The Pope's comments are complicated. One would have to be a very qualified theological scholar to comprehend the message and the meaning.
There was an interesting editorial in my local paper today which made a bit of sense of the situation for me. I have highlighted below points that struck me as valid.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=51b89da7-32ff-4783-9786-1a2e82262706
When Pope John Paul II apologized for past anti-Semitism within Christian communities, he did what few of his critics thought possible: face up to an ugly history within the church.
It is also, it should be noted, the church that protected Jews during the Second World War. The often -- but wrongly -- maligned Pope Pius XII provided shelter for 3,000 Jews in his Italian summer residence in Castel Gandolfo and thus kept them safe. Pius also intervened with Hungarian leaders to stop deportations of Jews, something Rabbi David G. Dalin credits with helping save 170,000 Hungarian Jews.
These facts affirm that almost any faith can produce good or evil. It is a mark of humility to acknowledge one's own belief system has at times produced both.
This past week, Pope Benedict XVI, in the tradition of the last pontiff, condemned so-called "holy wars" as well as forced conversions. He noted, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
Part of the address by the Christian pontiff will irritate some in the Islamic world, but if the West and Islam are ever to get along better, some frank dialogue is necessary lest the balance be unfairly weighted: only past western wrongs are registered.
On the Islamic side, it is the case that the Crusades were not a one-sided affair -- most wars never are. As noted by eminent Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, some Christians on the way to the Holy Land were attacked by some Muslims, the key word in both cases being "some."
"The Crusade was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam," writes Lewis, "and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war -- to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage."
Twenty-first century westerners object to force to recover religiously sacred sites. But history has shown force was used by both Christians and Muslims. Forced renunciation of other beliefs and conversions occurred in Christian lands and on occasion between Christian denominations -- the Inquisition is a case in point. Over time, formerly mainly Christian lands in North Africa (including Egypt and Syria) and Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Asia Minor were transformed by way of forced Muslim conversion.
And lest followers of the Enlightenment and atheists feel smug, they too have black marks on their belief system, thanks to fellow travellers who were zealots.
As historian Paul Johnson has written on the revolutionary excesses of France, "the attempt to abolish Christianity and substitute a cult of reason" was accompanied by "terror, destruction of churches and religious colleges and the murder of the clergy."
Similarly, in the 20th century, tyrants possessed of atheistic fervour launched what can accurately be called holy wars of their own and on their own peoples: Vladimir Lenin on dissidents of any kind, Josef Stalin on Ukrainians among others, and Mao Tse-Tung on despised economic classes.
There are reformers and those of tolerance and goodwill in each of the above-named varieties. To name but a few: Mother Theresa in Christianity; Islam's Hassan Moussam, the imam of Stockholm, who last year supported Britain's expulsion of imams engaged in spreading hate; and plenty of atheists who would never countenance using force against others of differing beliefs.
For those who missed it, Benedict XVI made this subtle point: It is a mistake to believe that violent excesses are always the other guy's fault, or even always our own. There is plenty of blame to spread around.