The recent controversy over Pope Benedict’s speech in Germany has demonstrated in clear terms that not just Catholics but the entire world has now a very different pope compared to John Paul, his predecessor in the Vatican.

Yet, it was John Paul who relied a great deal on then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger during the final years of his life, to the point where some Vatican observers thought he was almost choosing the cardinal as his successor.

The reputation of being a hard-liner was one that Cardinal Ratzinger had earned, becoming known for his lack of empathy for causes that did not adhere to strict Catholic doctrine while John Paul had managed to achieve a worldwide reputation for both a generous heart and a forgiving soul. So, what did these two important men have in common and why do their positions in reference to the religion of Islam appear to be so different?

There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the timing. John Paul was praised for meeting with Muslims more than 60 times and for being the first pope to enter a mosque in Syria in 2001. But this was an aged John Paul who was already standing on the firm ground that his reputation had earned for him.

The images of the younger, very determined John Paul who gave communism no quarters and relentlessly reminded the then Soviet Union that freedom of religion was every man’s right have faded into the past just as the Soviet bloc disintegrated before the world’s eyes. This was John Paul’s mission to which he devoted the better part of his life and because of which many observers rate his efforts as a major contributing factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Pope Benedict has inherited a very different challenge and he has been vocal about just what he sees as his role in his new position ever since he assumed office. This mission is to reinvigorate the Catholic Church in Western Europe where support has decreased rapidly since the end of World War II. The enemy he envisions is a rise in secular societies almost totally devoid of religion, especially Christianity. This crisis of faith among Christians together with the concerns about the increase in terrorism was the underlying theme of not just his speech but his direction. “How can you talk to other cultures whose faith is fundamental if your own culture has forsaken the very concept of God? The world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion from the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions,” he said.

The remarks of Emperor Manuel II Paleologus the pope quoted was supposed to demonstrate, as he stated, that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and contrary to God’s nature. It has caused offense to many Muslims and was a poor choice given the number of other examples he could and should have selected. But the concept that a country that does embrace a strong religious value might very well have more in common with another such country rather than a secular one does have merit.

It is an old argument that has tested every form of religion from the beginning of time. Adherence to any religion creates conflict within societies and throughout the world. Wars and any number of atrocities were committed in the name of God long before the current terrorist movement began.

Yet, historically the underlying factor has always been a lack of religious tolerance, not religion itself. The Crusades would never have happened if the pope had not insisted that the Holy Land of Jerusalem was in the hands of infidels, Jews and Muslims who were living in harmony together. Jerusalem at that time was visited by countless Christian pilgrims who came and went unmolested.

John Paul went so far as to speak of Muslims, Jews and Christians as the three “sons of Abraham.” These are not words you will hear from Pope Benedict. From this pope will always come continued calls for tolerance for Christian practices in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries and on this topic of reciprocity he has the support of his cardinals.

Still, his major battle lines are drawn in what he sees as his fight against a secular Europe and like John Paul he will continue to express the viewpoint that reason and religion are not at odds. Both these leaders were/are men of conviction and strength. The major difference is in approach.

John Paul was a diplomat whereas Pope Benedict is an outspoken intellectual who will probably not be as popular as his predecessor and will continue to be a polarizing figure. How he communicates with the Islamic world could make this “clash of civilizations” an awful reality or an opportunity for real tolerance to finally exist.

— Adrienne McPhail is an American journalist. She welcomes your comments at [email protected]