篤爺

出世不久，就被家母送了去教堂受洗，所以我算是一個天主教徒。天主教徒理應支持教宗，但我一向對教會甚麼甚麼，梵帝岡怎麼怎麼的事都無甚好感，加上十戒中通常都犯上六、七條，我都算是一個天主教叛徒。既是叛徒，自然對教宗本篤十六近來的言行看不順眼。

教宗引述拜尖庭某帝皇的言論，說回教evil和inhuman，引來攻擊，他居然說只是引用，不代表自己立場，有人會信嗎？他不是說謊就是愚蠢；太蠢的人做大佬也是一種罪，看看董建華和晉惠帝就能明白。

人人都說篤爺對回教態度較強硬(如果不是反回教)，這一點姑且不論，單就他那篇演說來看就使人不禁稱奇。

他說近來讀到一個叫Theodore Khoury的Professor編的一本書，當中有一段拜尖庭皇帝Manuel II Paleologus與波斯學者於1391年左右的對話。這段對話涉及聖經與可蘭經，人神形象云云。這段對話最能引起他的興趣是faith和reason的討論。Manuel II提及回教的「聖戰」。

到戲肉了，「The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".」
人類的暴力不乎於神旨，我認同。但教宗如此引述在為演講的開端真的單純引述嗎？他告知我們在毛罕默德尚未「發圍」時回教主張 “no compulsion in religion”，然後就說及後《可蘭經》中的聖戰甚麼甚麼……這種比較又是甚麼意思？原來他關注的不是暴力和神的關係，而是理性和信仰。

他續說「The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry. 」
他引述說回教對神的看法是超驗的(好像在暗示人家是unresonable)，天主教對神的看法就沒有那麼單純，因受到希臘思想的影響，加了甚麼理性的思慮等(教宗對此並不完全贊同)。

之後，差不多全文就是理性與宗教的哲學 / 神學的討論，甚麼去希臘化、康德之類，我不明所言，只是掃讀而已。印象中，他再沒有討論回教的問題了。這使我感到疑惑：一是教宗是否同意他引述的回教與天主教對神看法的不同的觀點？二是假設他同意，引述的目的是甚麼？7頁的講辭，用了1頁引述中古晚期拜尖庭對回教的討論作開場白，但此後又不再怎樣提及，目的是甚麼？？

假如無意針對別人，在討論自己的信仰，卻以別人的神作開場白已是「引喻失宜」：還要在這種「聖戰」處處的時勢，引述耶教對「聖戰」看法(西方的觀點)難免給人「瓜田李下」的感覺。當然，教宗對暴力要遣責，那管那宗教是「真主」還是「觀世音」！對別的宗教有意見，也可直說(非常小心地)。雖然，我一向武斷地認為宗教間的討論是無結果而無謂的(你說真主是唯一的神，我也可以說家中的電飯煲也是真的神)，但是這段講話給我的感覺卻是另類的：
少林方丈覺得武當掌門岳不群是個仆街，卻又不上武當明言為江湖除害，卻在山腳「小」佢。人家是少林方丈，自然不會像我這類教中敗類真的「小」起人來，他引經據典,指桑「馬」槐地暗寸武當，寸的卻不是岳不群，而是張三豐……..然後再引經據典討論甚麼我佛慈悲…….總之，既不直接，也不光明，有失方丈體統。

以教宗的博學，真的不以別教的問題就不能打開話匣嗎？當年拜尖庭君主求救於教宗市區二世(Urban II)防止回教勢力擴張，市區二世想藉此進一步提升教庭的聲望，十字軍東征隨之而起，………今天教宗卻從拜尖庭的君主取學術資源，「詐帝」回應「宿敵」，能否提升教庭聲望尚未知，但他自身的被行刺聲望就已提升不少……..世界輪流轉。

教宗最後說「Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. 」……..那個先驗的真神「not to act with logos」?基於logos和reason而去請參與文化對話的partner。真諷刺，回教徒能否成為這個partner？還是讓亨廷頓成為最靈驗的先知。