Poor, poor Pope Benedict. Why won’t the world just slide back into the Dark Ages, when a Pope could run his mouth off about infidels and heretics and then sit back and enjoy the bonfire? Nope, nowadays pesky newspapers get involved, and everything goes to hell.

The former Cardinal Ratzinger (I just like saying that name with a nasal whine) is in hot water over his recent remarks about Islam. He’s taken the unprecedented step of apologizing personally for running his stupid mouth off…but get this, he’s blaming the whole thing on a pesky medieval manuscript that just sort of flung itself from his throat.

Benedict ignited a firestorm of protest last week in a speech he made at Regensburg University in Germany, where he used to teach theology. The speech was largely a scholarly address criticizing the West for submitting itself too much to reason, walling a belief in God out of science and philosophy.

But the pope began by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad 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 pope said.

He also briefly discussed the Islamic concept of jihad, which he defined as “holy war,” and said that violence in the name of religion is contrary to God’s nature and to reason.

At the same time, though without mentioning Islam specifically, Benedict suggested reason as the basis for “that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”

In the speech, he did not say whether he agreed with the quotations he cited about violence and Islam. But on Sunday he delivered a rare papal apology putting distance between his views and those he quoted.

“These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought,” Benedict said.

“The true meaning of my address,” he said, “in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.” (New York Times)

I must confess to being a little bit mystified. (Translation: It just don’t make no f&*#ing sense to me.) So Benedict’s whole point was reason and faith, how Faith has been shafted by Reason but Reason must be the grounds of discussion–and he just thought he’d throw in a little anti-Islam to liven everything up?

How does this make sense? Even the “apology” makes little to no sense–it was a medieval manuscript, so that should make it okay to dredge up and hurl at Mohammed’s followers? Did the manuscript hold a gun to Benny Ratzie’s head and make him open his big fat mouth?

Hm.

Part of a Vatican apology runs thus:

“The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim faithful. Confirming his respect and esteem for those who profess the Islamic faith, he hopes they will be helped to understand his words in their true sense.”

I kind of think the words were taken in their true sense by anyone with half a brain. When you’re digging up medieval propaganda, how can it be understood as anything other than an insult? There were hundreds of other quotes Benedict could have used, and hundred of other ways for him to express what he now says was his point all the time–the seeming modern triumph of fanaticism over reason.

I’ve often suspected that the Vatican has sunk so far into narcissism that anyone in its clutches is becoming incapable of reacting to the world in a relevant way. (Like that South Park episode, you know, where they worship the giant spider…)

There are some folks saying that Benedict’s apology should be enough for Muslims who were pissed about his remarks, that his scholarly mumblings were taken out of context and that we should all just relax. To which I say, let Benny dig out the beam in his own eye (and incidentally, face the Catholic Church’s dismal record on human rights, including the betrayal of Liberation Theology) before he starts wanting to do cataract surgery on Muslims. Maybe he should swap scriptwriters with Dubya Bush.

The overall quality of the speeches both ways might even improve…