Salvete AC readers!
Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:
1. The Catholic Newman University College Chapel in Birmingham, England is celebrating the birth of Mohammad. Yes, that Mohammad who formalized Islam and spread it throughout the Arabian peninsula by forced conversions of Jews, Christians, and pagans. What is even more outrageous is that Archbishop Nichols where this chapel is located is supporting this 100%. And he’s considered orthodox. You know what I think about these types of bishops.
For the article click here.
2. Speaking of England rumors are that an announcement will be made today that the next primate of England and Wales, ie, Archbishop of Westminster, will be Bishop Bernard Longley.
For the article click here.
3. Back to America where RNC Chairman Michael Steele continues to put his foot in his mouth by saying that women have the choice to have an abortion. I don’t think Mr. Steele has been properly catechized on his faith.
For the article click here.
4. The ‘Sleeping Giant‘ that is the Catholic Church turned out in numbers to protest a bill that would have placed authority in the hands of layman and away from the bishops at each parish. A rally of 5,000+, including Carl Anderson Supreme Knight of the KOC and the three bishops that reside in Connecticut, protested bill SB1098 by the two anti-Catholic bigots from Connecticut, Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald. The bill was tabled yesterday after an avalanche of phone calls and email from Catholics across the state and around the country.
For the article click here.
5. Radical feminists stormed a Mass being celebrated in Vienna. They were parading during International Women’s Day when several costumed feminist extremists invaded the church Our Lady of Victories in Vienna Rudolfsheim-Fuenfhaus. They yelled at parishoners and passed out flyers saying “Contempt for women. Compulsive norms of sexuality, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial”. The blog where I found this story had a comment that stated “Imagine what would have happened if a bunch of them had stormed a Mosque”.
Cowards. If these liberals were brave, which they aren’t, they wouldn’t have come out alive of said mosque.
For the article click here.
6. Don’t forget to do the Stations of the Cross this Friday! This practice dates back to the 4th century.
For the article click here.
Can you elaborate (intelligently) on the problem you have with item #1?
Syncretism.
It will confuse the faithful as to why Muhammad is being celebrated in a Catholic chapel.
God forbid that the world’s major religions enter into associations that may lead to more understanding, peace and even eventual communion.
Mark,
I’m all for ecumanism as is the next guy. I have many Jewish and Muslim friends and they agree that to celebrate the life of Mohammad in a Catholic chapel is inappropriate. A more secular setting would suffice, better yet, an Islamic Center or Mosque.
Point take.
In today’s world where many in the west have a relativistic attitude towards religion–whatever works for you is okay–this sort of thing helps reinforce the thought that which religion you belong to–if any–doesn’t matter. I’d say that celebrating Muhammad is a scandal that strikes at the faith of believers. Ecumenical efforts are one thing, acting as though there is approval of Muhammad and Islam is something else.
But then, this is always an ongoing debate, isn’t it? How much scandal does silence create? If we simply say nothing about some evil, how complicit are we with it? On the other hand, this is more than silence. Maybe we should ask the following question. Why is it even a good thing to celebrate, in a Catholic setting, the birth of a man who drew large numbers of people away from the message of Christ, either through siphoning off those who harbored some doubts, or through direct conquest? Why should we celebrate the man who birthed a world religion that is continually a threat to the Catholic Church?
And no, before the typical response comes, I’m not suggesting that the Church will ever be wiped out by Islam or any other force, no matter how hard they try. But it is a real and visceral plight to the faithful everywhere, and it ill becomes us to grow complacent.
And remember, the ultimate hope of ecumenism is not just to get everyone to play along nicely (though that’s a sub-goal, if the greater goal cannot be reached): it is draw everyone into the Church. And that means ultimately the hope that people will abandon the false aspects of their religions and embrace the truth of the Church.
Tito, what is “syncretistic” about it? Would you be opposed to celebrating a Presidents’ Day Mass in a Catholic chapel?
The proper way for Catholics to “celebrate” the birth of the man who made up Islam is to pray for the conversion of all Moslems to the True Faith. They, no less than the rest of sinful humanity, need the light of Christ.
Michael,
Not to speak for Tito, but inasmuch as there have been presidents that have led people to the light of true faith, or who have defended the Catholic Church when they had no need to, then a Presidents’ Day Mass might be acceptable. In general, I personally feel uncomfortable with the idea.
Donald – Good thing most Catholics don’t hold the backward views that you do.
Ryan – Are you suggesting that Islam cannot lead human beings to true faith? You might want to review what your Church teaches about other religions. As for Tito, I have a feeling his fear of “syncretism” does not apply to other, much more problematic, areas.
Catholic Anarchist, what part of “Go ye therefore and make ye disciples of all the nations” is beyond your reading comprehension?
Tito, what is “syncretistic” about it? Would you be opposed to celebrating a Presidents’ Day Mass in a Catholic chapel?
It seems to me the big difference here is that the US Presidency is not generally seen as a religious office.
Frankly, I don’t think that having a “Presidents’ Day” mass is appropriate, though if one wants to pray for wisdom for the current president or the repose of the souls of dead presidents during the Prayers of the Faithful of a mass which happens to be celebrated on Presidents Day (which is a stupid, made up holiday as it stands) I wouldn’t see a problem with that.
I suppose to be sure if I objected to this event, I’d have to know more than that it consisted of “two talks of an interfaith nature” in the chapel, but in general it would seem to be inappropriate for a Catholic organization to actively celebrate Muhammad’s birthday, in that in that the prophet founded a false religion which has historically kept from and drawn people away from (sometimes by force) the True Faith.
For your further edification Catholic Anarchist you might attempt to get your brain around this section of the catechism:
“849 The missionary mandate. “Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be ‘the universal sacrament of salvation,’ the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men”:339 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age.”340”
Terrible that not only I have such “backward” views, but also Christ and the Church He founded. Maybe you should stick with Rock meditations.
Are you suggesting that Islam cannot lead human beings to true faith? You might want to review what your Church teaches about other religions.
Sure it could. All true things can bring people to the True Faith. Reading Homer and Virgil could bring people to the True Faith. So could Bhuddist meditation.
The thing is, that Islam would successfully guide people to the True Faith if through it someone realized that Islam is not in fact the full revelation of God and His will in the world, but rather an imperfect reflection thereof — and if that person therefore went and became Catholic.
And, of course, many faithful Muslims do very much love God — though they suffer from the difficulty of belonging to a faith which lacks much truth, though it has some — and so may well instantly embrace God when they encounter him perfectly in the personal judgement.
But this doesn’t change the fact that Islam is a faith which both contains some beliefs which we as Catholics believe to be actively false and also lacks much of what we believe to be the full truth.
Michael I.,
My thinking of a presidential mass is along the lines of Ryan and Darwin. But I wouldn’t feel right at all for having Mass said for my favorite living president.
As far as having a celebration of Muhammad at a Catholic chapel, Donald expresses my sympathies quite clearly.
I too am backwards as is Jesus and the Church He established.
“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.” – Chesterton
Catholic Anarchist, what part of “Go ye therefore and make ye disciples of all the nations” is beyond your reading comprehension?
Not one word.
It seems to me the big difference here is that the US Presidency is not generally seen as a religious office.
That does not mean it is not, in reality, a religious office.
in general it would seem to be inappropriate for a Catholic organization to actively celebrate Muhammad’s birthday, in that in that the prophet founded a false religion which has historically kept from and drawn people away from (sometimes by force) the True Faith.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is holy and true in the world’s religions. The orthodox position is NOT that Islam is an entirely “false” religion.
The thing is, that Islam would successfully guide people to the True Faith if through it someone realized that Islam is not in fact the full revelation of God and His will in the world, but rather an imperfect reflection thereof — and if that person therefore went and became Catholic.
Well, of course. As a Catholic, I certainly believe that. But I also believe that in order for a Muslim to even feel the slightest desire to become Christian, he or she would actually have to encounter the Gospel, and with “American Catholic” type Catholics running around, it’s awfully hard to be exposed to the actual Gospel.
But this doesn’t change the fact that Islam is a faith which both contains some beliefs which we as Catholics believe to be actively false and also lacks much of what we believe to be the full truth.
Of course.
Tito, as usual, will not speak for himself or defend his dangerous posts himself, but relies on others to do it for him.
Michael I.,
What you said.
Interfaith discussion–fine so long as it doesn’t devolve into “I’m ok, you’re ok.”
Celebration of Mohammed’s birthday in a Catholic chapel? I’m surprised this is even necessary to discuss. The odds of exposing anyone to the Gospel in these circumstances are too low to be meanfully calculated–it’s a big “You’re OK!” statement. Full stop. And given what the Koran and authentic ahadith say about Christianity, conjoined with the radicalism of UK university Islamic chapters, it’s hairshirt/kick-me-sign ecumenism at its worst.
I wonder if there’s a masjid in Birmingham celebrating the birth of Christ?
If there is, he had best hope that he is not suspected of apostacy and that he is not subject to the traditional sanction under sharia for ceasing to be a muslim.
Expressing a certain generosity of spirit and respect for another’s faith is always welcome and something I find easy to practice most of the time. But my fear is that the upside of this kind of encounter with the Gospel is very small, and the downside is rather large. In other words: I doubt many Muslims are moved toward Christ by this gesture, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many Catholics received it as yet another datum telling them that theirs is just one religion among many, and not a particularly special one at that.
“It seems to me the big difference here is that the US Presidency is not generally seen as a religious office.”
That does not mean it is not, in reality, a religious office.
No, it does not — but in this case general perception is right: the office of President of the US is not a religious office. And as I’m sure you agree, those who imbue it with a religious authority do so at their peril.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is holy and true in the world’s religions. The orthodox position is NOT that Islam is an entirely “false” religion.
That is certainly true, and I did not deny it. I didn’t say that Islam is an “entirely false” religion. Come to that, even the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not necessarily “entirely” false, even though it was knowingly fabricated, and Islam is certainly much more true than the FSM. However, saying that Islam is a “false religion” does not mean that it contains nothing that is true, but rather that it is not “the” true religion in the sense of providing in its doctrines both the fullness of truth and nothing false. Islam lacks the fullness of truth and asserts some things that are false.
So while we should certainly celebrate those essential truths about God, salvation and the moral life which Islam does convey, we should also not muddy the waters by ignoring our differences.
I also believe that in order for a Muslim to even feel the slightest desire to become Christian, he or she would actually have to encounter the Gospel, and with “American Catholic” type Catholics running around, it’s awfully hard to be exposed to the actual Gospel.
Would you be interested in expanding on this?
It is often hard to see the Gospels reflected in the words and deeds of fellow Christians whom we consistently find rude, shallow and abrasive. Is that basically what you’re trying to convey here? I know I’ve certainly experienced that reaction to some Catholics who seem to make it their business to be unpleasant in the online world. Indeed, the temptation to see others this way is one of the best motivations for trying not to be rude, shallow or abrasive.
http://www.sjweb.info/Documents/dialogo/christianprophet.doc
This is a great document. Read it.
After having read Henry’s link, and stumbling across these quotes:
“It would be difficult to find a clearer instance of grace-filled, extra-Biblical, general revelation concretized in a specific, prophetic mission than in what God accomplished in Muhammad.”
and
“In the cases of both Jesus and Muhammad, God produced a grace-filled moment in the lives of their hearers with an invitation to faith. Those who accepted and believed the prophetic word made an act of faith, and only subsequently sought to comprehend the nature of God, read the facts of their personal and societal lives, and interpret the sweep of human history according to that faith.”
that I will likely not find two religious propositions I disagree with more in 2009.
In Islam, that “grace-filled moment” led to armies erupting from Arabia, bearing fire and sword from the Atlantic to the Hindu Kush, the Koran ringing in their ears all the while, with all that entailed for Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Chinese. If that’s grace, then less please, Lord.
Missing in the writer’s assertion that Muhammad could be considered a “prophet” according to the Christian understanding of the term is the notion that the prophet emerges from God’s people and calls them back to fidelity and their charism/mission, in line with previous revelation. Muhammad’s revelation essentially dumps the previous revelation on its ear, calling it warped. Especially that little matter of the incarnation we are about to celebrate in a couple of weeks. No genuine prophet ever showed up with “You know, all that stuff before–nevermind.” Leaving aside the prophetic mission of Jesus, which is the ultimate exception.
It’s a good-hearted effort, but he rides the Rahner train too far into speculation. Moreover, it doesn’t support the claim that we should be throwing parties for Islam’s prophet in our sanctuaries.
DP
You don’t realize the paper and presentation goes back to a medieval Melkite Bishop, Paul of Antioch, who looked at Muhammad as a prophet? He didn’t have to; he was in a kingdom liberated by the Crusaders. But he understood a point which you didn’t see. The abuse of the message but subsequent people does not invalidate a prophet (look, for example, at the abuse done in the name of the Bible!). The question is a much deeper question, and one which even early Christians understood. Others saw Muhammad at least in the “path of the prophets” if not a prophet himself. I would recommend a much deeper grasp at Islam beyond a one-sided, distorted image which ignores the good within the message of Muhammad (Paul of course believed the Koran to be corrupted, and imo, I agree). I’ve even seen some consider Muhammad to be a prophet like unto Balaam — in other words, authentic, but self-serving nonetheless. This doesn’t take Rahner, this just takes traditional Christian modes of thought.
“It would be difficult to find a clearer instance of grace-filled, extra-Biblical, general revelation concretized in a specific, prophetic mission than in what God accomplished in Muhammad.”
No, I think God had nothing to do with Muhammad’s mission. Islam is completely based upon Muhammad and his increasingly “convenient” revelations, which were obviously made up by him from a mish-mash of traditional religious concepts popular among the Arabs of his time, and what little he knew of Christian and Jewish beliefs. That Muhammad believed that what he plucked from his brain was from God is entirely possible. That a Christian would believe it is a subject for either pity or levity.
All revelation ended when the last apostle, St. John, passed away. Plus St. Paul warned us of new revelations from alleged angels:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel– not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
–Letter of St. Paul to the Galatians 1:6-9
This Jesuit is deluded to think that Mohammad is a prophet. Considering that if you ever read the Koran, there is not one instance of any prophecy that Muhammad revealed that Muslims could acknowledge.
Tito Edwards
You conveniently ignore what is being said, and how far back this message goes. You also ignore the fact that prophecy has not ended, and prophets do continue to exist in the church; private revelation has not ceased, only public revelation. God continues to show us his glory, and to lead people to him. More importantly, your words show the ignorance of the Koran, how it was put together, and Paul of Antioch’s own words on the corruption of the Islamic message after the death of Muhammad. Moreover, it seems you not not understand the category of prophecy; but the Church, in her wisdom sees that Muhammad did provide the polytheists a guide to the monotheism of the God of Abraham. That itself must be seen as a prophetic act.
But this is on par with Tito; I doubt he even read the document, but just accepted texts out of context to damn the author discussing Paul of Antioch, just as he does with his other infamous condemnations (like Balthasar, or Cardinal Egan just this week!).
There was already a movement of monotheism, not Christianity nor Judaism, that mixed many pagan rituals with the forementioned. Muhammad was bright enough to lead this movement and raise it from obscurity. Several epileptic seizures he called ‘revelations’ from God inspired those around him to follow him. When most of the people didn’t follow him he had to resort to the sword by raiding traders to fund his holy war or jihad as he coined. He promised wealth if people joined his new religion.
Like Donald said, it’s a mish-mash of Christianity and Judaism as well. Being influenced by a heretic Christian, Muhammad wrote in the Koran itself that the Holy Trinity consisted of God, Jesus, and Mary.
There are so many instances of error in the Koran that I highly doubt that there is any influence by God Himself.
It’s basic heresy that you would even peddle this Henry.
Uh oh. The heresy hunters are out again, [ed.-deleted for uncharitableness].
Henry,
Your uncharitableness knows no bounds.
You are a vindictive and trite human being.
Balthasar has no bearing on this argument.
I doubt you even practice what you know. How dare you call yourself a Catholic when you continue to hammer your fellow brothers in Christ with past mistakes.
Shame on you.
“armed with their glaring ignorance.”
Mr. DeFrancisis, since this is Tito’s thread I will not delete your last comment. I will merely state that if you wish to debate the history of Islam in this thread, I will be happy to accomodate you.
Clearly Titor continues to ignore what I said, and the one who calls people “heretics” and seeks to condemn that which he doesn’t understand is the one who lacks charity. Once more: the Koran isn’t the work of Muhammad. It was created after his death. This brings to question what is and is not authentically his within the Koran; early Christian responses to Islam brought that up, especially those who did see Muhammad as a prophet. So bringing out errors within the Koran is not dealing with what was addressed. Although I agree the Koran does have errors, I would also say much of what is interpreted to be error often end up not being so (those who have studied Islam know distorted images and interpretations of the Koran and Kalam as they are expressed by the orientalist from the West looking to denigrate Islam from outside).
So what is uncharitable is the fact that people condemn without addressing the issues, and never once show an ounce of humility and try to discern what is even being said before making such declarations public.
Mark
What is sad is when people are looking to be heresy hunters, and do so by ignoring what was said and instead make some strawmen to burn. And then talk about people who point out the error of doing such as being “uncharitable.” It’s quite clear where the lack of charity lies; no sense of humility as they brashly rush in, and cry foul when they are shown to be going the wrong direction.
Henry: As I said, I read it. Your presumptions as to my level of knowledge and good faith are grating and best put aside if you wish to continue. If not, well–it’s the ‘net. Let me give you a little of the background of my reading to cure your presumptiveness:
http://dprice.blogspot.com/2008/04/religion-of.html
Yes, so the writer finds one 12th century Christian thinker (contemptuously dismissed by his Muslim perhaps-interlocutor)…and Rahner. Not a lot upon which to base his claim for Muhammad’s prophethood.
Furthermore, Christian principles of thinking also ask that we consider the impact and immediate fruit of the message. Sure, we have the Crusader era with the slaughter at Jerusalem. Eleven centuries after the founding of Christianity.
But the eruption of Islam into the world isn’t a later distortion. This is the conquest and subjugation of the Christian Middle East and Zorastrian Persia within a generation of his death. If the early Muslims misunderstood his message, it ranks as the greatest warping of a religious leader’s thought–ever. And, again, there is the Koran itself, which is entirely dismissive of the incarnation and the passion. If that is a work of revelation and the Spirit, however defined, our God is Janus, not the Ancient of Days.
Sure, there are prophets and people doing prophetic work, even in our time. Dorothy Day comes to mind. It is impossible to square the life of Muhammad with that of a Christian prophet. I’m not going to insult Muslims with respect to how they feel about him, but I’m also not going to give the man a rhetorical tongue-bath in the name of dialogue. Some religious disputes cannot be resolved, as the Koran itself wisely notes in sura 109:
[109:2] “I do not worship what you worship.
[109:3] “Nor do you worship what I worship.
[109:4] “Nor will I ever worship what you worship.
[109:5] “Nor will you ever worship what I worship.
[109:6] “To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.”
Sometimes, it’s just as simple as that.
Henry,
I didn’t condemn anyone. I quoted St. Paul. So in a sense you’re now judging the charity of St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians. That’s called the sin of pride. You’re arrogance is getting the best of you.
As far as humility is concerned, if you had any, you wouldn’t be throwing around ad hominem statements like bringing up Balthasar.
If you ever were capable of accepting correction, you would know what humility means.
Dale Price
The paper itself is on a discussion of Paul of Antioch, which is why it only addresses Paul of Antioch. Do you seriously think this is the only early Christian witness to the idea that Muhammad could be a prophet? No, it wasn’t. But again, your response is to show “evil later came after Muhammad, therefore, he can’t be a prophet.” That is nonsense. As I pointed out, later abuse does not prove the initial error. After all, the Jews were the People of God, and yet, look to their horrible history.
As to the idea that Muhammad was a prophet, I would think that this portion of the Catechism would put “paid” to that particular notion:
“66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.”
Henry,
So I guess the question that spring up for me is: Are we actually doing ourselves or Islam any favors if our method of embracing Muhammad as a prophet involves assuming that the Koran not merely differs from what he himself actually said, but differs hugely and drastically. That is, needless to say, an insupportable if not offensive assumption to most Muslims.
Now, since I don’t think God was at work in helping the compilers of the Koran get it right, I don’t doubt at all that there were errors in its collection (and I also don’t doubt that there were errors in what Muhammad himself said) but I don’t see how telling Muslims, “We think that Muhammad was a real prophet, but unfortunately you Muslims recorded his message all wrong,” gets us anywhere good in regards to interfaith dialogue. Just as I don’t see what raprochement can go on with non-Christians (Islamic or otherwise) saying to Catholics, “We think that Christ was a real prophet, but most of what you have there in the Bible is in error and Christ actually taught something pretty much like what we believe.”
And more generally, while it’s true that private revelation continues, I’m not really sure why it makes any sense to assume that Muhammad really did receive revelations from God via an angel. Other than giving us the broad-minded a warm and fuzzy glow, it seems to make very little sense with the rest of what we know about salvation history.
Darwin
There are many ways one could answer your question. The thing is, it is not about “warm and fuzzies.” It takes concrete work for the Christian to look for and find the rays of truth when outside of the normative domain of Christianity. Yet, once they are found, what good is it to find them? They become points of contact which open up room for dialogue. Does it make it easier? In some ways yes, in some ways no. In the fact that truth, wherever it is found, points to Christ, there is help. But the difficulty is to show, if that truth can be found, why all that is found isn’t necessarily a nugget of truth. Look to the work of St Thomas Aquinas with Aristotle to see both the difficulty — and yet the benefit — of such a practice. Or the patristics with Plato. Or the way even medieval hymns could see the Sibyls as prophets!
Darwin
Beyond that, if this interests you, I suggest you get “Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims.” From the Pontifical Council fir Interreligious Dialogue. It deals with your questions in great depth.
“The paper itself is on a discussion of Paul of Antioch, which is why it only addresses Paul of Antioch.”
Way to move that goalpost! Odd that you’d make that claim, given that it devotes all of two of the 12 printed pages to Paul, spending much more time developing the notion of Muhammad as prophet generally, but no matter. Oh, and that quote at the beginning: “He breaks with the Christian polemical tradition by neither attacking Islam nor denying the prophethood of Muhammad…”
Show your cards on these other early Christian writers–that would certainly move the dispute along.
But again, your response is to show “evil later came after Muhammad, therefore, he can’t be a prophet.”
The direct link between the message and the jihad sheds light on the nature of the message and thus, the messenger. It’s a matter of simple historiography, not to mention study of biblical texts. If you don’t care to wrestle with that inconvenient history and behavior, fine.
Then there’s the matter of his personal behavior in life, which, while I recognize the argument that prophets aren’t sinless, certainly raises alarm bells.
You, and the writer of the essay excerpt, are effectively arguing for a Muhammad only tenuously tethered to the Islamic tradition. Rather like a Muhammad Seminar, if you will. The burden on is on you to show why this should be so.
In Islam, that “grace-filled moment” led to armies erupting from Arabia, bearing fire and sword from the Atlantic to the Hindu Kush, the Koran ringing in their ears all the while, with all that entailed for Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Chinese. If that’s grace, then less please, Lord.
What about Christian violence through the centuries? Oh, that’s right: our violence is okay. Theirs is not.
Michael I.,
If you are unable to show respect to your fellow brothers in Christ then don’t comment at all.
I deleted your last eight comments.
You’re better than that. I know you’re capable of writing well-formed arguments because I’ve read them in the past.
Hope you’re having a good Lent.
Dale
Perhaps because it is a part of a bigger text?
What about Christian violence through the centuries? Oh, that’s right: our violence is okay. Theirs is not.
And you derived that from my arguments just how, precisely? And tu quoque is fun, but my beautiful, bright four year old can do it, too.
Then give us the rest of it, Henry. And the other Christians, too. A firmer anchoring in the Tradition will be most useful for the discussion. Such as it is.
The thing is, it is not about “warm and fuzzies.” It takes concrete work for the Christian to look for and find the rays of truth when outside of the normative domain of Christianity. Yet, once they are found, what good is it to find them? They become points of contact which open up room for dialogue.
I agree with that, but it seems to me that it’s necessary when dialoguing with Islam to accept Islam’s account of what it is — not create our own version which is offensive to orthodox Muslim sensibilities. (Which I’m pretty sure the claim that Muhammad was essentially a prophet in the Christian tradition whose followers totally screwed up his message when writing down the Koran would be.)
From what I’ve read so far of your linked article, I think it offends both orthodox Catholic and Muslim interpretations of their respective faiths by suggesting that the Koran is an inaccurate (perhaps highly inaccurate) rendition of what Muhammad taught (offensive to Muslim belief) and that Islam was actually meant by God to be a parrallel faith for pagan Arabs, making neither faith a universal revelation of God to man (offensive to both Catholic and Muslim belief.)
I just don’t see how this approach gets us to a good place as far as recognizing the real truths the two religions share — any more than a discussion between Catholics and Jews in which the Jews asserted that Christ was in fact a true prophet — but not the Son of God and all of the Bible is pius legend — would be productive. In order to recognize shared truths, we have first to recognize both religions as they truly understand themselves.
If you are unable to show respect to your fellow brothers in Christ then don’t comment at all.
??
I see your sense of humor is as erratic as your ability to reason, so, I’ll say it directly and unambiguously, minus the attempt at humor:
Many of the views expressed here are grounded not in the teaching of the Church and an awareness of the actual teaching of Islam, but in prejudice, ignorance, and at worst, utter hatred for Muslims.
Have a good Lent.