It’s immensely sad that Pope Benedict XVI has undone in one fell swoop the efforts of his predecessor and mentor John Paul II, who worked tirelessly for dialogue and understanding between the world’s great religions. I’ve just finished reading the speech for which the pope has personally delivered this apology: “I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims”.

The pontiff was no doubt well-intentioned but to some ears this sounds as if he is more sorry about the reactions to his speech rather than the offending paragraphs.

I don’t pretend to be a theologian but it seems to me that the incendiary paragraphs related to a 14th century exchange between a Byzantine emperor and “an educated Persian” besides being extremely offensive are entirely extraneous to the general theme.

The pope begins his talk by reflecting on the happy years he spent teaching at the theological faculties of the University of Bonn where he admits “not everyone could share the faith”. Indeed, he notes 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...” So from this one deduces he is talking about atheists.

Amid such “radical skepticism” the need for Christian discourse using reason is important, he says. So far so good!

It is here that he goes completely off at a tangent, saying he was reminded of this when reading the extract of a dialogue between “the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam...”

Then seemingly out of the blue, the pope quotes the emperor maligning the Prophet and Islam, omitting any caveat indicating he does not share the “erudite” emperor’s beliefs. According to the pope, the emperor qualifies his statement by detailing why “spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable”.

At the end of his delivery Pope Benedict quotes the emperor once more as saying “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (a Greek word meaning reason in this context) is contrary to the nature of God”.

The implication, says Dr. Giles Fraser, a vicar and a lecturer in philosophy at Oxford University writing in the Guardian is this. The pope is implying “there is no reasoning in or with Islam, which surely is another way of the pope saying how dangerous he thinks Islam is”. Dr. Fraser believes the speech was badly judged and has an enormous potential for harm. The question is why did the pope jump from reminiscing about atheist lecturers and unbelieving students to the bigoted ramblings of a mediaeval Byzantine ruler, whose ideas about Islam would have been colored by the fact he was forced to make obeisance to the Ottomans.

Why did the discourse between a mediaeval ruler and an educated Persian remind the pope of his earlier struggles against atheism? After all, both the emperor and the Persian cited were presumably People of the Book?

It’s as though those paragraphs of the speech related to Manuel II are almost an aside with little bearing, if any, on the rest of the speech. He even admits this by describing them as “marginal”.

The quotes are not only “marginal” but entirely unnecessary. They are superfluous to the pope’s general theme and unrelated to any of the three prongs on which the speech is based: Atheism, science versus religion, and Hellenic influences on Christianity.

If the speech had been delivered by anyone other than this illustrious figure, one might conclude that the offensive quotes were inserted as an underhand jab against Islam.

If the pope had wanted to tackle the subject of religious belief used as a pretext for violence, then he might have talked about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, not to mention the pre-emptive wars of choice currently being instigated by Messianic Christians partnered by neoconservatives, which to his credit he has spoken out against in the past.

An article in Britain’s Sunday Times reads: “By any yardstick Benedict’s words have betrayed his long-term antipathy toward Islam. Vatican watchers are now remembering the unprecedented privilege he granted last year of an extended interview to the late Oriana Fallaci, an Italian Islamophobe.”

The same article quotes a “senior Anglican source” as saying, “If anything, Islam was the religion of reason ahead of Christianity. Mathematics and medical science were developed in the Islamic world. The clash between reason and medievalism has Muslims on the side of reason.” Dr. Fraser condemns the pope’s words, saying “that’s not how different faiths ought to speak to each other especially when we all have each others’ blood on our hands”.

The head of Egypt’s Coptic Church Pope Shenouda III went a step further describing Pope Benedict’s comments as being “against the teachings of Christ”.

Pope Benedict is no stranger to controversy having enrolled in The Hitler Youth during 1941. Later while a cardinal, he became known as “God’s Rottweiler” due to his strict enforcement of traditional Catholic values.

In 2004, he elicited outrage in Turkey for saying Turkey’s EU membership would be “a constant contrast to Europe”, later explaining “the roots that have formed Europe, that have permitted the formation of this continent are those of Christianity”. A planned visit by the pope to Turkey is now in the balance.

But despite his once fearsome reputation, those closest to the pope say he’s a shy and gentle intellectual, who seeks inter-faith understanding and dialogue.

In this case, it is difficult to fathom why he chose to quote Manuel II bearing in mind the cartoon controversy and George W. Bush’s “Islamic fascists” comment that caused so much anguish.

It’s surely ironic that while the pope’s speech under discussion advocates reason his ill-thought out comments risk endangering the very reason and belief in nonviolence he claims to espouse.

I think we would all agree that our fragile planet is in urgent need of religious and political leaders who can inspire us to unite. It’s clear that Pope Benedict isn’t one of them.