As a graduating senior, I can say that one thing I will take from my college experience is the ability to expand my horizons. I've read books here that I would otherwise never have seen and I have discussed issues that I didn't even know existed. Brandeis is sensitive about religious diversity. Despite the overwhelming Jewish presence, other religious groups are constantly encouraged to expand. It is in this spirit that I want to discuss Pope Benedict XVI.

Harold Meyerson of The Washington Post and Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times seem to go the furthest in exemplifying the kind of religious intolerance about which my Brandeis education has taught me to be sensitive. Yet, they're not alone. A brief look at the editorial pages of major newspapers in the few days following the election of Pope Benedict XVI reveals a trend of anti-Vatican rhetoric that permeates the media.

Pope John Paul II left a Vatican that, as Meyerson pointed out, "is a tribune for economic justice-for debt forgiveness, for a global economic order that seeks to enhance, not destroy, workers' rights." Yet Meyerson qualifies his praise by noting that the Church "is also a vehement opponent of birth control and condom distribution, even as an AIDS epidemic ravages the continent. That such a church could call itself 'pro-life' is sophistry of the highest order."

Meyerson's church-bashing is not isolated in the media. Kristof criticizes Vatican officials for not "catching up with reality."

Let me point out what's wrong with their approach. It seems reasonable that the pope, as head of the Roman Catholic Church, should stand for and encourage what he believes to be genuine Catholic values. So if he is to be criticized, he should be criticized for not being a good Catholic.
Meyerson, however, criticized the pope for opposing birth control and condom distribution. Are those positions in line with Catholic dogma? I have no idea, but you would think that he would mention it in his pope-bashing article. Instead, he attributes "misogyny and homophobia" to a church that he obviously knows very little about.

Kristof claimed that history will count the Church's "anti-condom campaign as among its most tragic mistakes." But he makes no effort to understand what is behind the Church's position. He advised that "if Pope Benedict wants to ease human suffering, then there's one simple step he could take ... encourage the use of condoms." I doubt the pope appreciates his sanctimonious advice. He shouldn't. Personally, I am offended when ignorant outsiders look down their noses at my version of Judaism and tell me to "modernize." By "modernize" they mean "abolish the practices we don't agree with."

What are the mechanisms for change in the Church? What principles have previous popes appealed to in order to justify innovation? If you can't answer these questions, then you can't criticize the pope. Imagine someone criticizing the Supreme Court without any mention of the Constitution. I wouldn't take such criticism seriously and I doubt many others would either. Yet, when it comes to religion, many neither take the time nor show the respect to examine from the inside. The appropriate way to approach someone else's religion, critically or otherwise, is first to understand its perspective.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent violence in the Middle East, there was an effort-felt all around campus-not to misrepresent Islam or resort to racism. Islam, it was argued, is a peaceful religion that was hijacked by extremists. I appreciated this argument.

If we take pluralism seriously, we need to make a concerted effort to understand another religion's perspective before attacking it. Let's not impose our vision of public policy onto bishop of Rome. At least, not from the outside.