Q: Is the pope's infallibility newly fallible?

A: Contrary to recent reports, not so much. Not according to the pope's own "apology," anyway.

---

Pope Benedict XVI: Sorry... or just playing at it?

---

Today's New York Times claims Pope Benedict XVI's speech in Rome Sunday constituted an unprecedented admission of error (see "In a Rare Step, Pope Expresses Personal Regret"). In the story, the Times' Ian Fisher writes:

Pope Benedict XVI sought Sunday to extinguish days of anger and protest among Muslims by issuing an extraordinary personal apology...

Although Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, issued several apologies for the historical failings of the church, experts said it appeared to be the first time in recent memory that a pope had made such a direct statement of personal regret. “This is really, really abnormal,” said Alberto Melloni, professor of history at the University of Modena who has written several books on the Vatican. “It’s never happened as far as I know.

If you ask T.A.M.S.Y., though, the regret expressed by PBXVI wasn't so personal at all.

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address,” the pope told pilgrims at the summer papal palace of Castel Gandolfo, “which were considered offensive.’’

“These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought,” the pope, 79, said in Italian, according to the official English translation.

“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.”

In other words: "I am deeply sorry that you people are too dense to understand what I meant." And it doesn't take a papal scholar to see that, as far as apologies go, this one is lame-ass.

I hate it when people whip out that kind of non-apology, the one where they're actually just apologizing on your behalf. It's like picking a fight with your wife, and then trying to end it by saying "I'm sorry you're such a sensitive crybaby beyotch."

If you're going to apologize, do it like a man. For instance, via autographed baseballs.

All of that said, my beef isn't solely with the pope on this one. My beef's also with the Times, for running an exaggerated account of reality, either meant to trash the Catholic Church or just to sell newspapers.

Now, I have no problem with swipes taken at Catholicism (and my Spidey sense tells me that this pope is trouble waiting to happen, and not just because of his eerie resemblance to Emperor Palpatine). But shoddy journalism just plain pisses me off.

As for you, Mr. Pope, I have a suggestion on how you might work to be sorrier. But I'll save that for another post.

---

TRACKBACK WHOREDOM: If you can't just get enough Pope Benedict XVI punditry action, feel free to discuss the matter with the WaPo's Alan Cooperman tomorrow morning at 11. It will be just like talking to God: He may or may not hear you, but either way, it won't change anything.

For what it's worth, Cooperman's coverage of the Castel Gandolfo address was much more on-point than that of the Times. (whether or not you agree with the pointed comments of George Weigel, below).

Weigel, author of "God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church," said the pope expressed regret over the way his words have been twisted and misunderstood, but did not back away from them.

"The over-the-top reaction in the Muslim world simply underscores the truth of what he said at Regensburg, which is that unless Islam develops the capacity to be self-critical -- unless Islamic leaders take responsibility for saying to their extremists that violence in the name of God is wrong -- then there can be no genuine interreligious dialogue," Weigel said.

"There has been not the slightest backing off of that, and there can't be, because it's true," he added.

UPDATE: Having now read the pope's original speech from Sept. 12, I think it should be said that Weigel's comments, too, exaggerate reality. Benedict XVI made no such direct demand of Islamic leaders; and although he does certainly argue that violence in God's name is wrong, the vast majority of his speech places the onus of encouraging interreligious dialogue on the West:

"In the Western world," reads the text of the pope's speech, "it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."

In condemning Islam for having misconstrued the pope's words, Weigel, ironically, provided an interpretation no less twisted than that of those whom he condemns.

In summary, you can't trust newspapers.