As we all know, Afghanistan’s Taliban government was overthrown several years ago by American and allied forces. What many Americans do not know is to what extent the current government of Afghanistan is run according to Sharia (the Mohammedan religious code). The most recent example: one Abdul Rahman. Rahman, age 41, has been charged with the crime of having converted from Islam to Christianity (of what precise denomination, I do not know). According to Afghan law, he is subject to the death penalty and is being prosecuted accordingly. Is this why so many young Americans went over to Afghanistan and died — so Afghans would focus on killing their own Christian countrymen instead of attacking us? With allies like this, who needs terrorists? For more information, see also Pat Buchanan’s column.
Cor Iesu Sacratissimum,
miserere nobis
miserere nobis
Ephemeris
Polls
Loading ...
Saintly Souls whom We Love
Pope Leo XIII
Pope Pius XI
John Henry Cardinal Newman
Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val
Subscribe
Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii,
ora pro nobis
ora pro nobis
Dramatis Personae
Ambrosius- Praeses Noster
- Sub-Praeses
- Magister Bibendi
- Poeta olim laureatus
- Praesidis Optio
- Legatus ad mulierculas
Search
Contact Information
information
- at -
cornellsociety.org
- at -
cornellsociety.org
Sententiae Legendae
-
Introducing Our Society
- A Timeline of Resistance of the Cornell Catholic Community
- John Paul the Fair
- Rules for a Good Time
Religiosae Societates
- Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri
- Institutum Christi Regis
- Carmel of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
- Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem
- Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer
- Institute of St. Philip Neri -Berlin
- Clear Creek Monastery
- Le Barroux
- Oblates of Mary, Queen of Apostles
Loci Traditionalibus
Bibliopollae Catholici
- Angelus Press
- Baronius Press
- Neumann Press
- PCP Books
- Roman Catholic Books
- Southwell Books
- St. Athanasius Press
- St. Bonaventure Press
- Tan Books & Publishers
- Loome Books
Popinae Bene Edendi
Latest
Patrons of our Society
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,ora pro nobis
Pope St. Pius X,ora pro nobis
Patrons of our Contributors
St. Joseph,ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan,ora pro nobis
St. Thomas Aquinas,ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare),orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena,ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom,ora pro nobis
He’s actually charged with rejecting Islam, not charged with being a Christian.
Okay, I’ve updated the article to take this into account.
Wait a sec…
If this man was killed would he then not be a martyr for Christianity because he simply died for rejecting Islam?
I doubt it…
Yes, I thought it a rather small point, but hey, why not be precise. So many people make a similar error when they claim that the Inquisition prosecuted people for being Jewish or Mohammedan. No, RE-verts to Judaism or Mohammedanism from Catholicism were prosecuted. So, just to be fair, I specified that Abdul Rahman’s crime was converting to Christianity from Islam, not being born into a Christian family or something like that.
I’m not the authority on such matters, obviously, but I rather think that anyone who 1) was executed, and 2) could have gotten out of it but didn’t because it would have involved denying Christ, should count as a martyr.
Right, somewhat splitting hairs factually, but in the end the result is the same: A dead Christian, a martyr for the faith regardless of how the Muslims view it.
Tobias Petrus said…
Well, will he be a Christian martyr? My view: depends on whether he’s Catholic or not. I don’t see any evidence that’s conclusive one way or another, although I sense he isn’t. IF we hypothesize that he’s protestant, and we accept that heretics don’t have the theological virtue of Faith (as St. Thomas Aquinas and his pupil Iosephus have so eloquently argued), then this guy will not be a martyr for the Faith — you can’t be a martyr for something you don’t have. Now the Mohammedans would kill him all the same regardless of whether he had converted to Catholicism or Hinduism or Judaism or atheism, so their motives alone don’t make him Mr. Rahman a martyr. I primarily object to the fact that under Mohammedan law the conversion of a Moslem to anything called Christianity (including Catholicism) is illegal. If this Abdul Rahman is a protestant, then he is a follower of heretics whom our Catholic ancestors also would have killed. As I understand it, the Catholic Church does not canonize martyrs from other denominations, even if their murderers’ intentions were against Christianity of any form. There’s probably a good reason for this.
Pope Eugene IV in the Bull “Cantate Domino” (1441) taught: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and HERETICS and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (emphasis mine)
Also, in that famous passage from Corinthians read at weddings, St. Paul teaches that it would profit him nothing to have his body turned over to be burned (martyred) if he did not abide in the virtue of Charity. Of course, Christian, supernatural Charity depends upon Christian, supernatural Faith. Also, how do you exercise even human-level charity when your religion is a sect whose very existence depends upon the perpetuation of vicious, ridiculous, petty factionalism?
Incidentally, I assume for the sake of the argument that Mr. Rahman is a formal heretic who knowingly affirms specifically prot. doctrines. If he were a material heretic, then he’d just be a confused Catholic and this discussion wouldn’t make any sense.
I believe this man, if killed, will be a martyr; anyways:
Don’t forget non-Catholic Christians could be and are often actually Baptised (cleansed of original sin and thus able to be saved)…
That’s one of the Sacraments that often transcends denominations…
Assuming this Christian is not Baptised, I think his being killed could be classified as “Baptism by Blood” if he desires it (ie, Actual Baptism).
Of course if I remember correctly isn’t Tobias one of those “Feeneyites” who thinks Baptism by Blood and by Desire are all false?
There’s something to chew over…
Say, John-Boy, why haven’t you responded to the posts about deaconnesses? Anyway, if you read my post, I wrote that I assumed he was a formal heretic. Formal heretics are in mortal sin, and they are sinning against Faith. So the question of his Baptism is irrelevant — his sin would be after his baptism, regardless of one’s view of Baptism of Desire. Furthermore, if he is a formal heretic, then Baptism of Blood (admitting for sake of argument) wouldn’t count since that requires Faith, which formal heretics sin against. So that question has no bearing on the discussion, granting one of my hypotheses. And to be clear, I am really am speaking of a hypothetical person, since I don’t know enough (could anyone this side of Heaven?) about Mr. Rahman’s state of soul to make any judgment.
And note that “Cantate Domino” (another one of those papal bulls) specifically states that the sacraments do not benefit anyone for salvation unless that person abides within the bosom and unity of the Church. So baptism, minus membership in the Catholic Church, just doesn’t cut it.
And when I say I “assumed it,” I meant for the sake of argument, not for any judgment of Mr. Rahman personally.
Okay, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. John-Boy, I get the impression that you read a post, get (what you think to be) the gist of it, think whether that “gist” strikes you as contrary to Pope John Paul II, and then respond. May I ask you, please, to address the specific premises and inferences of other people’s arguments. I am speaking only for myself, not for the whole Society, and I hope that my impression is false, but it is my impression from numerous “discussions” with you.
Tobias,
My intention was to demonstrate that he could in fact be saved…if he was Baptised (washed of original sin) and was killed (and was in the state of grace). Whether or not he is in the state of grace is between him and God; not for you to belittle with “hypotheticals”.
Even if he was not Baptised, there are possibilities that he would still be able to be saved (Baptism by blood).
Regardless of the above-mentioned points, I still believe he would be a martyr if killed. This is because most Christians that are not Catholic are not heretics. This is because they are ignorant of Catholicism. You should not assume one is going to hell because they aren’t Catholic. If you disagree it’s your disagreeing with definitive teaching from the Church.
When you badger non-Christians consider the issue of heresy only applies to Catholics who left the religion or non-Christians…both who are not ignorant of the Catholic Church.
I would presume (out of Christian charity) that the guy is trying his best to follow Christianity and God will be the judge. I wouldn’t think otherwise or give another impression (I’m not talking hypothetically, but actually). Therefore, I’m safe to assume the man, if killed, is a martyr.
I understand your hypotheticals but sin is subjective as well as objective.
As for the deaconesses issue…I’ll get back on that then…
whoa!
Check the phrase:
“Catholics who left the religion or non-[Catholics]…both who are not ignorant of the Catholic Church.”
Well, John-boy, I didn’t mean to “belittle” this guy’s actual state of grace or sin with hypotheticals. I have a hard time figuring that sentence out grammatically. Do you mean that when a man is in supreme peril of his life, I shouldn’t utilize his situation for theological argumentation? Well, okay, then, if that’s what you mean. I have a defense, but I’ll only use it if that’s what you meant.
“Sin is subjective as well as objective.” I dislike this wording, which I admit is frequent. I *think* what people mean here is that sin depends upon a person’s perceptions, not on what the actual situation is. However, when people say that something can be objectively sinful without being subjectively sinful, I find this confusing. A sin is committed ONLY when a person is culpable. So an action can be objectively *wrong* (i.e. mistaken) without being *sinful* (i.e. culpable) at all. The problem is that *usually* “objectively” means “really, in actual fact,” whereas “objectively sinful” in the above example means precisely the opposite.
No, I am not addressing the bigger issues you raise, which would take longer, but I am addressing some pre-conditions to further discussion . . . which if I get any more free time I’ll do.
I found another error I made to my most recent post:
“When you badger non-[Catholics] consider the issue of heresy only applies to Catholics who left the religion or non-[Catholics]…both who are not ignorant of the Catholic Church.
I’ll try to respond to this precise point (the one you’ve emended) sometime this weekend, so do keep looking, John-Boy. I think that what you’re saying is true, but I don’t think it applies in the way you’re thinking. Please do look back at the deaconness thing sometime, too.
Tobias,
Sins are objective because they contravene the moral law.
Sin is subjective when it is not understood by the sinner as objective, even though it is. Other elements of the subjectiveness include the moral gravity of the sin.
I would further note that some actions that are not objectively sinful could be subjectively sinful. This depends on the person’s understanding of the action.
The subjective element of sin does not negate the objectiveness of the moral law. It just simply actualizes the fact that sin must be a conscious decision (that means, minimally, the individual must have some doubt as to it being “right” in his own understanding).
Some people that are Protestants practice artificial contraception, a big and serious objectively wrong sin. However, some have no clue as to it being objectively sinful. Of course, ignorance only goes so far. A person who willingly fails to be informed is committing a potentially (?) grave sin.
Tobias,
As for the hypotheticals, I just notice you seem to castigate non-Catholics on the basis of their not being Catholic and use the label “hypothetical” to for some reason “justify” the idea.
My intention was not to neglect the possibility of using hypotheticals in one’s description of their reasons for such and such. It’s just that presenting a reason and then justifying it by the term “hypothetical” means nothing.
Thanks for the clarification of objective and subjective. The problem I have is the confusion between the differing connotations and denotations of the words.
And yes, I am duly convicted of being devil’s advocate when righteousness is imputed to people who are ostensibly (the all-important stipulation) outside the Church. And the true saints always pass the devil’s advocate, so I don’t see the harm in taking the skeptical side so long as I don’t misrepresent the facts of the case or the teachings of the Church (e.g. Cantate Domino’s specific teaching on the inability of baptism and martyrdom to save formal heretics).
This dude apparently is a Catholic. I saw it in the newspaper.