Pope Benedict

A chapter of accidents

The pope’s visit to the Holy Land adds another public-relations disaster to the string that already exists. Why should this be?

See article

Readers' comments



As an atheist raised catholic I enjoy a good pope bashing as much as the next guy, but this time, o Economist, you have dropped the ball. I read the Economist because it seems to be one of the last bastions of common sense against a 24 hours news cycle that has become a whore to the lowest common denominator: manufactured outrage against whatever seems to be on the mind of Joe the Plumber.

I fail to see how artificial outrage about minor nuances and individual words can be held against Ratzinger, particularly if it is artificially created by a few people who seem to mainly make a living of what happened to their grandparents. I think we all agree that the Holocaust was one of the darkest chapters of humanity and Ratzinger as well as the catholic church have said so on numerous occasions. Attacking them on this ground is as senseless as trying to invoke guilt by association by pointing out the pope’s origins. Let’s try to keep perspective here, he was a boy when the holocaust happened and too young to object to it, while his detractors would probably do good spending some time reflecting on why they do not object to the current policies of Israel.

Similarly I have to side with the pope on the issue of lifting the excommunication of Williamson. The rules say that people can only be excommunicated if they contradict church dogma. My understanding is that it is pretty much a one-way ticket to hell, if you believe in hell that is as serious as it gets. Mere criminals or sinners cannot be excommunicated and church dogma does not forbid holocaust denial, so Ratzinger could either lift the excommunication or render 2000 years of tradition obsolete. I do not think it is fair to demand that of him for an offense that is not even punishable with a fine in most countries. In any case I have to admire if somebody follows through with something he reasonably believes is right, even if it is unpopular, as long as it does not hurt anybody (no free pass for Cheney, here).

My view on the condom issue is similar. If I understand the man correctly his stand is: use condoms if you must, but don’t expect me to endorse them. When I read his quotes in the press I can see him winking when as he speaks. His predecessors have gone out on a limb and I cannot expect him to throw that out of the window in one go.

The issue with the Brazilian girl is unfortunate, but sadly Catholics in the Americas (including bishops) still have to see what the pope says more as guidelines. Here again, the office of the pope has gone out on a limb for decades (and has to keep the loony US Catholics at bay), so it is not fair to expect a 180 turn.

Long story short, while I do not agree with most of what Ratzinger says, I have to respect him much more than most of his detractors, particularly if they are mindlessly pandering to the audience as the author of the article.


While many comments refer to the difference of religion from poltics and diplomacy, in Australia the problems for the Catholic church are fundamentally political. Firstly the practising congregations are broadly in 2 camps. The liberal, liaise fare believers who are not opposed to homosexual unions, not opposed to married priests, not opposed to contraception and equivocal about abortion. This 'camp' is mostly composed of life-long Catholics not willing to give up just because the current hierachy think that they are sinners. Many priest fit with these beliefs. The second camp are the conservatives who have the key seats of power, and include 'refugees' from other religions seeking a more conservative environment.

The problems of teh Catholic church are typical of organisations where there is poor alignment to the core values. Only a degree of democracy and allowance for 'deviations' will see it survive as a large organisation in the developed world


Individual words matter, yes. So do letters. Surely you mean 'weighed' not 'weighted' at the beginning of the ninth paragraph? The sense changes entirely!


This article is an egregious diatribe against the Catholic Church. Shame on the Economist for publishing it. Someone's agenda is showing.


This was hilarious! As if matters whether the word "murdered" or "killed" were invoked. The Jews and Moslems are somehow always the victims on these papal trips to the Holy Land, regardless if it's Paul VI or JP II. Had Benedict appeared in sack-cloth and ashes to apologise for the Crusades-- which took place to rid the Holy Land of the original invaders, the Moslems, this writer would have accused him of being theatrical. Or insincere. The fact is that Benedict's slip-ups are NOT slip ups: they are deliberate directions to the reality of today's world. There is nothing to ask forgiveness for: his Regensberg address was spot on. Islam IS a violent religion in the main, not only in its extemities. Here's to Benedict being the herald of truth in a world too pc to even get its story-- let alone its facts-- straight.


I do feel that any attempt to deny the Holocaust is absurd. But speaking about the tragedy of the Shoah, in which millions of innocent people were killed can hardly be interpreted as.. denying or hiding the truth behind the Holocaust. Is it that you have to say a set of exact words: "6 million", "murdered" etc., otherwise you are wrong? Is there an exact list of words that must be said published somewhere? For myself, permit me to think that such excesses of political corectness only gives ammunition to the real enemies of Israel.


For the Israelis to be complaining about what was said or what was not, imo seems very typical. What happened was a long time ago and did not just happen to them, maybe the Roma should complain more that they are not mentioned by the jews though they to faced the same treatment. The story is getting old by its retelling, time to move on, remember that mistakes of the past fine, but not to push and definitely not by those whom most of all were not there on some one who was.

As for putting his own faith first, the reporter seemed to have missed something, he is a leader of a religion.

And finally, I find the anti-secular comments made by those that would oppress their own faith on others regarding this as populist anti-Catholic press... Both disturbing and offensive. But as I come from a secularist country that believes in the freedoms of the individual, they were totally your right to make.


This Pope is very much an aloof academic trying to show some pastoral sensitivity, so frankly I am surprised he has not made more gaffes. However I draw the line at this political correctness. He should be stridently condemning muslim clerics for their almost universal failure to condemn the barbaric behavior of some of their followers. While Jews are less culpable, their recent treatment of Palestinians is shockingly excessive and I would have hoped that a nation that had suffered so severely from the brutality of other nations would find some sympathy or willingness to try to make peace with a people who have clearly been driven to the edge of despair. While I think the civilized world should tread carefully round the Holocaust, the same does not hold for their recent uptrend in extreme violence against their neighbors.


The Pope's Tour May 8-15, 2009, was pre-announced as a "Christian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, of Benedict XVI" . . . . not as any “diplomatic state visit”.

So, why can't a Christian religious leader just make a pilgrimage to the places holy to his faith and his followers without being forced to make "Kowtows" to the non-Christians who hold those places hostage right now? - I find this ridiculous.

I've never heard a leading Islamic Sheikh or Jewish Rabbi “apologizing” to other religions for not equally respecting those "false faiths" or for not addressing members of other religions in the same embracing way as they would address their own followers.

Rather the opposite is true: For most Islamic Sheikhs, Imams or Muftis, to mingle too closely with Christians is “haraam”, since non-Muslims are generally seen as (unclean) creatures, i.e. for eating pork etc. Similar is true for the label “goy” in the eyes of most Talmudic Rabbis

But at least Muslims accept Jesus as a true messenger of God, whereas Jewish Rabbis still denounce the Christian’s Jesus as a “false prophet”, while claiming - fully immobile - in the same time to be “God’s only chosen people”. What about a change in dogma here?

It seems to me that the claim of “exclusivity” of one’s own religion, may this be Islam, Christianity or Jewism, is the core element of their beliefs; the others exist, but are not "equal". None of the three Abrahamic religions is in this respect “tolerant”. (That’s, btw, the reason that I decided not to follow unconditionally any of them).

But for all the reasons I’ve mentioned above, I have a hard time understanding the fuss about the Catholic Pope’s (possible) “wrong attitude” towards non-Catholics.


"Killed" instead of "murdered"? As if we don't know how they were killed? And why does everyone have to say 6 million every time they refer to the Holocaust? Holocaust denial is ridiculous, but so is the hyper-politically-correct speech people have to use to talk about the Holocaust.


What was the purpose of the papal visit? If pastoral, it should be judged entirely by what he said to and did for Roman Catholics, without regard to Christians of other denominations, Jews, Muslims, or anyone else. If diplomatic, then indeed his failures to push the various buttons can be defended only as a deliberate warning that those whom he offended or disappointed are not taken by the rest of the world at their own valuation; but such a warning loses its effect if it can be plausibly related to the limited perceptions of an individual. On the other hand, what was he expecting, or expected, to achieve?


The spiritual leader of a world religion has to behave different than a country diplomat. Any big fast deviation from tradition, any acceptance of other religions as equal is impossible for him. Trying to judge him by the country diplomat standard as this article tries is therefore a sure failure. Trying to judge him by the standards of a German diplomat is even worse since after all, he does not represent Germany, but a world church.

I would also like to have an apology for that outlandish apology demand. Yes seriously, that he was alive and did not try to kill Hitler reasoning is offensive. But i guess that was the point of the post in the first place right?


While both have their progressing elements, both Christian and Muslim faiths have far too many backward tendancies, primative in fact. The Roman Catholic Church, despite educated and supposedly enlightened clergy deserves to fail and be allowed to re-emerge to modernity and relevance. The Muslim faith with a very large base of imams uneducated in anything other than backward interpretations is even further in need of change. The enlightened in both faiths need to be more pressing for change. Turkey, for example, is leading the modernization of muslim religious interpretations. They need to become more evident and messages of faith and integration into the increasingly diverse world communities.



You will have to wait a long time before there is another like Pope John XXIII or John Paul II.

The present Pope is an academic and lives in an ivory tower.

How many years did it take the Vatican to apologise for their persecutions of the Jews? Hundreds, I would guess.


I feel that the Israelis are making a mountain out of a molehill.

On the other hand the Vatican urgently needs to modernise itself and change its attitude to contraception. There are far too many people on this planet.

Agreed that everyone has the right to take part in the banquet of life. Unfortunately there is not enough food on the table.


The pope is not into public relations

In other words he says very deep things which are too difficult for biased newsmen to understand.

Remember the 2006 Regensburg case: apparently it was an Italian newsman from Corriere della Sera who, upon hearing the famous quote from the Bizantine ruler, ran to his computer and wrote that the Pope had said those words without further comment.

Understandingly the Muslims were upset and riots broke out, a priest in Turkey was eventually killed.

Was it the pope's fault? No way: should everyone learn public relations, or wouldn't it be better if the newsmen learned to stop scandal mongering.

Thank God, as the cover story, they are having big problems


The economists editors were obviously asleep to let this bad article to press. It tries to mix coverage of the pope's visit with an overall assessment of papal policy under this pope and does a bad job at both! As for the article's coverage of the last visit it fails to grasp the basic issues involved, at least with reference to inter-faith relations.

For starters, the pope, being a German citizen during the Nazi era, participated indirectly in helping Nazi genocide and war crimes take place (no, he or his family apparently did not apparently belong/support the brave yet minuscule indigenous resistance to Nazism - such as the "White Rose" movement). Consequently, the GERMAN pope arriving in the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial SHOULD have NOT ONLY said the basic undisputed facts about the horrific murder, but gone much much further in expressing a sincere and heart-felt apology. This is true not only as a German but also as the Pope of the Catholic church. A church that remained silent during the holocaust, even as it continued to espouse an historic antisemitic dogma blaming the Jewish people for killing the Jewish Jesus Christ and failing to convert to Catholicism thereafter and theologically justifying the "divine" retribution against the Jews. Where the church did take a forceful moral stand, such is the strong public protest against the T-4 Nazi euthanasia extermination (printed sermons were even sent to German soldiers at the front), the Nazi government cowered and stopped its campaign. Yet for the mass murder of innocent civilians both Jews and other non-Germans (not to mention extermination of the devilish Soviet prisons of war), the church intentionally chose to look the other way.

Yes, this pope should have found the courage, as a leader of a movement preaching universal morality to owe up to its sinful past. Instead the world found in this last visit the holy land (at least with regard to Yad Vashem) a return to its traditional self-interested spinelessness. Now lets here this from the Economist.


Don't underestimate the effect of the Pope's visit to the Holy Land. He talked softly but with resonance to the worlds Catholics and others who were listening. The Catholics make up 22% of the US population, and they will be influenced by the Pope's message. The message will not activate the Catholics politically to the level of the American Jew's activism, but it does put a seed of doubt toward the rightness of the unconditional support of Israel.


The reaction of some readers of this article is not unexpected; nevertheless I am in agreement with the article's author that this Pope "adds another public-relations disaster to a string that already exists." This Pope has done little to enhance the Christian faith. Pope John 23rd, where are you ?


The arrogance of the mass media is so obvious in this article. Apart from the Williamson affair - which he's since explained - the Pope hasn't actually made any real mistakes, but what he has said or not said has been whipped up into stories by... the media, much of which would like to see him silenced.

It's time for the Economist and other publications to stop using the Pope as a media football and start listening to what he's actually saying. You'll have to rid yourselves of your arrogance first but as your circulations dwindle, we can now hope that that just might happen. It won't be a moment too late.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

