The Pope has offered two non-apology apologies for his Tuesday remarks on Islam, which if an apology must be offered, is the only kind he should utter:

The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.

On Sunday, he reiterated:

Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction sparked by his speech about Islam and holy war and said the text did not reflect his personal opinion.

"These (words) were in fact a quotation from a medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought," Benedict told pilgrims at his summer palace outside Rome.

Have you read the Pope's comments in context? You should. The entire speech is fascinating, and makes clear that he used the Islam passage in question to illustrate a larger point about the intersection of religion and reason, and the consequences of separating the two. I'm snipping some shorter, relevant parts, but the whole thing is recommended.

This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

Benedict sets up his Islam comments extensively. He's quoting a discussion between an "educated" and "learned" Persian and a Byzantine emporer on the subject of Christianity and Islam.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

Here it comes:

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It 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 Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 emphasized quote above is the one the "enraged" are citing, of course attributing it to the Pope, not the Byzantine emporer. But if you take that quote out, do you get a different reaction from the world's Muslims? I don't think you do. In the next paragraph, Benedict criticizes forced, violent conversions as incompatible with the nature of God. Frankly, these days, there's one major world religion to which that criticism is much more readily applied than any others.

The emperor 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") 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...."

That sounds like a version of blogger Instapundit's statement of this weekend, "If they're that insecure about their religion, maybe the problem isn't with the critics."

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 practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

Is he talking about the War on Terror? And, isn't that next sentence a variation on the "are Islamic societies compatible with democracy" question? Benedict then moves onto the rest of his speech, and Islam doesn't show up again until the end.

But were his Islam comments just a way to illustrate his larger point? Nah. Benedict knows his comments are heeded and publicized.

I don't buy the "bumbling un-media savvy Pope" storyline a) because I resent the implication that the leader of a major world religion is under any obligation, media-imposed or otherwise, to avoid discussing another world religion in an academic setting and b) because the Pope wears Prada. Dude is not out of touch. Heck, he's halfway to his own celebrity favorites list on iTunes.

I'm with The Anchoress on this one (and I feel like, when talking about the Pope, that's probably a safe place to be):

Whether he is “media savvy” or not, Benedict has managed - in his very scholarly fashion - to apply a very hot drawing poultice to the enormous and festing boils of both radical Islamism and rampant secularism.

Benedict, as illustrated by the mere language of this speech, is much smarter than the press folks accusing him of blundering, here. He worked for years under John Paul II, one of the most politically active and aware leaders the Church has ever had. He knew what he was doing. Not only that, but he knew he was traveling to Turkey in November-- his first trip to a Muslim nation. This was no accident.

Benedict didn't bury his Islam comments in the middle of the speech where they might have been missed. They were right up front. And, in case anyone missed it, he wrapped with them, too:

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur -- this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. Continued...