crisis communication and apologetic ethics

17 Pages·2016·0.19 MB·English

Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Apologizing in a globalizing world: crisis communication and apologetic ethics
Finn Frandsen Winni Johansen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Finn Frandsen Winni Johansen, (2010),"Apologizing in a globalizing world: crisis communication and
apologetic ethics", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 350 - 364
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281011085475
Downloaded on: 02 March 2016, At: 08:37 (PT)
T) References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
P
6 ( To copy this document: [email protected]
1
20 The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4011 times since 2010*
h
c
ar Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
M
2
0 W. Timothy Coombs, Finn Frandsen, Sherry J. Holladay, Winni Johansen, (2010),"Why a concern for
7
3 apologia and crisis communication?", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 4
8:
0 pp. 337-349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281011085466
At
y Finn Frandsen, Winni Johansen, (2011),"The study of internal crisis communication: towards an integrative
ersit framework", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 347-361 http://
niv dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186977
U
antic Mpraatcst iHceesid oef, cCohmamrloutnteic Satiimono npsrsoofens, s(i2o0n1a4ls)",", DCeovreploorpaitneg C inotmermnauln cicriastiiso ncos:m Amnu Innitcearntiaotnio: nNaelw J oroulrensa la, nVdol. 19
Atl Iss 2 pp. 128-146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-09-2012-0063
a
d
ori
Fl
y
d b Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:126209 []
e
d
oa For Authors
nl
w
o If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
D
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Thecurrentissueandfulltextarchiveofthisjournalisavailableat
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm
CCIJ Apologizing in a globalizing
15,4
world: crisis communication
and apologetic ethics
350
Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen
ASB Centre for Corporate Communication, Aarhus School of Business,
ReceivedSeptember2009
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
RevisedJanuary2010
AcceptedFebruary2010
Abstract
T)
P Purpose–ThepurposeofthispaperistostudythreeapologiesorstatementsofferedbytheVatican
6 ( and/orPopeBenedictXVIafteramuch-debatedlectureattheUniversityofRegensburginGermanyin
1
0 2006. The rhetorical model of apologizing and apologetic ethics proposed by Hearit is applied and
2
h testedinthestudywiththeaimofexpandinghistheory.
c
Mar Design/methodology/approach–The research design is qualitative and based on a case study
2 methodologycombiningrhetoricalcriticismandethicswithcrisiscommunicationtheory.
0
7 Findings–TheanalysisshowsthatalthoughHearit’sapproachallowsustobothdescribe,explain
3
8: andevaluatetheapologiesorstatementsofferedbytheVaticanand/orthePopeduringthecrisis,it
0
At doesnottakeintoaccounttheglobalizingcontext,orthemorecomplexandlessevidentsociocultural
y order,intowhichtheircrisiscommunicationisembedded.
ersit Originality/value–The paperintroducesanddiscusses thenewconceptofmeta-apology, i.e.an
niv apology where the apologist is no longer apologizing for what he or she may have done wrong –
U becauseheorshedoesnothaveto,accordingtotheirownsocioculturalorder – butforthenegative
ntic effectsthattheactcommittedbytheapologistmaypossiblyhavecaused.
a
Atl KeywordsCommunication,Rhetoric,Culture,Ethics,Globalization
a PapertypeResearchpaper
d
ori
Fl
y Introduction
b
d On 12 September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church,
e
d
a delivered a lecture entitled “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and
o
wnl Reflections”attheUniversityofRegensburgaspartofhisapostolicjourneytoGermany.
Do Duringhislecture,thePopereferredtoamorethan600yearsoldtextauthoredbythe
ByzantineemperorManuelIIPaleologusfromwhichhequotedthefollowingpassage:
“ShowmejustwhatMohammedbroughtthatwasnew,andthereyouwillfindthings
only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he
preached”(BenedictXVI,2006).
Onlyafewdayslater,thelecturereceivedmuchcondemnationfromvariousMuslim
countries in the Middle East and in Asia, especially after the media had started
attracting attention to this part of the Pope’s lecture. Among political and religious
authoritiesinthesecountries,andamongtheirpopulationsaswell,thequotationwas
seenasaninsulttoIslamandMuslimsallovertheworld,andthePopewasdemanded
CorporateCommunications:An
InternationalJournal to apologize for this perceived insult. The first public statement, interpreted
Vol.15No.4,2010 by many journalists as an apology, followed on 15 September. It was produced by
pp.350-364
qEmeraldGroupPublishingLimited Frederico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, who assured that it had
1356-3289
notbeentheintent ofthePope to offend theMuslims.However, this apologydid not
DOI10.1108/13563281011085475
meet the expectations of all the Muslims, and yet another demand for an apology Apologetic ethics
from the Pope was put forward immediately after. The second apology followed on
16 September where Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, declared that the
HolyFathersincerelyregrettedthatcertainpassagescouldbereadasoffendingthefaith
oftheMuslims.ButmanyMuslimswerestillnotsatisfied.Thethirdandlastapology
came from the Pope himself, on 17 September, in connection with the traditional
Angelus Prayer at the Pope’s summer residence outside Rome. The following day, 351
however,severalArabiccountriesonceagaindemandeda“trueapology”fromthePope.
The aim of this paper is to study the three apologies or statements offered by the
Vatican or by the Pope himself in continuation of his apostolic lecture delivered on
12 September in Regensburg. We intend both to describe, explain and evaluate the
apologies or statements. With this end in view,we willapply the rhetorical model of
apologeticethicsproposedbyHearit(2006).Thismodel,whichisnormativebynature,
T) will be applied in order to evaluate the communicative and ethical quality of the
P
6 ( apologiesorstatementsconcerned.Howgoodaretheycomparedtotheparadigmcase
1
20 ofanidealapologyasdefinedbyHearit?Whydotheynotseemtowork,andwhyare
ch they repeatedly followed by new demands for a “true apology”? Is it because the
ar
M mannerandcontentofthecommunicationisnotperceivedasgoodenough,ortoputit
02 differently:thattheyarenotinaccordancewiththestandardsestablishedinHearit’s
37 apologetic ethics? Or is it because it has become more difficult to apologize in a
8:
0 globalizing world or public sphere which crosses geographical, political, religious,
At social and cultural borders and where the media and the Internet play an important
y
sit provoking andaccelerating role?
ver In a previous study, Frandsen and Johansen (2007) have examined the apology
ni
U offered by a sports icon – a renowned Danish handball coach – after her having
ntic infringed both written and unwritten norms and rules in society at large and within
Atla the handball sport especially. In this paper, it was easy to apply the model proposed
a by Hearit (2006) and to describe, explain and evaluate the apology concerned.
d
ori The sociocultural order that was transgressed by the wrongdoing of the Danish
Fl handballcoachwassimpleandevident,andthereforeitwaseasytoidentifythesocial
y
d b legitimacycrisisthatshefaced(alackofpragmaticandethicallegitimacy:sheactedas
de anincompetentmanager,andshetransgressedasocialandculturalnormaccordingto
a
nlo which an individual athlete can never put him or herself above the game). But what
ow happenswhenthesocioculturalorderismorecomplexorlessevident,orwhenthereare
D
severalsocioculturalordersimpliedwhicharehighlydifferentwhenitcomestovalues,
norms, laws and rules, as it is the case with the Pope’s lecture in September 2006?
TowhatextentcanwestillapplyHearit’stheoryofcrisismanagementbyapology?
Research review
Withinthefieldofcrisiscommunication,itseemstobepossibletoidentifyatleasttwo
important research traditions (Johansen and Frandsen, 2007, pp. 200-02). The first
research tradition can be characterized as rhetorical or text-oriented, i.e. the scholars
belonging to this tradition first of all are interested in describing what and how an
organization communicates during a crisis situation. The findings produced by this
traditionmostoftenappearintheformoflistsofverbaldefensestrategiesestablished
onthebasisofaseriesofcasestudies(see,forexample,Benoit,1995,2004concerningthe
theoryofImageRestorationDiscourse,andHearit,1994,1995aconcerningthetheoryof
CCIJ TerminologicalControlorDefinitionalHegemony).Thesecondresearchtraditioncan
15,4 be characterized as strategic or context-oriented, i.e. the researchers within this
traditionfirstandforemostareinterestedinexplainingwhen,whereandtowhoman
organization communicates during a crisis situation. The findings produced by this
traditionconstitutetheoriesexplaininghowcertainsituationalvariablesorcontextual
factorshaveorshouldhaveanimpactonthecrisiscommunicationoftheorganization
352 concerned (see, for example, Coombs, 2007 concerning the Situational Crisis
CommunicationTheory,orCanceletal.,1997andCameronetal.,2008concerningthe
Contingency Theory of Accommodation). Both of these research traditions include
apology as an important crisis response strategy (Benoit, 1995, p. 79; Coombs, 1999,
p. 123, 2007, pp. 140-1). Also within crisis communication research, the intercultural
dimension of using apologies as a crisis response strategy has been studied (see, for
example,Lee,2004,2005a,2005borFrandsenandJohansen,2010)(foramoredetailed
T) researchreview,seealsotheintroductoryarticletothisspecialissue).
P
6 (
1
0
2 Crisis management by pology
h
arc NorthAmericanrhetoricianandcrisiscommunicationresearcherKeithMichaelHearit
M
isoneofthefewscholarswhohascarriedoutdetailedstudiesoftheuseofapologiesas
2
0 astrategyforthecrisiscommunicationofpersons,organizations,orinstitutions.Inhis
7
8:3 bookCrisisManagementbyApology:CorporateResponsetoAllegationsofWrongdoing
At 0 (2006), he has elaborated both a list of situational features describing and explaining
y the process of apologizing and a normative and more practically oriented model
ersit consisting of an ideal ethical standard – an apologetic ethics – regarding both the
niv manner and thecontent of performing an apology.
U
c
anti Situational features: when is anapology an apology?
Atl According to Hearit (2006), offering an apology forms part of a long and rather
a
d complicatedprocess.Departingfromrhetoricsandapologiaresearch,Hearit,although
Flori mostlyimplicitly,transformsthisprocessintoalistofsituationalfeaturessuggesting
y whenan apologyis appropriate:
b
d
de . A sociocultural order is transgressed by an individual, organization or
a
o institution due to a specific act of wrongdoing. By sociocultural order Hearit
nl
w meansacommunitywithlaws,rules,normsandvaluesforhowthemembersof
o
D the community should think, talk and act. Some of these behaviour controlling
elementsareoflegalnatureandmanagedbythepoliceandthejudiciarysystem,
while others are of a more ethical kind and rooted in the citizens’ idea of
“what you are allowed andnot allowedto do”.
. The person, organization or institution responsible for the transgression is
accused of wrongdoing by the community. Hearit (2006, p. 81) refers to the
rhetorical concept of kategoria(Ryan, 1982).
. Asaconsequenceoftheaccusation,asociallegitimationcrisisarisesbetweenthe
offender responsible for the wrongdoing and the community. Hearit (1995b)
introducescorporatesociallegitimacytheory(DowlingandPfeffer,1975;Epstein,
1972;Stillman,1974)inordertogiveamoredetaileddescriptionofthegenesisof
alegitimationcrisis.Accordingtothistheory,anorganizationwillalwaysbeina
state of dependence on their surrounding world, or formulated in another way:
anorganizationcanonlysurvivetotheextentthatitcanconvinceitssurrounding Apologetic ethics
world that it acts in the right way. Thus, Hearit defines legitimacy as an
organizational resource making it possible to attract employees (manpower),
investors(capital),customers,orpoliticalsupport.Therearetwocriteriathatan
organization must fulfill in order to achieve and maintain legitimacy. The first
criterioniscompetence,whichmeans“organizationaleffectiveness–theabilityof
acorporationto‘deliverthegoods’”(Hearit,1995b,p.2).Thesecondcriterionis 353
community, which means that “a corporation’s actions must be ethically
defensible;thatis,itsactsmustdemonstrateresponsibility,createtrust,andbe
legal”(Hearit,1995b,p.3).
. Theperson,organizationorinstitutionresponsibleforthewrongdoingapologizes
for its wrongful actions and asks for forgiveness. Hearit (2006) refers to the
rhetoricalconceptofapologia.
T)
6 (P . If the apology is perceived as correct by the community, the individual,
1 organizationorinstitutioninquestion,thewrongdoerreceivesforgiveness,and
0
h 2 the sociocultural order is re-established.
c
ar
M
2 Apologetic ethics
0
7 On the basis of the situational features presented above, Hearit together with
3
8: SandraL.Bordenhaveelaboratedarhetoricalmodelofapologeticethics.Itisamore
0
At practicallyorientedmodelwhichputsforwardanormativestandardforethicallycorrect
y crisis communication that deals with “the communication after the (alleged)
ersit wrongdoing, rather than the ethics of the alleged wrongdoing itself” (Hearit, 2006,
v
ni p.61).Usingthismodel,oneisabletoevaluatemorepreciselytowhatextenttheapology
U
c ofapersonoranorganizationfulfillsthecriteriaofanidealethicalstandardandthereby
nti reallyisorfunctionslikeanapology.Thetworesearchersfindthefoundationofthis
a
Atl apologeticethicincasuistrydefinedasanethicalunderstandingwhichdissociatesitself
da fromwhatJonsenandToulmininTheAbuseofCasuistry:AHistoryofMoralReasoning
Flori (1988)callthe“tyrannyofprinciples”(JonsenandToulmin,1988,p.5).
y According to a traditional understanding, ethics is a kind of theoretical science or
b
d code of general rules and principles which are exhaustive, that is, they cover all
e
d
a situations, without exceptions. According to casuistry, such a view leads to an
o
wnl oversimplificationofmoralproblems.Itisaviewbewitchedby“thedreamofanethical
Do algorithm – auniversalcodeofprocedurescapableofprovidinguniqueanddefinitive
answersto all our moral questions” (Jonsen andToulmin, 1988, p. 5).
No matter how attractive this view may be, one quickly runs into difficulties in
practicewhenapplyingthisethicalalgorithmtocasesfromreallife.Forinstance,what
doyoudo,whenthereisaconflictbetweentwoprinciples,orwhenasituationiseither
ambiguousormarginal?Ifyouknockonthedoorofyourneighbourinordertoborrowa
coupleofchairsbecauseyouaregoingtohavevisitorsthatsameevening,itgoeswithout
sayingthattheneighbourwillexpectyoutodeliverthechairsbackthefollowingdayor
whenyounolongerneedthem.Butwhatifthethingyouhaveborrowedisasporting
gun,andnotacoupleofchairs,andiftheneighbourinthemeantimesuddenlyturns
aggressive threatening to kill another neighbour? Then the situation immediately
becomes more problematic because the rule of giving back what you have borrowed
from othersis then in conflict with the rule telling that we must not take the lives of
others or contribute to such an event. According to casuistry, in these problematic
CCIJ situationsyouhavetogobehindthegeneralprinciplesandrulesinordertotakeacloser
15,4 look at each single case. Principles and rules will never be entirely self-interpreting,
orformulatedinanotherway:thesolutiontoaconflictbetweentwoprinciplesorrules
willneverbewrittenintothem.
Accordingtocasuistry,ethicsisnotatheoreticalscience,butwhatAristotlenamed
phronesisorpracticalwisdomdepartingfromthefactthatethicalprinciplesandrules
354 will never be exhaustive and that you therefore have to include the circumstances of
each single case. Casuistry itself consists of a method or procedure whereby first a
seriesofethicalsituationsareestablishedthataccordingtoeverybodyallmayserveas
ethical standards or paradigm cases of actions which are either clearly moral (and
therefore acceptable) or clearly immoral (and therefore unacceptable). Then, by
comparingethicallycomplexorambiguoussituations withtheestablishedstandards
or paradigm cases, it becomes possible to specify degrees of ethical correctness.
T) Orformulatedinanotherway:theuniformpictureofthetraditionalunderstandingof
P
6 ( ethics is replaced by a more balancedperspective closer to reality.
1
0 Hearit and Borden apply the method or procedure of casuistry in two steps. First,
2
ch they establish an ethical standard or paradigm case for both the manner and the
Mar contentofthecommunication,whenapersonoranorganizationwantstoapologizefor
02 itswrongdoing.Then,theyaddaseriesofcomplicatingcircumstanceswhichjustifies
37 thattheoffenderdepartsfromtheparadigmcaseononeorseveralpoints“whilestill
08: retaining the essential character of an apologia” (Hearit, 2006, p. 74).
At
y
ersit Manner of the communication
niv Concerning the manner of the communication, an apology used as a crisis response
U strategy must live up to the following ideal ethical standards. It must be:
c
anti . truthful;
a Atl . sincere;
d
ori . voluntary;
Fl
y . timely;
b
ed . itmust addressall stakeholders; and
d
a
nlo . itmust be performed in an appropriate context (Hearit, 2006, p. 64).
w
Do Anapologymustbetruthful(whichdoesnotmeanthatithastotellthetruth)implying
thatitmustnotleaveoutimportantinformationwhich – ifrevealedtoothers – would
change theway thatthey seethewrongful actioncarriedoutbytheapologist.Thus,
the apologist must not lie or deceive. However, the criterion of truthfulness
acknowledges“thepropensityofindividualsandorganizationsto‘strategicallyname’
their wrongdoing,” although “the names submitted by apologists must bear some
resemblance to reality of ‘the facts of the case’” (Hearit, 2006, p. 64).
An apology must also be sincere. This has three implications. First, the apologist
must demonstrate a good-faith effort to achieve reconciliation. This can be done by
carryingoutactionswheretheapologistshowsthatheorshereallywantstosolvethe
problem, for example byrecalling adefectiveproductin orderto repair itbefore itis
promoted on the market again. Second, the apologist must demonstrate his or her
sincerity,notonlyattheoperationallevel,butalsoatthecommunicativelevel.Inother
words,thecompanynotonlyhastorecalltheproduct;itmustalsotellthecustomers
that it will do it. Finally, the apologist must also demonstrate that he or she really Apologetic ethics
wants to reconcile with all the offended stakeholders and that he or she is not only
addressingjournaliststryingtoescapenegativemediacoverage.Anapologyalsohas
to be voluntary, thatis,performedwithout anyform of coercion.
The timeliness of an apology has to do with timing, that is, when to perform the
apology. It is important that the apology is not performed too soon or too late. If the
apology is performed too soon, there will often be doubts about the motives behind, 355
and the apologist risks that the apology is seen as either condescending or based
exclusivelyonself-interest.Iftheapologyisperformedtoolate,theapologistinreturn
riskstobeperceivedasarepellentactorwhoisnotabletoshowempathy.Conclusion:
not always “time heals all wounds”; sometimes,it also creates newwounds.
Concerning the last two criteria, an apology must be addressed to all relevant
stakeholders,thatis,allthestakeholderswhodirectlyorindirectlyhavebeenoffended
PT) by thewrongdoingand havesufferedfrom iteither physically ormentally(morally).
6 ( The context wherein the apology will be performed has to be appropriate, that is,
1
20 accessible for all relevant stakeholders. It can be a specific geographical or physical
h
c place orit can be aspecific medium such astelevision.
ar
M
2
0
37 Contentof the communication
08: Concerning the manner of the communication, an apology used as a crises response
At strategy must live up to the following ideal ethical standard.It must:
y
ersit . explicitly acknowledge wrongdoing;
v
ni . fully accept responsibility;
U
ntic . express regret;
Atla . identify with injuredstakeholders;
da . ask for forgiveness;
Flori . seek reconciliation with injuredstakeholders;
y
d b . fully disclose information related to the offense;
e
ad . provide an explanation that addresses legitimate expectations of the
o
nl stakeholders;
w
Do . offer to perform an appropriate corrective action; and
. offer appropriate compensation (Hearit, 2006, p. 69).
Theapologistmustexplicitlyacknowledgethatheorshehasactedinawrongfulway,
andheorshemustalsoacceptfullresponsibilityfortheoffenseexpressingregretfor
what has been done. This aspect of the apology among other things prevents the
organizationfrompointingoutaninternalorexternalscapegoattowhomitmayshift
theblame.
In relation to injured stakeholders suffering directly or indirectly from the
wrongdoing, the apologist must show sympathy or empathy. He or she must ask for
forgiveness for what has happened and seek reconciliation. If we presume that the
relationship to the stakeholders was of a positive nature before the wrongdoing, the
reconciliationwillbeofinterestforbothparties.Theapologistmustbeopendisclosingall
informationrelatedtothewrongdoing – unlessthisisinappropriateduetodiscretion.
CCIJ Thisaspectpreventstheapologistfrom“releasingpertinentinformationinapiecemeal
15,4 fashionjusttoavoidconflictorembarrassment”(Hearit,2006,p.72).
Concerningexplanationsthataddresslegitimateexpectationsamongstakeholders,
this means that the apologist must apologize within a frame that makes sense to all
relevant stakeholders. One of the implications of this aspect is that the offense itself
together with causes and effects of the wrongdoing in question must be discussed.
356 Concerningcorrectiveaction,theapologistmayexpressthatheorshehaslearnedher
lesson declaring that he or she will no longer engage in such an action avoiding the
circumstances that made the wrongdoing possible. And finally, when it comes to
offering an appropriate compensation, this compensation often takes the form of a
financialsettlement, but thereare other possibilities.
Complicatingcircumstances
T)
P According to Hearit (2006, p. 74), there are at least five complicatingcircumstances:
6 (
1 (1) catastrophic financiallosses;
0
2
h (2) graveliability concerns;
c
ar
M (3) amoral learning curve;
2
7 0 (4) the problem of full disclosure; and
3
8: (5) discretion.
0
At
y If the individual or organization responsible for the wrongdoing is in a difficult
sit situationthatmakesafinancialcompensationimpossible,adeparturefromtheethical
er
v standard or the paradigm case is justified according to Hearit and Borden. However,
ni
U the apologist may still choose to offer a non-financial compensation. Concerning
c
nti liability,therearecategoriesofwrongdoingwheretheliabilityissogreat(especiallyin
a
Atl the USA), that the organization will not survive. This situation, too, justifies a
a departurefromtheethicalstandardorparadigmcase.Theorganizationmaysolvethe
d
ori problembyexpressingregretfor itsactions, butwithout amusingfullresponsibility.
y Fl Althoughtiming,assaidbefore,isveryimportant,alateapologyisbetterthanno
d b apologyatall.ThisisoftenthecasewhentheapologisthasgonethroughwhatHearit
e
d calls a “moral learning curve” (Hearit, 2006, p. 75): at the beginning of the crisis, the
a
o
nl organizationdeniesanddisclaimsresponsibilityforthewrongdoing,butlateroninthe
w
o course of events and after careful consideration, it ends with offeringan apology.
D
Concerning the problem of full disclosure, this complicating circumstance is
about to what extent the organization qua organization fully knows the extent and
character of its wrongdoing. The top management of an organization may easily be
uninformedorknowlessaboutthewrongdoingthanothers – attheindividuallevel –
insidetheorganization.Insuchasituation,itisdifficulttobetruthfulandtodiscloseall
relevant information. Finally, there is the problem of discretion. Discretion is a
complicatingcircumstancetotheextentthattheapologistmustabstainfromperforming
anapologyandfromofferingcompensationinpublicoutofregardforconfidence.
Analysis:the apologiesof PopeBenedict XVI
As already mentioned in the introduction, Pope Benedict XVI delivers a lecture on
12September2006,attheUniversityofRegensburginGermany,wherehepreviously
hastaughttheology,atthetimeunderhiscivilnameofJosephRatzinger.Thelectureis
abouttheseparationoffaithandreasoninEuropeandtheimportanceofovercoming Apologetic ethics
this separation. At the beginning of his lecture, the Pope refers to a medieval text
authoredbytheByzantineemperorManuelIIPaleologusquotinganargumentmadeby
theemperorina1391dialoguewithaneducatedPersian:“[...]he[theemperor]turnsto
his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship
between religion and violence in general, in these words: “Show me just what
Mohammedbroughtthatwasnew,andthereyouwillfindthingsonlyevilandinhuman, 357
suchashiscommandtospreadbytheswordthefaithhepreached”.Theemperorgoes
ontoexplainindetailthereasonswhyspreadingthefaiththroughviolenceissomething
unreasonable.ViolenceisincompatiblewiththenatureofGodandthenatureofthesoul.
“God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature.
Faithisbornofthesoul,notthebody.Whoeverwouldleadsomeonetofaithneedsthe
abilitytospeakwellandtoreasonproperly,withoutviolenceandthreats...Toconvincea
PT) reasonablesoul,onedoesnotneedastrongarm,orweaponsofanykind,oranyother
6 ( meansofthreateningapersonwithdeath...”(BenedictXVI,2006).
1
20 Thefollowingday,on13September,NewYorkTimesreports:“PopeBenedictXVI
h
c weighed in Tuesday on the delicate issues of rapport between Islam and the West:
ar
M Hesaidthatviolence,embodiedintheMuslimideaofjihad,orholywar,iscontraryto
2
0 reasonandGod’splan,whiletheWestwassobeholdentoreasonthatIslamcouldnot
7
3 understand it”. However, these were not exactly the words stated by the Pope.
8:
At 0 Hisremarkswerealso(mis)interpretedbyotherstakeholders,andwithinafewdays,a
y wave of outrage and protests from the Muslim world was unleashed. From Muslim
sit countries in the Middle East and in Asia came a series of official declarations
er
v condemning the lecture of the Pope regarding it as blasphemy and as part of a
ni
U smear campaign against Islam and the prophet Mohammed. On 15 September, the
c
nti Pakistan Parliament adopts a resolution denouncing the utterances of the Pope that
a
Atl “have offended the feelings of more than one billion Muslims all over the world”
a (Jyllands-Posten,16September2006). The situationescalates and theofficialpolitical
d
ori orreligiousdeclarationsturnintoviolentdemonstrationsinthestreetsandtheburning
Fl
y of Christian churches and effigies of the Pope.
b
d Thecourseofevents,whichhavemanyfeaturesincommonwiththecartoonaffair
e
ad in Denmark in 2005 and 2006 (Frandsen and Johansen, 2009), reaches a preliminary
o
nl peakwiththedemandofafullorpersonalapologyfromthePope.Alreadyon15and
w
o 16 September, the Vatican publishes statements trying to explain and regretting the
D
misunderstanding,butthesestatementsarereceivedinamixedandambiguousway.
Inacommondeclarationpublishedinanon-lineversionbytheArabtelevisionstation
Al-Jazeera, the seven Arab governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan,
Kuwait and Bahrain demand the Pope to offer a genuine or true apology
(Jyllands-Posten, 20 September 2006). Others like for instance the Grand Ayatollah
MohammedHuseinFadlallahfromBeirutdemandsapersonalapology:“Weaskhim
to offer a personal apology – not through his officials – to Muslims for this false
reading of Islam” (Washingtonpost.com, 169 September 2006). The Muslims are not
justdissatisfiedwiththelecturedeliveredbythePopeinRegensburg,astimegoesby,
theyarealsodispleasedwithhiswayofapologizing.Thepapalcrisisturnsintowhat
Johansen and Frandsen (2007, p. 79) calls a “double crisis”.
This series of apologies following closely one after another, and each triggering
news demands for a “true and genuine” apology, also applies to the cartoon affair.
CCIJ In this case, the responsible editor-in-chief of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten,
15,4 having published the 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, as well as the
Danish prime minister is asked for a full or more sincere apology than the ones
delivered by themselves to Arab media at several occasions. Apparently, serial
apologies have cometo play an importantpart in aglobalizingworld.
Whatistheproblem?Whyaretheseapologiesnotsatisfactory?Ifweapplythelist
358 of situational features proposed by Hearit (2006), the reaction clearly shows that a
sociocultural order has been transgressed, the norms and values of the Muslim
communityhavebeenviolated.ThePopeisaccusedofwrongdoing(kategoria)andhe
finds himselfconfrontedwith asocial legitimacy crisis. Hisactionsmust beethically
defensiblegiventhePope’sstatureandauthority:Heistherepresentativeofareligious
institution. In order to receive forgiveness and to re-establish the sociocultural order,
accordingtothemodelofHearit,theoffender,thepope,hastogiveacorrectapology,
T) that is, to apologize for his wrongful actions and to ask for forgiveness (apologia).
P
6 ( But how good or effective is the apologygivenby theVatican andthe pope?
1
0 According to Hearit’s model of apologetic ethics, we need to study three sets of
2
ch elements characterizing ideal apologetic crisis communication: manner of the
Mar communication, content of the communication and complicating circumstances.
02 Let us first take a detailed look at the three apologies orstatements:
7
3
8:
0 First apologyor statement
At
y On 15 September, in an attempt to explain what the Pope said in his lecture at the
sit UniversityofRegenburg,theVaticanspokesman,FredericoLombardi,Directorofthe
er
v HolySeePressOffice,tellstheVaticanRadiothat“itwascertainlynottheintentionof
ni
U theHolyFathertoundertakeacomprehensivestudyofthejihadandofMuslimideas
c
nti onthesubject,stilllesstooffendthesensibilitiesofMuslimfaithful”andthat“itisclear
a
Atl thattheHolyFather’sintentionistocultivateapositionofrespectanddialoguetowards
a otherreligionsandcultures,andthatclearlyincludesIslam”(BBC,15September2006).
d
ori
Fl
y Second apology or statement
b
d On 16 September, in another attempt to explain, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal
e
ad Tarcisio Bertone, sends out the following statement: “As for the opinion of the
o
nl ByzantineemperorManuelIIPaleologuswhichhequotedduringhisRegensburgtalk,
w
o theHolyFatherdidnotmean,nordoeshemean,tomakethatopinionhisowninany
D
way. He simply used it as a means to undertake – in an academic context, and as is
evidentfromacompleteandattentivereadingofthetext – certainreflectionsonthe
theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude
with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from
whatever side it may come [...] The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain
passagesofhisaddresscouldhavesoundedoffensivetothesensitivitiesoftheMuslim
faithful,andshouldhavebeeninterpretedinamannerthatinnowaycorrespondsto
his intentions [...]”.
Third apology or statement
On 17 September, in connection with the traditional Angelus Prayer at the Pope’s
summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, outside Rome, the Pope states: “At this time,
IwishalsotoaddthatIamdeeply sorryforthereactions insomecountriestoafew