Loading ...
Although we rarely have anything interesting to report from the home front in our unceasing war on the Cornell Catholic Community, I thought our readers might be amused by the response to the Pope’s big speech that ran in today’s bulletin (Warning Word Document). The crucial part:
He quoted a documented conversation which took place in the late 14th century. The quote was outrageous in its limited characterization of Mohammed. (The entire paper is available at http://www.vatican.va.)
Having used such a volatile quote the Holy Father could have immediately conveyed his (and the Church’s) own disgust at such a polarizing comment. Perhaps it would have been more prudent had he used an example from our own Catholic history: perhaps an episode from the Crusades, or the events of the Inquisition, or our early missionary efforts in the Americas. To say that he was sorry for the reaction his comments seemed self-serving at best. As a man whose office carries the title Vicar of Christ - Christ who was the embodiment of forgiveness and reconciliation - the Pope not only missed an opportunity but, I feel, diminished his own (and our) credibility.
The official statement of the Church concerning Islam is expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relations of the Church to non-Christian Religions, 28 October 1965): ‘The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men (sic). They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-giving and fasting.’ The document goes on to acknowledge the “quarrels and dissension” that have arisen between Christians and Muslims and “urges a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding. For the benefit of all, let (us) together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.”
One would assume that the Pope was aware of this document since he attended the Council and was one of the signatories of the conciliar document.
Now this really is too much. Could the man be much more submissive if he were officially a dhimmi already? It really does beggar the imagination that anyone could have such a pig-ignorant view of the history of Islam and of his own Catholic Church! Does the dear Father imagine that the sack, rape, and pillage of the great city of Constantinople were accomplished at the “hidden decree of God”? Or is he simply so afraid that the muslims will come after him, since he is a priest of the Catholic Church? If that is his concern, he need not be anxious: the only external sign that he is a priest is his slightly effeminate air; though if and when the muslims are in charge they’d be as happy to kill him for that as for his position in the Church.
And I know is scarcely needs to be said, but to say approvingly that Musliims honor our Lord “as a prophet” is really to have lost the Faith: for Father McMullin should know that Muslims accept Him in that role only by ignoring completely the testimony of the Gospels, which indeed they must, for to be held hostage by the satanic strains of muzzein’s call the Muslim must ignore the saving Faith which came from Christ and which this Priest has here implicitly rejected. If he will not, or can no longer, insist upon Christ’s true mission and divinity, then Father McMullin has abandoned what he was ordained to preach and is endangering his own soul, and all those souls in his care, thereby.
And, by the way, Fr. Ratzinger, Peritus to Josef Cardinal Frings, was not a signatory to that sad document.
Appalling.
go to main page
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Good post, Ambrosius. I read somewhere that the Emperor’s statement does not, contrary to the first impression, condemn each and every aspect of Islam. Rather, it condemns the *original* aspects, the parts that Mohammed introduced, as being violent and inhuman. The Old Testament Jews and New Testament Christians had all of the positive aspects of Islam: fasting, prayer, almsgiving, the “Abrahamic tradition,” submission (in the true sense) to God’s Will, etc.
Good point about Constantinople, too. What people today forget is that the last Byzantine Emperors favored Union at Rome and effected it at the Council of Florence. So when the Divine Liturgy was last said in the Hagia Sophia, it was a Catholic Mass and the name of the reigning Pope was invoked. Cool, huh? Too bad the surviving Greeks and their liturgical kinsmen did not persevere in the Union.
I had sıx Turkısh laborers at my home from 9 AM untıl 6 PM movıng ın my household goods — very tırıng work. All but one of them were fastıng - no food or lıquıds consumed from about 5 AM untıl 7 PM every day.
I thought ıt was pretty ımpressıve - a full days worth of tırıng manual labor wıthout even a sıp of water.
One of the Turkısh contractors who translates for me saıd that only the poor fast. The ırony, he saıd, ıs that the fast ıs desıgned to fıght agaınst materıalısm and lıve ın a spırıt of poverty and yet the wealthy of Turkey do not fast.
it condemns the *original* aspects, the parts that Mohammed introduced, as being violent and inhuman
The real point the Emperor was making in his dialogue with the Persian Muslim back in the day (part obviously quoted by the Pope Benedict XVI) was that of faith and reason…how could a person have true faith in Islam if one is essentially forced to convert by violence? Exactly another slam to some of the Cornell Society for a Good Time members’ view on the use of coercive measures to mitigate heresy…
The quote was outrageous in its limited characterization of Mohammed.–CCC Chaplain
It was, unless you understand the Holy Father’s point and the quote in context of the actual dialogue with the Emperor and the Persian Muslim. As previously and briefly noted the issue at play was the moral dilemma presented back in the 15th century that is cropping up again on a grand scale. So to condemn the inhumane acts of violence on behalf of religion does not mean to undermine the goodness of the religion itself; but merely to point out some of its members have their religion hijacked by a unjust aggressive mentality towards non-believers. Yes, this has happened in the past by Catholics and such has been asked forgiveness appropriately by JPII. But the Church, particularly Pope Benedict XVI, has not lost sight of the good in Islam (as evidenced by his apparent “respect” for the Muslims).
So to condemn the inhumane acts of violence on behalf of religion does not mean to undermine the goodness of the religion itself;
Very true, johnboy316. But I think you havn’t understood the point of the Emperor’s statement: to him, Islam is a violent religion because it accepts, he thinks, even mandates, violence to spread the Islamic faith.
We cannot deny that the contradictory passages are in the Koran, as Pope Benedict had mentioned. How is it interpreted in Islam? How does a Muslim interpret it, in the light of Islamic theology which affirms that God is not bound by his word? These are unanswered questions, and perhaps the Pope is inviting Muslims to give a reasonable statement of their own faith. Unfortunately, our Muslim brothers seem to have gotten so worked up about a dead Emperor’s word and have not (could not?) give a reasonable account of their faith about jihad.
It was unfortunate that at a university, precisely where reason should prevail over passion, the genius and wisdom of the Pope’s words were not presented more clearly and carefully to the students.
But I think you havn’t understood the point of the Emperor’s statement: to him, Islam is a violent religion because it accepts, he thinks, even mandates, violence to spread the Islamic faith.
The Pope stated explicitly that the Emperor’s words were NOT his own personal belief. Of course, the whole issue is not what the emperor meant per se, but rather the Pope.
We cannot deny that the contradictory passages are in the Koran, as Pope Benedict had mentioned. How is it interpreted in Islam? How does a Muslim interpret it, in the light of Islamic theology which affirms that God is not bound by his word? These are unanswered questions, and perhaps the Pope is inviting Muslims to give a reasonable statement of their own faith. Unfortunately, our Muslim brothers seem to have gotten so worked up about a dead Emperor’s word and have not (could not?) give a reasonable account of their faith about jihad.
The radical “jihad” raised by some Muslims in the Middle East is disputed by Muslims in the west, for instance. You cannot simply blanket condemn all Muslims on the basis of a certain sect who holds violent jihad as the over-riding preoccupation of Islam. There are Muslims who reject this type of lack of reason…which is what the Pope, I’m sure, wishes to bring back to the table of dialogue. Otherwise, the “radical jihad” mentality will continue to spread as it apparently has been for years.
It was unfortunate that at a university, precisely where reason should prevail over passion, the genius and wisdom of the Pope’s words were not presented more clearly and carefully to the students.
I’m not sure if this is a subtle “attack” on the Pope’s lecture or just a call to more understanding of the Pope’s words. In any case.
No one was ever forced by the Inquisition to convert. Torture was used to extract confessions of what heretics believed, not to get them to deny it. Torture and the burning were not used to *coerce* penance. Johnboy, read William Thomas Walsh’s excellent book on the Inquisition before you go throwing inane accusations around.
In the absence of any remark regarding the Inquisition, it is totally inappropriate to make the claim that I referred to the Inquisition. In any case I understand the importance of an honest investigation and historical analysis of the Inquisition; as the late Holy Father indicated, without getting into general accusations, in light of his request of forgiveness of past sins of individual Catholics.
“The Church is certainly not afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge mistakes wherever they have been identified, especially when they involve the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest, scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices, regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she has suffered.” JPII THE GREAT, see EWTN link here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDO
C/JP2PARDN.HTM
No one was ever forced by the Inquisition to convert. Torture was used to extract confessions of what heretics believed, not to get them to deny it. Torture and the burning were not used to *coerce* penance. Johnboy, read William Thomas Walsh’s excellent book on the Inquisition before you go throwing inane accusations around.
This is still unnacceptable. Get with the teachings of the Church, and not with medieval political corruption.