"His Lips Moved", by Robert Moynihan. Inside the Vatican 11/30/06:Benedict’s moving lips were captured by television cameras and transmitted by satellite instantaneously around the world, to the ends of the earth.Perhaps the Pope was not really "praying" at all? Perhaps he was just "meditating"? Was this possible?
No, because when the two men continued on their way (as Serena, who was there and could hear everything, related to me), the pope said to the mufti, "Thank you for this moment of prayer." There seems no doubt, then, that Benedict was indeed praying.
The Pope’s spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, was asked about this later by journalists. Was it really a prayer?
At first Lombardi seemed to hesitate, saying "the pope paused in meditation, and certainly he turned his thoughts to God."
Then he said that this could be called a moment of personal prayer, but one which did not include any of the exterior signs of Christian prayer, like a sign of the cross. In this way, Lombardi said, the pope underlined what unites Christians and Muslims, rather than any differences.
"In this sense it was a personal, intimate prayer to God," Father Lombardi said, which "can easily be expressed with his mind and with his thoughts also in a mosque, where many people cultivate the same spiritual attitude."
The essence of this argument would seem to be that the pope - or any Christian - may pray to God anywhere, not just in a Christian church, but even outdoors, even in a prison cell, even in a non- Christian place of worship, like a mosque.
* * *Personal observation on the Papal "Prayer" at the Blue Mosque:
I believe this will be a moment strongly reminiscent of Pope John Paul II's Infamous Koran Kissing Incident -- which is to say, interpreted and exaggerated far beyond the Holy Father's personal intentions (taking a moment to reflect, in much the same manner as John Paul II was expressing a customary sign of respect towards the giver in that country). It will be, if not already, lambasted by 'radtrads' and exploited as a publicity stunt by the Muslim press.
Is this a "diplomatic error" on Benedict's part? -- the gesture is certainly too open to exploitation. (The same could be said for the Turkish newspaper Zaman's headline: "Pope Agrees Islam is Religion of Peace" -- of course the Pope would beg to differ, but the media will go where they will and say what they want to say regardless).
But however one chooses to receive the above, it would have to be weighed against other factors -- for instance, explicitly praising a priest slain in the Islamic rage over the Danish cartoons, or alluding to the Armenian genocide by Turkey in his address with patriarch Mesrob II.
Perhaps he could have been more explicit in attributing Turkey's responsibility for the genocide in the latter -- but then again, as a guest of Turkey, he would also have jeopardized the possibility of a return visit, in light of advancing ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, so perhaps this was a reason for a more nuanced allusion to "truly tragic conditions, like those experienced in the past century.").
Regardless, -- just as I can't interpret JPII's "kissing of the Koran" in isolation from everything else, I'm inclined to weigh this saying / action by Pope Benedict in context with everything else that was said or done during the trip. At best I think it could be construed as a blunder (we'll see to what extent the Muslim press plays this up).
In the discussion of this event at Domenico Bettinelli's -- Fr. Martin Fox stressed the importance of looking at the event "through the right lenses" ("Triumph or Capitulation"?):
Seems to me this is an event that acquires most of its meaning from the lens through which one views it.
If you view it through a fearful/defensive/paranoid lens (surf the blogosphere, you’ll find plenty of examples), it is capitulation, “political correctness,” fake nicey-nice, syncretism, etc.
If you view it through the lens of confident trust in the Holy Spirit and in the ability of our very able pope, it is considered, deliberate, courteous, astute.
If you view it through the lens of ultimate triumph, it is victorious, prophetic.
If the latter is less clear, consider—wasn’t there a question some time back about an Imam visiting a Christian cathedral, and how awful that was? Well, which is it: is a leader of a religion coming to the turf of another a sign of strength or of weakness?
Seems to me the very fact a priest entered a mosque represents an invasion of Christian sanctity-— Christ himself has entered, in persona Christi capitis; in fact, not merely a priest, but a bishop, a successor to the Apostles; and not any successor, but Peter’s successor!
Now, some won’t be happy unless he came tossing holy water around and making the sign of the cross. But I would say the pope’s very person-- as bishop and as successor to Peter-- is vastly more significant in bringing Christ into that mosque.
Of course the Muslim triumphalists think they’ve won something, but they believe in Islamic eschatology, whereas we know the truth. Why should we see things through their lens.
* * *