seeking and which we should hope will be universally supported after being reconsidered and revised for historical accuracy and ideological inconsistencies.
Speaking to 40,000 people in Cameroon today, his Holiness said "Genuine religion... stands at the base of any authentically human culture… It rejects all forms of violence and totalitarianism: not only on principles of faith but also of right reason." While his rhetoric of peace is commendable, it may be insightful to pick apart the terms a bit. If "genuine" religion rejects violence, then close to all religions have proven to be anything but, including the Pope's own. This is not to say that they haven't played pivotal roles in helping secure spiritual peace for individuals or occasionally facilitating non-violent transformations of societies and collectives. However, to deny the one while supporting the other risks permitting purposeful violations that prevents what the Pope is after.
What irks me most about this statement is the supposition that there can be or even is "inauthentic" human cultures, however defined. Is he referring to what used to be called "heathens" and "unbelievers," a theological dichotomy that allowed religions throughout history to support colonization and enslavement of members of "inauthentic" cultures? Another highlight in the Pope's statement is the term "right reason," which to me resonates with the Buddhist principle of the same name in the Eightfold Path, by which adherents are asked to always think non-violently in order to act so. Whether or not this is what the Pope was alluding to, the theological battle between faith and reason that has been part of Christianity since the post-Apostolic era is more than a bit glossed over by him here.
Finally comes the word "totalitarianism," by which the Pope must mean the political and socio-economic kinds because, if not, he should consider resigning or be forced to. Few major world religion are or have been more totalitarian than Catholicism, theologically or historically. Its priests who step out of line are consistently removed by authorities, and its members are sentenced to eternal damnation for even the slightest deviation from its doctrines. This, apparently, includes using condoms to prevent AIDS, as the Pope said the day before. Moreover, granting forgiveness for sins it defines biblically and baby baptismal cleansing as a spiritual insurance policy are the exclusive prerogatives of the Church. Telling Catholics and other faithful who must cling to religious totalitarianism for their very salvation, knowingly or not, that totalitarianism must be rejected sends contradictory and counterproductive messages, even if and all the more so because it should be.
Only by confronting head-on the violence that has been embedded in close to all religions, then taking pragmatic measures towards reconciliation and transformation, can religious-based violence be overcome. Denying the past is the first step towards repeating it, and given the Pope's justified outrage at a priest who denied the Holocaust, maybe he should turn it on himself to make the current event he is into one that creates a future in which religious, and all, violence has ceased to exist.
