Thursday, 17th January 2008
Intolerant Sapienza
Italian President Giorgio Napolitano is neither a latter-day papist nor a born again Christian. Far from it!
The lay President of Italy, nevertheless, described as a manifestation of intolerance the attitude 67 professors and a number of students from Rome’s La Sapienza University which was responsible for the cancellation of a visit by the Pope to that University.
Napolitano wrote a letter of support to the Pope saying that the threat of demonstrations was inadmissible and incompatible with the climate of freedom and dialogue that should mark a university Let’s back track a little bit for those who did not get the full story.
The visit was planned for Thursday, but a group of professors and students signed a letter protesting the visit by a Pope whom they claimed is "hostile to science." On Tuesday the protesting students occupied the rector's offices to demand the right to demonstrate within the university campus on the day of the Pope's visit.
The Vatican press office reported on Tuesday evening that "it has been considered opportune to postpone the event," which had been planned "by invitation of the rector." The University, which claims to be the largest in Europe, was founded in 1303 by Pope Boniface VIII and became independent in 1870.
The protesting Sapienza professors objected to remarks that the than-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made about the church's 17th-century condemnation of Galileo Galilei. They quoted him quoting another author defending the church's condemnation. The Austrian philosopher who was quoted had said that the trial was "rational and just." The learned professors forgot to point out that Cardinal Ratzinger had distanced himself from the author's remarks which he described as "drastic." In fact, in the speech, he had said, "Faith does not grow from a resentment and refusal of rationalism, but from its basic affirmation."
Andrea Frova, a professor of physics and one of the organizers of the professors' letter of protest, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale that he and his colleagues were "offended by the fact that a pope hostile to science" was invited to give a major lecture at a formal University event. The professor said it did not make sense "to entrust the inauguration of our academic year to a foreign head of state who also is the head of the Catholic Church."
The Rector of La Sapienza is quite naturally of a different opinion. Prof Renato Guarini said he had awaited Benedict XVI, a theologian and professor and "messenger of peace," to live "a moment of high culture" and an "interchange of ideas that would be fruitful for the entire university community."
It is very ironic that part of the academic staff and students of a University with the title of Wisdom behave in such a blinkered, unwise and intolerant way. Isn’t a University a place of dialogue between contrasting ideas? And since when is a boycott a sign of dialogue? What kind of open minded attitude are they communicating to students when they try to shut up those with whom they do not agree?
Giorgio Israel, a Jewish mathematician and professor at the university, noted in L'Osservatore Romano his surprise "that those who have chosen as a motto Voltaire's famous phrase, 'I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' oppose themselves to the Pope pronouncing a discourse at a university in Rome." Or is this just one other manifestation of the secularist brigade which is proving to be more fundamentalist than the worse religious fundamentalists?
On Wednesday the Vatican published the speech that the Pope had prepared. The following notes based on a despatch of the Catholic News Service shows how blinkered the La Sapienza professors were. "What should the Pope do or say at the university? Certainly, he must not try, in an authoritarian way, to impose on others' faith, which can be given only in freedom."
The Pope wrote that his role in speaking at a university that includes believers and non-believers, is to encourage professors, researchers and students "to seek the truth, the good, God" and to not allow power, technology or selfish interests to silence consciences or belittle those seeking meaning in their lives.
In the prepared text, Pope Benedict acknowledged that church people have not always been right about everything. "Various things said by theologians over the course of history or put into practice by church authorities have been shown to be false," he said, but the example of the saints and the Catholic Church's influence on the development of humanism and of various cultures "demonstrates the truth of this faith in its essential nucleus."
Interacting with those who do not believe, the church is dedicated to promoting a search for truth and the common good, a search it believes can be found fully only by recognizing Jesus Christ as Saviour, the Pope said.
It is legitimate to disagree with the Pope's words but it is shameful and bizarre to try and prevent him from saying them.
RSS
Comments
A very big thanks for answering me, myself being a non-'intellectual', non-'modern', common mortal being! Thank you.
Please excuse me if I sounded 'intolerant', as you insinuated! Maybe that's the way, us Southern-breeds, express ourselves.... However, though I reread my comment many times, I did not find anything 'intollerant'... insomma...
What i just wanted to say, (and I'm only a common, southern guy) is that the University professors should not have been so intolerant towards the Pope. They should not have argued against his visit at the University. Protesting should have been ok, but insisting and pushing against the visit was a bit unethical, especially coming from the 'intellignetia' Universitatis! They should promote unity and not boycotts.
I think it was a wise decision of the Vatican to cancel the appointment at the University. Rather than creating possible violence and unnecessary reactions, the Pope had no other alternative. We must remember that the students had already took over the Rector's offices illegally. What was their intention when they took over the offices? Only the Supreme Being knew what other actions were envisaged in case the Pope visited the University. This could have led to possible violent reactions from a minority group. It was thus a good decision.
Apart from this aspect, I wonder how the professor's students who signed the letter against the Pope must have felt if they did not agreed with their Professors.... maybe a retribution in the exam's marks!?? If these Professors were so 'intolerant' against a prominent figure like the Pope, I wonder what other 'intolerant' manners could have adopted against students who do not agree with them..... Meditate gente meditate!!!! Oops I did it again.... Sorry! I mentioned the Supreme Being again! Sorry Mr Larrson...
That was the most incoherent, nonsensical blabber I've heard in a long time.
Did anyone suggest persecution? Did anyone suggest preventing people from showing religious symbols? Did anyone suggest you can't say god?
If you want to preach tolerance, be tolerant!
The modern world has now been enlightened - no more gods, no more beliefs! Just believe the modern intelligent 'intellectuals'. Oops sorry.... I forget that I might be offending someone for mentioning the Supreme Being! Really I didn't want to upset anyone... Please forgive me!
I totally agree with you.
My only remark is that the printed version of T.O.M. did not give this story the prominence it desrves.
While I partially agree with you that it's definitely a scientific question, I think we would strongly disagree with the methods and conclusions.
And I also can't understand how you can, without any evidence, establish that it's only part of our reality (what other reality is there?).
As Christopher Hitchens said: "What has been asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" How come the church is excempt from being criticised?
If someone wants to avoid being criticised, keep quiet. The second you openly voice your opinion you are opening yourself for criticism. To once again quote the brilliant Voltaire: "To hold a pen is to be at war". When Rebecca Gompert was here recently, did not people protest and ask her not to come? Why is the Pope exempt from the same behaviour? Free speech was exercised at both times. Unless you think it was wrong of people to protest her as well of course (as long as you stay consistent). And your comment on lack of understanding for what we cannot measure and observe is completely beyond me.
There is nothing wrong with looking at things skeptically and with rationalism. I'm proud to be a skeptic. I don't follow things without questioning.
At this day and age we have a very good grasp of the world around us and it's a perfect opportunity to rationally look at what we can do to make the best of what we have. I know there has been plenty of brilliant people of faith, just as mentioned in my first post. Galilei and Newton is two perfect examples. Just as our cultural heritage is filled with astonishing religious buildings, paintings and devotional music. I would never deny that heritage, but at the same time they all come from a time when we did not know better.
Just for the record, I'm not miserable and more importantly do not make other people miserable by imposing my beliefs on them.
In its two thousand year history, churchmen too numerous to mention have been in the forefront of scientific discovery. However, the study of creation, which is the realm of science, is only part of our reality. Our secular friends seem incapable to fathom anything beyond what they can see and measure. Their ‘adequatio’ needs some upgrading.
To say that he was shut out from attending is not correct. He chose not to attend due to the protests from the teachers, a protest which was well founded especially due to the rough times science have had on the other side of the Atlantic, where the distorted teachings of Intelligent Design slowly found its way into schools and proper scientific methods has been pushed aside.
The Pope was faced with opposition in the form of a unified voice and chose not to attend. His right to exercise free speech stands on the same level as the teachers and students right for free speech in their criticism.
Also, to claim it was a critique of his quoted speech about Galileo Galilei is only half the truth. It's only recently that the Pope dismissed the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr Gorge Coyne, due to a conflict over the theory of evolution. A huge disgrace and a huge loss for the Vatican in my opinion due to the enormous contributions made by Fr Coyne.
The protest was a valid action to enlighten people about the necessary struggle faced by modern science.
It's also a bit of a riddle that he chose to quote Voltaire, who was one of the stronger voices of the enlightenment era secularism.
Other famous quotes from Voltaire:
"Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror."
"To pray to God is to flatter oneself that with words one can alter nature."
"If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor."
A highly important man for human progress, but not one favourable for the church.
In 1615 St. Robert Bellarmine wrote a letter to a Fr. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a priest who seemed to be considering Galileo's argument. In it he wrote - "But I tell you that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was the center of the universe ..., that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture that appear contrary. And we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been established.â€
Ratzinger seems to be referring to this as the "rationality" with which the church approached the issue at hand. The church was afraid of loosing face and that its followers would find out that the book "written by the hand of God" was proven wrong. Of course the church later found ways of re-interpreting the scripture to fit in with the scientific information that started slowly flowing in.
Yet, what the two vital facts here are that the church condemned Galileo and that Galileo was proven right at the end. The Catholic church still insists on the infallibility of the Pope in issues of faith but not when he is expressing an opinion.
I take it that his claim in March 1990 is meant to be an opinion. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, the pope writes that since its contents are an "expression of my personal research...Consequently, everyone is free to contradict me."
The Sapienza professors and students who protested were doing just that, voicing their protest at the incongruence of the Pope's visit to a place of science. It was finally the decision of the Pope to cancel the visit, deciding to send over the written speech instead.
Fr Joe calls the professors and students intolerant for protesting and making their opinion heard. It will be interesting to see how many times the church has invited, say, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - to its Sunday class.
One has to take into consideration the current situation in Italy. An independent state within a state that still manages to impose its views on the latter, such as in the case of same sex legal recognition, just to mention one example.
Talking about a fundamentalist secular brigade is rich coming from Fr Joe who represents the church in a country that imposes a Catholic straight jacket on its students, on its people even, who's priests invade all discussion programmes on the media.
1. It is unfair to say that the university was responsible for the cancellation of the Pope's visit. What I get from your article is that the professors and students only wanted to protest. If the Vatican wished to avoid such a confrontation, it's their business. I'm sure they believe they have good reasons for making that decision.
2. Regarding the concluding sentence, I would like to point out that to suggest that the Pope could be silenced is by any stretch of the imagination inconceivable. As if the Pope needs one university to spread his message!
3. With freedom of speech come freedom of legitimate non-violent protest and the freedom to choose who to listen or not to listen to. It seems like the professors and students in question chose to act on their right to legitimate protest and possibly (though this is uncertain) the right not to listen to the Pope. Legitimate (non-violent) demonstrations, contrary to what President Napolitano says, are not "inadmissable" and "incompatible with the climate of freedom and dialogue". The right to protest is one of the hallmarks of democracy. All this fuss about a non-issue has only served to give publicity to the La Sapienza University.
It can be seen as arrogant or intelligent. But it was the Vatican's decision to postpone.
I think they should not have postponed and the protesters should have been allowed to demonstrate. That way Voltaire would have been happy as everyone would have had a chance to have their say. Not an ideal exchange of ideas, but definitely the kind that grabs attention. I guess as things turned out the students managed to get worldwide attention instead. And we must ask ourselves whether religion and science can co-exist, and whether Christian propaganda should be allowed in education institutions.
social discourse in order to explore learning and growth. A situation has arisen where an intellectual man of God was denied the forum from which to speak and dialogue. Shutting him off reflected fear and an inability to deal with knowledge at its best! I wonder how the intellectuals of La Sapienza will use this situation to promote further growth among their students! I wonder how the theme of tolerance will be pursued in order to accomodate diversity and difference as a desirable quality in life. Shame on those professors at La Sapienza who instigated this way of thinking. The flock mentality was promoted as opposed to the individual thought process. This is an instance when human intelligence was robbed of a moment of growth. Quoting scriptures, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." Mt. 10: 28.