It seems that there is some kind of tendency for Islamists, especially fundamentalists and extremists, to reduce Pope Benedict XVI to that unfortunate lecture he gave in 2006. Such a reduction is not innocent, given the priorities that those seek to impose on both consciousness and conscience in our region. These Islamists also tend to politicize the first trip ever by the head of the Catholic Church to the region, despite his affirmation that this is a pilgrimage, and not a pastoral trip. Again, such a tendency is not innocent, given the political circumstances surrounding our region, and their intent to impose their own priorities here. Placing the Pope, as a representative of the Christian West, in an anti-Muslim position on both religious and political levels, is not only a disregard to reality, facts, and historic conditions in which the Pope may play a key role, but is also a refusal to acknowledge that there is common ground on which different people and religion and policies may meet in this world. Such manner of thinking also betrays a distorted belief that the conspiracy against Muslims continues, along with the ill-reputed crusades. This includes an implicit accusation of 'moderate regimes' of being both politically and religiously complicit to the conspiracy, as claimed by the statements issues by fundamentalists. In other words, the fundamentalists' position towards Benedict XVI's trip is proof of their inclination to exploit events, and invest this in their general fundamental political campaign. This is without even stopping to try and know the Pope's true character, what he represents, and what he could be criticized for. In the Cold War era, the Vatican had a key role in the fight against the eastern bloc, since its position was the same as the Western bloc's. The issue of liberties in general and religious liberties in particular, was the backbone of the fight against the totalitarian communist regimes. As such, Polish Pope John Paul II was destined to take up the post of the Holy See in the midst of the fight against the Soviet bloc, and he was one of those who helped bring it down. In other words, the political role of John Paul II was strongly linked to the historic circumstance associated with the collapse of the Eastern bloc, which was already cracked, upon his tenure at the papacy. Today, conditions have changed. The West no longer calls for the papacy to transform its religious weight into political stances. On the contrary, there were sometimes conflicting positions, like for instance, what happened between Pope John Paul II and the former American President George W. Bush during the preparation for the invasion of Iraq. The Vatican's position, if it had any announced positions, has become no longer analogous to that of Western countries, or those countries with a Christian majority. On the contrary; with the arrival of the religiously conservative German Pope Benedict XVI to the papacy, signs that he is moving away from previous papal calls have surfaced, in both religious and social issues. Recall that Pope Benedict XVI's pastoral trip in Africa provoked one of the most severe campaigns against him in the West, especially in what relates to his calls for more conservatism in the Church's creed, for family planning, and for treatment of venereal diseases widespread in Africa. Experts and analysts viewed such calls as opposing scientific progress and the way of life of African peoples, and as an obstacle in front of finding remedies to the issues of poverty and disease. Perhaps it is this conservative side that distinguishes the work of the current Pope, and not his political influence. Based on his religious conservatism, he accepted the return of a puritan bishop to the church after having broken up with it, for purely religious reasons, and not because this same bishop is a denier of the Holocaust. For the record, the accusation that Pope Benedict XVI was a member of the Hitler Youth as a young man was only brought up to damage his image an advocate of peace and dialogue. If radical Islamists want to bring up the issue of the unfortunate lecture and exploit it in their campaigns, then they are simultaneously resorting to the same ideological background of religious extremism, and are taking the same conservative and puritan stances when it comes to social issues. What is in common between both sides, then, is much more than what can divide between them because of the said lecture. Al-Hayat 10-05-2009
