What’s Wrong with the World

how politically incorrect!!! how his holiness managed to escape the asylum long enough to make this pronouncment baffles me, still i'm not bothered because he's absolutely right.

And just think how many are off seeking some sort of salvation through the auspices of that creepy, false messiah, Obama!

God, how could any Roman Catholic not see through him.

Wrong blog for going berserk on the question of Catholic identity and lack of formation in America, but I'm only too happy to oblige. Don't tempt me (and probably some others).

Indeed -- it's already a gracious gesture on the part of our non-Catholic hosts that they should kindly devote such an entry at all (as Mr. Cella along with many other W4 non-Catholic contributors who were just as gracious) to things concerning the Catholic Church herself.

Certainly, that is the kind of ecumenism that just might contribute towards the rebuilding of a once united & powerful Christendom.

Now, if only we would adopt a "Charles the Hammer" approach to our present-day Crusade; perhaps we might be getting somewhere!

Paul,

I hate to spoil the mood, as that quote from B16 is beautiful, but following ari's comment, I think it is worth pointing out B16's previous comments about Muslims in the Holy Land are--shall we say--less praiseworthy.

Jeff Singer:

It seems that you share the very same lack of appreciation for the notion that diplomacy is, in fact, a necessary evil and that appearance is capital.

It is for the very reason that there are in fact Christians (Christian families that go far as back to 1,500 years ago) in the Holy Land and in Muslim-dominated countries that the Pope is especially cautious in nurturing the kind of necessary relationship with their Muslim leaders in order that they may provide greater courtesy (good will) for those Christians who currently occupy their lands -- although they were there even before these lands were Muslim to begin with!

Had PBXVI been blunt, there would've been such furor perhaps even worse than that which came as the result of his rather innocuous remarks some years ago at Regensberg.

Pope Benedict XVI is very much aware of the problems of Christians who live in Muslim lands:

Pope Benedict XVI & the Commission for Catholic Orthodox Theological Dialogue

Crisis in the Holy Land

Now, if only we would adopt a "Charles the Hammer" approach to our present-day Crusade; perhaps we might be getting somewhere!

Ari,
Sure, same historical circumstances, level of threat and means of repelling it. Brillant.

Paul draws our attention to a beautiful spiritual moment, but you prefer rumors of war, and sure enough, after your entry Jeff Singer wieghs in with his Austerism de jour.

I quess this is what Nyssan meant when he alluded to the question of Catholic identity and lack of formation in America. Our Catholic faith is not an ideology, or set of "values", but even the temperate, morally sound remarks of Benedict below can get set-off those sitting on the right side of the cafeteria.
What a shame.

Mr President, the Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders. Even if at present that goal seems far from being realized, I urge you and all your people to keep alive the flame of hope, hope that a way can be found of meeting the legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for peace and stability.
http://www.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=287063

ari,

What's your evidence that diplomacy has worked so well all these years?

Kevin,

The Israelis would love to live in peace with their neighbors...can you say the same about the Palestinians?

The Israelis would love to live in peace with their neighbors...can you say the same about the Palestinians?

Jeff, neither all Israelis, or Palestinians want to live in peace, but enough of each do for it to be attainable.

Jeff, I heartily agree with you, and the words you have in mind was a real shame and disappointment for reasons Fitzgerald discusses briefly and Auster as well, but you'll get nowhere fast with Kevin, so you might as well not bother.

Sorry "words...were." I changed "speech" to "words" and didn't edit the verb.

you'll get nowhere fast with Kevin, so you might as well not bother.

Lydia, Jeff's beef is with Benedict XVI. Not me.

Poster's "Wellington" and "ChrisLA" on the Fitzgerald blog got the Pope right. Fitzgerald got him wrong. I agree with Fitz on much that he said, but he misread the Pope, was unfair to him, and the the holy Father's subtlety was lost on him.

ChrisLA said on the Wellington blog said:

Hugh and the other commentators have sold Pope Benedict short. Read his speech again. What the Pope is saying to Muslims is that IF you claim to worship the same God as Jews and Christians, then there are logical consequences: 1) we are one unity, one human family, and we must live together in peace and harmony; 2) we are accountable for our actions with regard to our neighbors; 3) the absolute goodness of God must be reflected in all of his followers; and 4) dialogue must be sincere and unequivocal, aimed at promoting human solidarity.

These specific points are contradicted by the Quran -- which makes the Muslims' claim of worshiping the same God a bald-faced lie. 1) Jews and Christians (People of the Book) are not part of the human family, but rather are sub-human (Surah 5:60); 2) Muslims are ordered to make war on their non-Muslim neighbors (Surah 9:123); 3) Allah doesn't represent absolute goodness, but rather is described as "the supreme Plotter." (Surah 3:54, Surah 13:42); and 4) Muslims may verbally deny aspects of their faith as long as their hearts remain loyal -- making any dialogue an exercise in futility (Surah 16:106)

So the Pope correctly put his finger on the big Islamic lies, and basically challenged Muslims to come out and renounce those lies or admit that they, in fact, do not worship the same God as Jews and Christians. Brilliant!

Fitzgerald could be a latter-day Cato the Elder: "Islam delenda est!" His rhetoric is brilliant, but one does wonder whether it need be repeated on every occasion.

I don't see anything particularly objectionable in Benedict's address. Where are these "misleading remarks about the historical relationship of Islam to Judaism and Christianity"? He doesn't really spell it out. The historical relationship between the three faiths is a convoluted mess. Consider Benedict's remarks in light of, say, Hilaire Belloc's view that Islam is in fact a Christian heresy; or consider them in light of the view, occasionally hinted at by Chesterton, that Islam is a standing rebuke to Christendom and its wayward leaders.

That Islam is a conquering faith is not a fact of which this Pope is ignorant. Fitzgerald's potent polemics aside, there's not much here.

Kevin,

Paul draws our attention to a beautiful spiritual moment, but you prefer rumors of war...

I'm rather surprised you would say and even accuse me of that -- especially in light of my reply to Jeff Singer's remarks and my having reiterated the need for diplomacy.

I hate to spoil the mood, as that quote from B16 is beautiful, but following ari's comment, I think it is worth pointing out B16's previous comments about Muslims in the Holy Land are--shall we say--less praiseworthy.

The Pope began by acknowledging he was there at their invitation.

I am deeply grateful for the invitation to visit this sacred place...,

I suppose he could have then said; "You suck. Good night. Drive safely" and then just left, but I think that what he said was perfectly fine given the invitation, the setting, and the mission he set for himself on this M.E. trip.

For those of you who are not Catholic, what he said in recognising the good in Islamic Doctrine is part of a long-standing Catholic tradition.

For example, here is The Sacred Congregation DE Propaganda Fide Instruction to the Vicars Apostolic of Tonkin and Cochichina (1659 A.D.):

Finally, by conforming to the norms of evangelical charity, they must be ready to adapt themselves to the mentality and customs of others...nor earn disfavour or even the dislike of outsiders, but rather become, like the apostle,all things to all men...It is not your country but the faith you must bring, that faith which does not reject or belittle the rites or customs of any nation as long as those rites are not evil...It is, as it were, written in the nature of all men that the customs of their country and especially their country itself should be esteemed, loved and respected above anything else in the world....Admire and praise whatever merits praise. As for what is not praiseworthy, while it must not be extolled as is done by flatterers, you will be prudent enough not to pass judgment on it, or, in any case, not to condemn it rashly or exaggeratedly..

Probably more in the spirit of this blog:

That short paragraph, spoken in the middle of the most religiously divided/divisive place in earth, surrounded by Jews, Muslims, and a relatively small contingent of Christians, is real multiculturalism. "Here's what we believe and we're not ashamed of it. Your turn."

Multiculturalism with...ahem, *nerves* (not my first choice of words) of steel.

The Pope began by acknowledging he was there at their invitation.

I am deeply grateful for the invitation to visit this sacred place...,

I suppose he could have then said; "You suck. Good night. Drive safely"

Exactly --

Had he adopted a belligerent tone, he would've exacerbated an already overly delicate situation for minority Christians living in Muslim-occupied lands, who are at the mercy of Islam.

In addition, what power exactly does the Catholic Church have now anyway?

The Old, United Christendom has long since been extinct. Christian nations no longer exist -- merely secular degenerates.

The only accouterments that are presently at the disposal of the Pope is his vast armory of Missals, which is not the kind practically useful in combatting enemies of the Church in times of Holy War; unless, of course, in the case of close-combat quarters, one would try in vain to use these volumes to inflict papercut damage on the enemy -- that is, if they aren't killed first.

(sidenote: glad thebryonicman has rejoined the flock!)

Would it have been too much for Benedict to have mentioned Our Lord Jesus Christ at the Dome of the Rock, as well as at the Holy Sepulcher? Or would that have been tantamount to saying, "You suck. Good night. Drive safely"?

This is Paul's thread, and I don't want to inaugurate a big debate, but I have to say in response to "ChrisLA" whom Byronic quotes that that just isn't what the Pope said. He didn't say "IF you really worship the same God, etc." and there is no slightest hint of an implication that Islam is based on a "big lie." Rather, his words are most naturally taken to imply that Islam's claim to worship the same God that Christians and Jews worship is true. I really think ChrisLA's reading is strained; it's an attempt to see a brilliant back-handed subtlety where none existed, where what instead was present was a plain or simple desire to be diplomatic, not to be belligerent, which took the particular form of implying, "Hey, we all agree in worshiping God, so we can start from there."

But I understand that Paul was trying to write about a different, and much more unequivocally praiseworthy, statement by the Pope.

He didn't say "IF you really worship the same God, etc." and there is no slightest hint of an implication that Islam is based on a "big lie."

The Left has The Da Vinci Code, so the Right has to roll-out their version with Benedict XVI playing the role of mental dhimmi according to a blogger with a declared expertise in Islam and geo-politics.

After the Pope returns to Rome having failed to canonize Charles Martel while at the Dome of the Rock, or volunteer the Swiss Guard to lead the next assault on Gaza, the search for new material will begin anew.

The Sermon on the Mount has a vague, but perceptible hint of Marxism to it, no?

Benedict is not naive, and he is subtle. He is also a great ally to those who are patriotic for European Christendom. Fitzgerald should be a bit less full of himself, and realize who his friends are.

He didn't say "IF you really worship the same God, etc."

Actually, he did say it; however, this is to be understood from his previous addresses/writings concerning Islam. There is one in particular where he does exactly that (which, surprisingly enough, watching a morning talk segment on FOX on the following Saturday, even some pretty staunch Protestant critics of his were keen on the Pope's message back then concerning the Logos, that even they went so far as to lavish him with such high praise for his remarks back then).

That said, perhaps PBXVI should have simply uttered once again:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Of course, we all know what happened when he did just that and, indeed, certain Catholics had died as a result due to the violent furor of enraged Muslim protest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy#Protests.2C_attacks_and_threats

How much more religious-incited violence would result (and those innocent victims who would ultimately pay the price of even lost of life) had he done just that in an already dangerously heightened situation in the Middle East?

In fairness to my papa,

He never recanted anything he said in Regensburg, where he made it clear that the voluntarist god of Islam is not the same as the Christian God. Trying to say that the same pope of Regensburg is trying to blur the glaring differences between Christianity and Islam seems at best tenuous. At worst, it borders on that special breed of ready indignation that the supposedly orthodox too often reserve for the pope. There is a type of devout Catholic that enjoys watching the Church burn--take care here.

Most of the dome of the rock speech sounds like encouragement to those who do believe in the true God, not a rejoinder that "hey we all believe in the same God after all." I think that many of the comments are fairly read as evangelical in nature, much more of a papal description of Christian living and message to those living in the region than the weak ecumenism everyone seems to suppose.

Concerning the quote Paul cited, it is indeed beautiful. But that statement, at the Holy Sepulcher, required considerably less courage to make than navigating the minefield of the past three(?) days.

Of course the pope said something beautiful at one of the holiest sites in Christianity. But that he could go to the holiest sites of the Judaism and Islam and speak at all is miraculous. If he didn't please everybody, then he probably did something right.

(sidenote: glad thebryonicman has rejoined the flock!)

I Watch daily, from a distance. But you guys are too thick and fast for me!

In 1900, 20% of the citizens of the Mideast were Christians.

Today, that same percentage is less than 5%.

Yet some call for "nuance," "subtlety" and diplomatic engagement.

Well, what has that "nuance," that "subtlety" earned us but a one-way ticket out of the Mideast.

I want all of you to consider for a moment the Churches mentioned in the final book of the New Testament. Not a single one of those Churches mentioned now exists. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE Churches was completely crushed by the dark forces of islam.

Every single one of them.

What of Alexandria, former see of that Doctor of the Church, Athanasius?

What of that see of that great namesake of the Augustinians?

What of North Africa?

What of Anatolia?

What of the great cathedral of Damascus, what of Lebanon, Rhodes and the isles of the Aegean?

Can a single one of you come even close to numbering those now damned, damned for eternity, damned and blasted for all time, merely because of the loss of so much territory to that great glittering darkness, often referred to as "islam?"

Can a single one of you even toss out a ball-park figure the number of the damned for the loss of what is now termed "Istanbul?"

Many of you speak cavalierly of a disaster whose sum of suffering is beyond the power of the Angels to describe.

There are people burning in hellfire this very instance, who would not be so tormented were Christian armed forces to have held in Anatolia, in Egypt, in the Kuban.

Does any of that mean anything to some of you?

Can you for half a second place yourselves in their shoes, can you for half a second see yourself upon the walls of Constantinople, can any of you see yourselves with the Poles, lances at rest, heading for the Turk?

Good God, what a want for imagination, what a lack of sympathy, what a species of self-hate.

He didn't say "IF you really worship the same God, etc." and there is no slightest hint of an implication that Islam is based on a "big lie."

Islam does worship the same God as do we Christians. Jimmy Akin explains how that true statement can be understood.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207bt.asp

I apologise if this has been previously posted here.

Yes, Akin makes the usual simple parallel--non-Trinitarian theism to non-Trinitarian theism--between Islam and Judaism that I have seen so often elsewhere. I think this is confusing. One could, for example, believe that a deity with the characteristics of Moloch was the one true God (and was not a Trinity). One would then have a non-Trinitarian monotheism as well. "Jews are not Trinitarians" is not by a long shot the most significant thing one could say about Who the God of the Jews is, nor about Allah, either. Brett alludes to voluntarism above, and I think that is a significant point.

But I think I should stop with that.

I really don't mind the threadjack, as long as folks keep it civil. It was basically an open thread anyway.

To me the Pope's statement is subtle enough to avoid errors of the gravity indicated by Fitzgerald's response. Any of us can second-guess the policy of the Vatican vis-a-vis Islam and its various factions, or the policy of any actor on the international stage for that matter; but of all major actors there is none I'd sooner trust to grasp the truth about Islam than the Catholic Church. Certainly the Church is the most trustworthy in Europe, and considering the state of America it may greater than that.

But the Church is as always a ponderous actor. I cannot see the necessity of examining every document or statement with minute intensity for betrayals or failures. A mischievous sort might simply answer by examining with similar assiduity the documents and statements of the Medieval Church, to produce a picture of militancy.

What I saw of the Pope in the Middle East was an impressive leader operating in an environment of enormous complexity. His tactics were not always perfect, far from it, but his overall strategic view is about as sound as you'll find in the world.

but of all major actors there is none I'd sooner trust to grasp the truth about Islam than the Catholic Church.

There I must disagree with you for sociological reasons. There is far too much influence in Vatican City of Arab Christians of the sort Fitzgerald (in my view, rightly) calls "Islamo-Christians." Intensely anti-Israel (and no, I don't mean this to invite a discussion of Israel), such Arabs very often have internalized a dhimmi mindset and do not rightly attribute for the leaders in Rome the causes of their mistreatment in the Middle East. (I read a quotation from one Catholic-Arab priest in Gaza who was laughing about the supposed evil and dangers of Hamas.) Also, Italians continue, I believe, to be fairly influential in Vatican politics, and there is evidence that Italian Catholics do not fully realize the danger of Islam. For example, there are stories of Italian Catholic priests telling would-be converts _not_ to convert, just to be good Muslims. Now, you can rightly point here to the fact that the Pope did indeed baptize an Arab convert from Islam to Christianity, but again, the Pope is under a lot of contrary influences to that very act. Here I am speaking of the Catholic Church as a human institution, subject to ordinary sociological trends and influences. One who regards it as divinely guided at all times will probably not be much moved by these considerations, but then again, I took your comparative statement, Paul, not to be a statement of faith in the divine guidance of the Church but rather a statement based on a posteriori evidence.

I will agree that the Pope's speech was by no means as strong (and therefore, as regrettable) an affirmation of the "we all worship the same God and have lots in common where it really counts" view as I have seen elsewhere and as it could have been. And its relative moderation is probably one reason why Fitzgerald's reaction strikes people as over-the-top. Probably Fitzgerald would have done better to moderate his tone and also to make more general remarks about the differences between the Muslim concept of God and the Judeo-Christian concept and the importance of these differences.

I cannot see the necessity of examining every document or statement with minute intensity for betrayals or failures.

That's because there is no necessity for minute examination; the "betrayals" and "failures" just jump out and grab you by the throat.

A mischievous sort might simply answer by examining with similar assiduity the documents and statements of the Medieval Church, to produce a picture of militancy.

Is the assertion of militancy supposed to be a reproach? The Medieval Church was militant. The Church is supposed to be militant. What good, after all, is an unmilitant Church -- except to be cast out on the ground and trodden upon by men?

Well if the local bishops are dhimmis, constantly advising appeasement, the Pope is in a bit of a conundrum. Shall he swoop in with a militant flourish, leaving the dhimmi bishops behind to fresh persecution, provoked by a shift in policy they oppose, when he departs? Shall he agitate the Middle East further with his rhetoric? Some Israelis think he is still soft on anti-Semitism; shall he appease them too? The minefield on that region is a daunting one.

What major international actor, Lydia, would you regard as more trustworthy than the Church, from the aspect of its current human leadership?

(Incidentally, I am hardly alarmed by the idea that Italians are influential in Vatican policy. The fact is that Italians have recently shown more nerve than, say, Americans or Englishmen. Berlusconi, despite his personal flaws, has generally pushed a far tougher policy on immigration for instance, than most Western politicians.)

Militant need not be a rebuke, George R. But in a worldly sense, one struggles to discover how an institution which does not command any armies, nor any military forces at all to speak of, can convincingly play the Militant.

Nor indeed is it at all obvious that restoring this capacity -- that is, the capacity to bring military resources to bear -- is something that ought to be an aspiration of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pope does subtly critique Islam every time he mentions the importance of reason in religion or the value of women; the God of Islam is completely transcendent, unknowable and arbitrary, and reason cannot be applied to Him, while the issue of women in Islam is, ahem, fairly obvious. Unsurprisingly, these two themes were major components of his apostolic visits to both Africa and the Holy Land. These are exactly the kinds of dignified distinctions one would expect of a Pope. I prefer that he speaks as he does rather than throw red meat to the LGF crowd.

Paul, I agree that the region is a minefield. I brought up the Arab-Christian dhimmitude point merely as a counter to the picture of the Catholic Church per se as an international actor that understands the danger of Islam. There are other points I could have made there, for example. The oft-quoted statement in Lumen Gentium (stronger even than what the Pope says here) about Muslims as worshiping the same God as Christians has understandably been taken to mean that "Muslims worship the same God as Christians" is de fide for Catholics, which hardly encourages open and honest critiques concerning the arbitrariness of Allah, for example. Something similar could be said about the rather unfortunate "interfaith dialogue" efforts that have, again, been exclusively focused on the impression that Christians already have much in common with Muslims, that Muslims should be encouraged (for example) to pray to their God, who is the same as our own, and the like.

I'm not sure what the point is of trying to find an "international actor" who is really _good_ on naming and facing the threat of Islam. I can't think of _any_ who particularly are. I assume individual people who are not at least heads of state are not in the running, right? So it would have to be "the government of Holland" rather than "Geer Wilders." So we're talking about a fairly dismal company. In that company, the Catholic Church's claim to being the best of a confused lot rests chiefly on the Pope's Regensburg lecture and on hopeful interpretations of his various references to reason (for example) as tacit critiques of Islam. This is a somewhat slim basis for awarding much of a prize, and all the more so considering B16's many attempts to calm the Muslim world's bizarre rage about the Regensburg remarks. To be sure, his attempts were excused on the grounds that he was trying to save Catholic lives in foreign lands from hatefilled Muslims. Fine, fine, maybe so. But once again, were we supposed to be saying that we find the Catholic Church to be right now a particularly good leader in the realm of showing us clearly the danger of Islam? If one puts the question that way, then I'm just going to say that I can't think of any "international actor" that is especially good at that. I think that as it happens we have to look to lesser individuals or groups for that purpose, not big movers and shakers.

Yeah, pretty slim pickins, that's for sure.

There is little doubt that the Catholic Church shares the Western complacency when it comes to Islam. The previous Pope's experience of the mid-century wars ill-prepared him for the resurgence of the Jihad -- him and durned everyone else.

But unlike other Western actors, the Church does have long experience in her institutional memory with Islam -- and indeed has plenty of current-day experience in her African, Near Eastern, and Asian precincts.

This is going to take time. Each rising generation of Church leaders will be proportionately less obsessed with the tangles of liberalism and modernity, and more influenced by harsher world outside Europe and America.

I guess one thing I would have to say is this (and take the consequences): If it makes one a poor statesman as an international actor to say--publicly and unapologetically, and without any later backpedaling *of any sort*--"Islam is a false religion with political aspirations to world domination, and it is presently a very serious and present danger throughout the world," and other statements to that effect, then I'm afraid on that definition being a "good" statesman is just incompatible with being a strong and clear leader concerning the danger of Islam. I'm not saying such statements have to be made in every context and on every occasion. But such leadership requires that they be made publicly with some frequency and with nothing remotely resembling an apology thereafter, riots or no riots. For myself, I do not define a good statesman in a way that is incompatible with that sort of leadership, and so I still yearn to see that sort of leadership on the international stage.

Nor indeed is it at all obvious that restoring this capacity -- that is, the capacity to bring military resources to bear -- is something that ought to be an aspiration of the Roman Catholic Church.

(Warning: The following comment is opposed to the spirit of Vatican II.)

Paul,

According to Catholic teaching, all armed forces on the face of the earth are morally bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (You may think this is ridiculous, but it is what it is.) Thus, all those armies that are not so subject are, at least materially, in a state of rebellion against God (although individuals can serve in them without sin). Therefore, to say that the Church should not desire to have armed forces at her disposal is to say that she should desire that the children of men remain the enemies of God, which would be a denial of her mission.

For my part, I think it's possible for the church (and the Church) to be "militant" in an important but non-literal sense of speaking the truth about threats--including military threats--to Western and Christian lands and encouraging Christians to stand firm, which standing firm will inevitably, though indirectly, require some sort of standing up to physical threat. The force of moral leadership and leadership through speaking truth shouldn't be underestimated.

By your analysis, Lydia, there may not be a true statesman in the world. Alas that it could be true.

Except that even on that critical level, the man with real political power who has made the most statesmanlike declaration is . . . Benedict XVI. There is hardly a politician in America of any consequence to even approach the level of sophisticated critique as the Regensburg Address. In Europe there are some hounded brave men with no shield of the First Amendment.

here is none I'd sooner trust to grasp the truth about Islam than the Catholic Church.

It could be no other way. Only the Catholic Church has the institutional memory long enough to understand and engage what is arguably a heresy that grew up within her eastern midst. Yes, the Orthodox Church can make the same claim, but she lacks the global heft and prominence to play the same role as the Roman church does.

Pope Benedict XVI, and this will come as a blow to those who prefer that priests wear red, white and blue vestments and the Magisterium devise a concord with the aspects of the culture of death they like (torture, preemptive wars, bombing of civilian populations, et al), is not a spokesman for Western modernity. He suffers no illusions about the motives or methods of a "benign Empire". And the Vatican under Benedict and his predecessor have allied themselves with Islamic states in thwarting the push to make abortion a universal human right.

Anyone familiar with his thought the past 40 years, or who has read his recent encyclicals, could not be surprised either by his speeches in the Holy Land, or the predictable reactions from the power-seeking forces in that region.

Those Catholics who decode and deconstruct his words in search of "betrayal" do so as ideologues reading from their prepared and simplistic scripts. Not as Catholics living a life in the Eucharist and any betrayal they find is theirs, not his.

I certainly think statesmanship on this issue could be improved in the direction of speaking forthrightly and not backing down. But that will certainly not happen anywhere as long as *even conservatives* think of statesmanship as literally incompatible with those qualities.

The Pope does subtly critique Islam every time he mentions the importance of reason in religion or the value of women; the God of Islam is completely transcendent, unknowable and arbitrary, and reason cannot be applied to Him, while the issue of women in Islam is, ahem, fairly obvious. Unsurprisingly, these two themes were major components of his apostolic visits to both Africa and the Holy Land.

The patriots of Christendom have the support of the pope--of that there can be no doubt. Read his books. So Fitzgerald couldn't be more wrong there. That being said, for those Christians and patriots of Christendom who are willing to receive the pope and the Church as their ally, there is much that can be said and done, by way of direct action, writing, political activism, etc, that pope and Church qua human institution simply cannot say and do, especially in these times. All pontiffs have their charisms, their strengths and weaknesses. This pope is the theologian and philosopher that Christendom's patriots have been praying for. Now he's here. Let's take from him what he has to give, which is much, and make up for what is lacking by our own efforts.

As for the above post that I cited, I meant to express precise agreement with it.

Okay, if the consensus is "the Pope cannot say 'Islam is a serious enemy of the West that Western nations should do something about' and not back down," then that just means we have to keep looking for patriot statesmen to stand up and say that themselves, taking it that at a minimum the Pope won't _condemn_ them for such statements.

The force of moral leadership and leadership through speaking truth shouldn't be underestimated.

Indeed. I think Benedict XVI gave it spades, but I suspect his candor caused you discomfort. He rejects your narrative and is unconvinced of the moral purity of Western plans and behavior in the region.

He knows the literacy rates, per capita income, infant mortality rates and all the other social-economic-cultural measurements rendering a harsh judgment on the Islamic states of the Middle East. He knows the intense state rivalries that exist there and the many divergent strands and violent divisions churning amongst the 1 billion believers of Islam across the world. He knows too, a shooting war between civilizations is the reckless province of bloggers and pundits, not the Vicar of Christ.

The patriots of Christendom have the support of the pope--of that there can be no doubt.

Please be specific. This Pope is not a cheerleader for Liberalism in either it's left or right-wing variations and would view some of the comments made on the sites you quotes as pure rubbish.

his candor caused you discomfort.

I take it that what you mean, Kevin, is that I probably disagree with the Pope on some matters concerning Middle East policy, matters on which he has been (since the Regensburg speech) more forthright than the threat of Islam. I do indeed have such disagreements, but it isn't those I've been complaining about. What I would like to see rather is more "candor" in the areas where, I'm told, we heartily agree. If that forthrightness is _incompatible_ with the Holy Father's role, then we shall have to look for the necessary outspoken leadership in that area--specifically, the threat of Islam--elsewhere. That has been my point.

Yes, Akin makes the usual simple parallel--non-Trinitarian theism to non-Trinitarian theism--between Islam and Judaism that I have seen so often elsewhere. I think this is confusing. One could, for example, believe that a deity with the characteristics of Moloch was the one true God (and was not a Trinity)

Lydia. I can't see a Pope making the case that Moloch Worship indicates that its adherents apprehend the one God.

St. Augustine...City of God (Book 8 Chapt 10)

...And, when speaking to the Athenians, after having spoken a mighty thing concerning God, which few are able to understand, In Him we live, and move, and have our being, Acts 17:28 he goes on to say, As certain also of your own have said. He knows well, too, to be on his guard against even these philosophers in their errors. For where it has been said by him, that God has manifested to them by those things which are made His invisible things, that they might be seen by the understanding, there it has also been said that they did not rightly worship God Himself, because they paid divine honors, which are due to Him alone, to other things also to which they ought not to have paid them—because, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God: neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things; Romans 1:21-23 — where the apostle would have us understand him as meaning the Romans, and Greeks, and Egyptians, who gloried in the name of wisdom; but concerning this we will dispute with them afterwards. With respect, however, to that wherein they agree with us we prefer them to all others namely, concerning the one God, the author of this universe, who is not only above every body, being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible— our principle, our light, our good.

Pope Benedict, it seems to me, is right in line with Christian tradition and Catholic practice of identifying the (partial) truths of (others) Islam's worship of God while avoiding what you suggest. (In a few minutes, Ill try to find where Pope Benedict addressing a very similar point- if I can remember where I read it)

Vatican II's Nostra aetate teaches: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.. .

And that is what Islam teaches and believes.

The Second Vatican Council referenced the 1076 A.D. letter of Pope St. Gregory VII written to the Muslim King of Mauritania, Anzir,in which the Pope send him some gifts, sends a delegation as a token of love etc and thanks the King for releasing prisoners and then writes...

..We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways; and praise and worship Him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world... (( The Christian Faith J. Neuner S.J. and J. Dupuis S.J.)

It seems to me that for Pope Benedict to have accepted that invitation to speak there and for him to speak the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches about Islam's (partial) grasp of the truth of the one God is perfectly in keeping with Catholic Orthopraxis.

It is true, however, that what I see as one who was born a Catholic is not what others see and that truth reminds me of why it is so important that any attempt to bring peace to the world must begin with those in dialogue acknowledging the truth in the Faith of others.

then we shall have to look for the necessary outspoken leadership in that area--specifically, the threat of Islam--elsewhere

Lydia, not to overly simplify the Pope's thought, but he sees both Islam and the West in states of deep despair and suffering internal crisises. He is trying to convert both by using means appropriate to their different situations.

I am not sure what else you are expecting, but assume you are praying for a successful conclusion for both.

In that company, the Catholic Church's claim to being the best of a confused lot rests chiefly on the Pope's Regensburg lecture and on hopeful interpretations of his various references to reason (for example) as tacit critiques of Islam.

Lydia. As we Vermonters like to say, "He (the Pope in this instance) knows where the bear crapped in the buckwheat."

Sorry, but I can't remember the source for what is to follow

+++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++++++++++++++

The Pope and the Koran

Islam and Muslims are expected to be a priority for Pope Benedict XVI, but he has been publicly quite muted on these topics during his first nine months in office. One report, however, provides important clues to his current thinking.

Father Joseph D. Fessio, SJ, recounted on the Hugh Hewitt Show the details of a seminar he attended with the pope in September 2005 on Islam. Participants heard about the ideas of Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani-born liberal theologian (1919-88) who held that if Muslims thoroughly reinterpret the Koran, Islam can modernize. He urged a focus on the principles behind Koranic legislation such as jihad, cutting off thieves’ hands, or permitting polygyny, in order to modify these customs to fit today’s needs. When Muslims do this, he concluded, they can prosper and live harmoniously with non-Muslims.

Pope Benedict reacted strongly to this argument. He has been leading such annual seminars since 1977 but always lets others speak first, waiting until the end to comment. But hearing about Fazlur Rahman’s analysis, Fr. Fessio’s recalled with surprise, the pope could not contain himself:

This is the first time I recall where he made an immediate statement. And I’m still struck by it, how powerful it was…[T]he Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that [analysis] because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Muhammad, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Muhammad’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it.

This basic difference, Pope Benedict continued, makes Islam unlike Christianity and Judaism. In the latter two religions, “God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world.” Jews and Christians “can take what’s good” in their traditions and mold it. There is, in other words, “an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.”

++++++++++++++++++ end of quotes +++++++++++++++++++++

If more people had an idea of what this Pope knows and believes about Islam the less would be the level of trepidation.

He is trying to convert both by using means appropriate to their different situations.

He's trying to convert both? To what?

The patriots of Christendom have the support of the pope--of that there can be no doubt.

Please be specific. This Pope is not a cheerleader for Liberalism in either it's left or right-wing variations and would view some of the comments made on the sites you quotes as pure rubbish.

My post was written in rebuke of Fitzgerald and so I certainly didn't mean to imply that Benedict is a Dhimmi Watch dittohead. The Pope is not the "Defender of the West against Islam." He is an advocate for European Christianity and catholic heritage against the vices of the European Enlightenment, the way I read him. And Benedict is a far more circumspect reader of world religions than most, and doesn't have an "Us vs. Them" mentality, like too many on the Left and Right, which is one reason, I suspect, why he is reviled by many on each pole. I didn't mean to put ChrisLA's words in the pope's mouth, but just to point out that he was headed in the right direction. So don't make too much of that.

I am not sure what else you are expecting,

Frankly, Kevin, I wasn't expecting anything else. But I do want somebody or other in an important position to try to be a "Defender of the West against Islam," even at the risk of being labeled a Dhimmi Watch dittohead.

I Am not Spartacus--whether all those statements to the effect that "we all worship the one true God" are true or not depends on the _attributes_ of the God worshiped by Muslims, beyond his merely being one. Beyond, even, his being the creator. Not being a Catholic, I am not obliged to agree with all the statements you quote. Some of them, in fact, go a good deal farther than what B16 said, and that was what I had in mind above when I acknowledged that B16, in this most recent speech, did not say such regrettable things along these lines as I have seen elsewhere (in Catholic contexts, I might have added). In fact, I think the statements you quote elide and ignore important differences in the concept of God between the Judeo-Christian God and Allah, and in the case of lauding Muslims for "submitting to God's inscrutable decrees" go so far as to even make a virtue (on the part of Muslims) out of what should be a place of important disagreement--what some commentators above have referred to as Allah's "arbitrariness" or his being a "voluntarist God."

My understanding of Nostra aetate is that it seeks to affirm what is good in other religions, as Catholics believe that all religions contain elements of the truth but only Catholicism contains the fullness of truth. By my reading, what is being praised in the extract quoted is Muslim adoration of God and faithfulness to what Muslims see as His decrees, not Islam's theological volunteerism. I'll cede to VII experts here, though, as VII is slippery terrain, and, in my view, can lead to much unnecessary mischief. I, for one, will be happy when its "progressive" interpreters enter retirement.

whether all those statements to the effect that "we all worship the one true God" are true or not depends on the _attributes_ of the God worshiped by Muslims, beyond his merely being one. Beyond, even, his being the creator.

Lydia is absolutely right here. There seems to be some confusion that just because you acknowledge Islam is correct to worship one god, you have given too much. It is also correct to acknowledge that they worship a god that is a creator; minus, obviously, the doctrine of the Trinity and other revelation about God's nature, these things are correct attributes on their own, and a viable starting point for whatever room there might be for ecumenism. But by admitting these two things about the Islamic god does not somehow imply that both Christianity and Islam worship the One true God creator of the world.

This point was not lost upon the pope when he said

Here the paths of the world's three great monotheistic religions meet, reminding us what they share in common. Each believes in One God, creator and ruler of all. Each recognizes Abraham as a forefather, a man of faith upon whom God bestowed a special blessing.

I don't think that it is a stretch to consider the omission of the before "One God" as purposeful. In fact, it is precise, considering that the sentence which precedes it indicates that the pope is only trying to indicate things that are in common rather than a rigorous discourse on the differences between the conceptions of God in the three monotheistic religions.

Further, why even have a category "monotheistic" if by simply admitting monotheism admits worship of the One True God?

Err, make that "voluntarism"...

I do want somebody or other in an important position to try to be a "Defender of the West against Islam,"

The West, or what remains of it, just saw its best friend in action this week.

The fact that you can't see that, and can't propose someone able to last a round with Benedict, ought to give you pause and force you to reexamine your own understanding of the crisis we are in.

The West, or what remains of it, just saw its best friend in action this week.

That's all I'm trying to say. We should all know who are friends are.

Brett, yes, that's really part of what I'm trying to get at, and the omission of "the" before "One God" was not lost on me and was one of the reasons I said that the Pope's statement could have been a good deal worse. However, unfortunately, the N.A. quotation _does_ have "the one God," and the letter quoted clearly says "we worship Him," implying beyond all shadow of doubt that it is the same "Him."

I'm not sure what is meant by the statement that all the world's religions contain some truth. Again, we can stretch this very far: demon worship, for example. But even if one were to say, "Monotheism is true and Islam is monotheistic, therefore, to that extent, they understand a truth," one need not say that they worship the _same God_ worshiped by Christians or even in pre-Christian Judaism. One could have a monotheism in which the properties of the god involved were utterly at variance with those of the true God.

So I think Johnny Dollar is probably right in interpretation when he says, "What is being praised in the extract quoted is Muslim adoration of God..." but again, my problem with that is the _assumption_ that we are talking about the adoration of _God_, _the_ God, the _true_ God, as opposed to adoration of a single deity (hence monotheism) whose attributes are severely incompatible with those of the true God (by which I do not simply mean the denial of trinitarianism).

The West, or what remains of it, just saw its best friend in action this week.

"Defender of the West" might have to acquire the past tense on West. If I read Kevin correctly, this is what he denotes by "what remains of it."

If you wonder about what possible "cultural patrimony" can be admired about the middle east, look at this map:

http://www.newsbatch.com/abor-worldlaws.html

Knowing who our friends are also entails knowing what situation we have placed them in. The pope is placed in a position, not solely of defending the West against an encroaching East, but of defending the West against itself. Expecting him to simultaneously recognize the evils in Western countries and hold them up as uninpugnable examples to the rest of the world is unworkable.

We all would like to think defending the policies of the West would be synonymous with the mission of the Church; but this is wholly unrealistic and misguided. Nor, for that matter, is a public speech to a mixed audience in the middle east a natural medium for a discussion of these distinctions.

Byronic,
Sorry for jumping on your comments above, but after Ari invoked Charles Martel, Q took time out from playing the black night at Medieval Times and George R weighed in from his Papal estate in Avignon, I was getting trigger happy.

We all would like to think defending the policies of the West would be synonymous with the mission of the Church; but this is wholly unrealistic and misguided. Nor, for that matter, is a public speech to a mixed audience in the middle east a natural medium for a discussion of these distinctions.

Well done!

I'm not sure what is meant by the statement that all the world's religions contain some truth.

Wow. Then the bit about devil worship. Wow.

Sorry Kevin, your quote was supposed to be boxed.

And, Lydia, I agree with your concerns--as stipulated in your last entry--entirely. I hardly think that Gregory VII forsaw that a thank you note would be put to such unfortunate use so much later. Of course, a pope's writings are not dogmatic, but its use by the council is sadly confusing at best.

Q took time out from playing the black night at Medieval Times and George R weighed in from his Papal estate in Avignon, I was getting trigger happy.

What do the kids say? LOL!

I think holding Johnny accountable for that unfortunate "all" is a bit harsh Lydia ; )

Is the criticism of Benedict evolving from "not a sufficient advocate for the Western way of life", to "he's engaged in syncretism" because of his use of Abrahamic imagery?

Is the criticism of Benedict evolving from "not a sufficient advocate for the Western way of life", to "he's engaged in syncretism" because of his use of Abrahamic imagery?

I don't think it's conscious, but yes. I think the former can be argued consciously, but the latter cannot. Given the current pope and the immense corpus of literature containing his thought, it is very difficult seriously accuse him of syncretism. I the evolution (devolution?) you cite reflects the emotional nature steering alot of these discussions. A sort of grab anything within reach and throw tendency.

it isn't your eyes, there were a couple obvious typos in that last post: difficult to seriously; a lot not alot; and a missing "think" in the last sentence.

Talking on the phone while writing is treacherous.

I the evolution (devolution?) you cite reflects the emotional nature steering alot of these discussions. A sort of grab anything within reach and throw tendency.

Yes, Brett, but the relentless search for theological failings and supine musculature is an indication of something akin to despair gnawing away at some of us.

Bingo

Brett, why should that "all" be unfortunate? ;-)

That "all" was said in the sense that "[anything] which is wholly destitute of the Good can have no place among things that have being" & I'm not particularly ashamed of it, but delving into its implications is getting rather far afield. The "Good" in some things or ideas or even religions might be vanishingly small (in demon worship trickling down to a mere and warped recognition of the spiritual; if I recall St. Augustine had some decent thinks to say about Apuleius), but pure evil is an impossibility.

Johnny, I see you are wholly capable of your own defense!

That "all" was said in the sense that "[anything] which is wholly destitute of the Good can have no place among things that have being" & I'm not particularly ashamed of it, but delving into its implications is getting rather far afield. The "Good" in some things or ideas or even religions might be vanishingly small (in demon worship trickling down to a mere and warped recognition of the spiritual; if I recall St. Augustine had some decent thinks to say about Apuleius), but pure evil is an impossibility.

I stand corrected.

Perhaps the "unfortunate" might be applied to those cheery spirits that say things like "all religions have good in them" but really mean "no religions really have bad in them." This dilution is too often the meaning of that saying; and I suspect this is what led Lydia to bridle at your comment and unfairly drag in the ad absurdum cases.

I have already said times without number that the Pope's statements could have been much worse. I would be bold enough as to say that the stronger N.A. statement, _given_ the actual nature of the God of Islam, _fosters_ syncretism by reflecting a particular set of confusions. I have seen this influence at work directly--for example,in a "women's prayer circle" on one blog where your prayer request would be passed on to any woman who believed in "God" (or "god") and the hostess of the blog refused even to restrict this to a monotheistic god. So one's prayer request might have been passed on to someone who was going to pray to one of the Hindu pantheon, for example. And statements like the one in N.A. were used in defense of this. As I have said (again), the pope's own statement was more carefully worded, yet at the same time it could easily have been (and probably in some sense was) an allusion to the N.A. passage. So, no, I'm not accusing the pope of syncretism, but I am saying that the "we all worship the same God" talk is confused w.r.t. Islam--in many ways--and so is the "Abrahamic faith" talk (most people don't know, for example, that the Muslim version of history is that the Biblical stories of Abraham, etc., are _distortions_ of the truth, Abraham et al having really been Muslims) and confused in a way that can encourage syncretism.

Btw, I believe it was Byronic who mentioned different charisms above. One of the things I have been saying here is that _if_ you argue (as some seem to be doing) that the Pope's charism means that he _cannot_ continue to speak forthrightly about the danger or Islam and that he _must_ express regret if he happens to offend Muslims by a moment of forthright speaking (as at Regensberg), then there is a job opening for someone with a different charism (without these limitations) to help out the West as well as the Pope. Kevin, if I understand him correctly, denies this.

By the way, Johnny Dollar, I hope you would agree that the "good" you have asserted in devil worship is sufficiently attenuated and warped that it would be a very bad idea to write a paragraph in a church document telling all the faithful about how "we want to affirm the truth in devil worship" and how "we share a common sense of the spiritual." You can add, if you wish, any number of horrors and evils to the version of devil worship in question--human sacrifice, forced temple virgins, and the like. In other words, many false religions are sufficiently bad that our response to them should be on the one hand rejection, opposition, and horror and on the other hand evangelism, _not_ interfaith dialogue and an affirmation of the "good in them." I daresay that the N.A. passage would not say what it does about Islam if the authors didn't think there were _very significant overlaps_ between the God of Christianity and the God of Islam, and _much_ good in it, not just some small trickle such as can be asserted of anything that "participates in being." And it is the assumption that, for example, we both worship the one true God and that a significant part of our response to Islam should be "affirmation of the truth in it" as opposed to treating it as a far more distant and dangerous religion, that I challenge. References to the fact that everything participating in being must have some "good" in it are therefore irrelevant to the point at issue.

The world desperately needs this model of reconciliation. I pray that it extends to our Muslim cousins too, so that all the children of Abraham might find peace with one another.

More theological confusion, right Lydia?
http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/eng/rabbi/about_rabbi_eckstein/

The "affirmation of the truth" within Islam has had two very obvious and tangible benefits. The first is the collaboration at the U.N. against the global abortion regime. The second, and is there has not been the grand catastrophe of WWIV.

The same screams of appeasement being lobbed at Benedict now from a handful of bloggers, were directed at Nixon when he went to China. Fear is understandable in a layman living during a time of vast social upheaval, but fatal in a statesman. Benedict is carried forward by hope and is skillfully conducting a dialogue designed to reform both the secular materialist West and Islam. His is the only game in town.

That Muslims are anti-abortion is a good thing in and of itself but has nothing to do with the theological question of whether or not we serve the same God. One can imagine an anti-abortion animist, for example.

Kevin, I am not "screaming." As a matter of fact, I think my remarks here have been carefully worded and qualified, a point that seems to have escaped you. But, yes, I do think that all the talk about "children of Abraham," tends to confirm a Muslim "narrative" (to use a jargon term) which is actually antithetical to the Christian view of history. As I said, I think a lot of people who accept the "Abrahamic faith" way of talking are either naively unaware of Muslim revisionism or else deliberately choose to ignore it, either of which is a dangerous thing.

It rather astonishes me that my carefully worded concerns about theological and historical confusions and about the need for someone with a "charism" to speak openly about the threat of Islam are taken to be so controversial. If that is the result of N.A., so much the worse for N.A., and perhaps it will have to be Protestants who save the West after all. But I should be very sorry to think that. We Christians need to help each other all we can.

Lydia, I hope you don't think we are completely at odds here and I further hope that I can narrow the gap between us with this post. You have a very engaging style of writing that tends towards the punchy. I wish I could match your vigor; looking at the content of what you have said I see many areas of agreement.

First of all, you are right when you say that "References to the fact that everything participating in being must have some "good" in it are therefore irrelevant to the point at issue." I was responding to what I saw as a broader question as to whether or not I would stand by my statement that there is some truth in all religion, and I did say myself that this was getting rather far afield. I do, of course, believe that some truths are so "sufficiently attenuated and warped" as to be "vanishingly small" and not worthy of celebration, certainly not in official Vatican documents. Thankfully, Nostra aetate avoided all references to devil worship, and I commend the Council on this good sense.

I would concur that any dialogue which begins and ends with "here is where we agree, kumbaya" would be pernicious and not worthy of Christian witness, and this is not what I, nor the institutional Church, nor Benedict, advocates. Yes, there are some liberal Catholics who follow this model of ecumenism. They are a scandal.

What I advocate is identifying points of agreement as a first step preparatory to identifying errors, following the model of Paul to the Athenians. It makes good sense in evangelizing to say "here is where you are right" and move on from there, rather than simply shouting "heathens! knaves! fools!"

I have in mind the example of Fr. Bernabe Cobo, who said of the Incas:

"[they] had come to realize there was only one true God and first cause, and though they were somewhat vague on the matter, they adored him as the Creator of all things.

"Not stopping here, the Indians set out to find explanations for the existence of each thing and causes for their origin. Thus they came to understand many of the second causes, which could be seen by their effects. Actually, they made a glaring mistake by believing there was only one Universal Creator of all things... while at the same time worshiping, with equal reverence and with the same ceremonial services and subservience, second causes... the Indians felt obliged to worship second causes the same as the Creator, and this gave rise to an infinite number of idolatries and superstitions. Nevertheless, the fact that they were willing to speculate is a good indication that they were intelligent people..."

Making an effort to understand what people honestly believe, and speaking to them respectfully with a knowledge of their own cultural context and symbolic language, beginning with what they have gotten right, simply makes good sense tactically when evangelizing. We are not called to damn people to hell but to bring them to Christ, and we can be at least as generous as "severe" Spanish missionaries like Fr. Cobo when appealing to lost souls. Again, that's my model, that's the core of Nostra aetate, as murky as I sometimes find it to be, and that is the Church's model: first find common ground, then make the necessary distinctions- but the distinctions must be made. As I said in my first post, this is what Benedict is in fact doing when he makes a point of reason's role in religion and the inherent dignity of women, and he does so in a way consistent with his stature and role. More pungent evangelizing has to come from further down the food chain; Benedict's role is to lay the intellectual groundwork by engaging Islam at a deeper, theological level.

Perhaps Nostra aetate was to generous to Islam. For points of agreement it identifies belief in One merciful self-subsisting God, Creator of all things and all powerful. So far, so good. I agree with you that it is problematic to refer to this God as "the one God". The statement, like much VII'ese, is hazy: do they mean that Allah *is* the One God, the same in all attributes as the God revealed to Christians, or do they mean that Muslims *believe* that Allah is the one God. This is murky, as is bringing in the language about "His inscrutable decrees". Is the God of Islam so distant from God that we must publicly reject Islam's claim to being an Abrahamic faith in official Church documents? Honestly, I don't know enough about Islam to answer that with any authority. Did N. a. really say Allah is the same God? As I said earlier, I find VII to be slippery terrain and it's language to be unnecessarily open to interpretation. Those of us who did not follow the SSPX out of the Church have to make the most of it and fight for an interpretation of the Council consistent with tradition, or else be run over by Aquarianism. Luckily, we have a Pope on our side. Casting me as the grand defender of gooey syncretism and a "liberal" reading of VII is really not fair though, because I am not that. I hope I've narrowed the gap a bit, Lydia.

Johnny,

Now that you've established where you and Lydia agree, I'm waiting for the where you differ phase of evangelization to commence : )

*Sound of logs being thrown on the fire*

That Muslims are anti-abortion is a good thing in and of itself but has nothing to do with the theological question of whether or not we serve the same God. One can imagine an anti-abortion animist, for example.

As if all of the issues that have been dragged into this post only revolve around whether we serve the same God! Now Lydia, the scope can't be expanded and contracted at our convenience.

Is this about all attendant considerations upon any "defender of the west" or just about whether we worship the same God? If it is just the latter, then perhaps we should begin investigating the West and begin drawing distinctions between the gods it worships.

"I think a lot of people who accept the "Abrahamic faith" way of talking are either naively unaware of Muslim revisionism or else deliberately choose to ignore it, either of which is a dangerous thing."

The burden of proof is on you to establish 1) that Moslem religion which accepts both the Old and New Testaments as divine revelation has been revised and 2)that our acknowledgment of Islam's roots is both false and dangerous. You haven't done it yet and please don't direct me to an essay at JihadWatch.

Lydia, you have repeatedly lumped the Moslem world into 1 unified mass with all its adherents ordering their lives around a common mission; the destruction of all infidels. It is funny now to read you developing such a nuanced view of what constitutes an Abrahamic faith. Resorting to animism and devil worship tropes shows how weak your argument is.

You are working off the Cold War template. You want a Reagan to emerge, call Islam an evil empire and then sail to victory. For reasons too painfully obvious to discuss, that template does not apply here.

perhaps it will have to be Protestants who save the West after all

Yeah, elaborate on that one; Hagee, Warren, Graham? Who?

In fact, I think the statements you quote elide and ignore important differences in the concept of God between the Judeo-Christian God and Allah,...

I agree. But, in what I cited, The Catholic Church was not teaching the differences in what we and the Muslims believe about God. It was teaching the similarity in our beliefs.

Obviously, each speech of the Pope can not be a synthesis of systematic theology or it'd be just as boring and even more time consuming than a speech by Castro.

The Pope was invited there as a guest. He spoke kind and true words about the beliefs of his hosts. I think it is a mistake to read much more into it.

I can certainly understand and sympathise with your desire for a
leader of some Western Country to show some moxie vis a vis a resurgent and aggressive Islam but it has to be a leader of a country that is a bit larger than The Holy See and one that has at its disposal a few more soldiers and weapons.

And I also think that if such a leader arises, he must speak to the way we in the West have cultivated,supported, and exploited malign militant factions within Islam with the result that a not insignificant portion of our troubles with Islam result from blowback.

Johnny Dollar, I think I do understand where you are coming from, and I agree that the distance between us isn't all that great. If I were Catholic, how I'd hate VII. :-)

IANS, I appreciate this very much:

I can certainly understand and sympathise with your desire for a leader of some Western Country to show some moxie vis a vis a resurgent and aggressive Islam but it has to be a leader of a country that is a bit larger than The Holy See and one that has at its disposal a few more soldiers and weapons.

One of the things I've found most frustrating in this thread is that Kevin, in particular, has seemed unwilling to say this. It seems that not only must we acknowledge, "Hey, the Pope was there as a guest, he doesn't have to say things all the time" or even "It isn't in his charism to speak out about the danger of Islam," or whatever. It isn't enough to stop criticizing the Pope or asking him to do more. For someone coming from where Kevin is apparently coming from, we must say that *no one* should do what the Pope didn't do, that, in fact, it would be a *bad idea* for anyone else to do it either, that the Pope's approach is the "only game in town," that he is the "greatest defender of the West," and so forth. Now, this is asking a lot. One of my main points has been that defending the Pope's expressions of regret, etc., after Regensburg (for example) in the way that they have been defended *should not* mean that we then conclude that *everyone* has to do the same, that it would be "inviting WWIV" (for example) for the leaders of the Western world to speak the truth openly about the danger of a resurgent Islam and not give any appearance of backing down afterwards.

I'm not sure we'd agree about blowback, but that's all I'll say on that score.

Kevin, I couldn't care less what you think of Jihad Watch. Robert Spencer knows more about Islam than you (or I) ever will, but at least I have the grace to recognize it, while you are a pompous snot about JW, and I'm getting tired of your snottiness on that score. *As it happens*, here is a link

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzYwMDNjZDRiMTRkODUyMTQ1ZWYwMjA4OWI3NjYwMTM=

to an article about "Abrahamic faith" at National Review, rather than JW. I have no doubt it will bounce right off you. There is also useful and instructive material on the subject of Muslim revisionism at JW, as I recall. But given your express desire to be kept ignorant of any information you might gain from that source, I won't waste my time looking it up and providing you with links to it, on the biblical principle articulated in Matthew 7:6.

I find VII to be slippery terrain and it's language to be unnecessarily open to interpretation. Those of us who did not follow the SSPX out of the Church have to make the most of it and fight for an interpretation of the Council consistent with tradition..

Johnny. Not to get too far afield but all Ecumenical Councils have trailed in their wake all manner of schisms, heresies, weird movements, kooks,freaks and oddballs.

Fortunately, all Councils are interpreted within Tradition.

I know a lot of Catholics who pitched toxic fits when the Council taught:

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO ... Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.

and so it is crucial to remember all that The Catholic Church Teaches about those faiths, communities of believers, and movements who do not have the Binds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority, and to try to think about The Catholic Church's Doctrines Sentire cum Ecclesia.

I certainly don't expect those who are not part of the Church to understand all of Catholic Doctrine but I do expect that Protestants are more likely to understand more of it than say, Jews, and certainly more than Muslims, and certainly more than atheists (and those who watch Maury Povich).

So it is true that Salvation came from the Jews, that Protestants are our brothers and Muslims worship one God but to expect that all of this can be explained in a 15 minute speech is silly.

When the Pope speaks to Protestants he does not limn the ways in which they are not even a Church, technically speaking, because they have not preserved Apostolic Succession, The Priesthood, and The Eucharist, but would it make sense for Catholics to demand he undertake that explanation whenever he speaks in front of an audience of Protestants?

No, The Pope emphasies our unity as Christians, belief in the Bible, being disciples of Christ etc etc and tailors his speeches to the audience and circumstances.

Besides, the most effective evangelising can be the way we live and the way the Pope lives and the way he treats others communicates a great love.

Kevin,

Don Juan here. I thought I'd take some time out from my busy preparations in gathering an awesome fleet to destroy the Ottoman hordes off the coast of Greece, to comment on some of your more amusing contributions to the debate. First of all, while we haven't had WWIV yet, don't think that the Iranian bomb won't get us closer. And while I agree it is not the job or duty of B16 to play statesman and urge the Iranians to cooperate with the West, I would think you'd welcome tough actions (increased sanctions, firm support for the Israelis and Lebanonese who want to go after the thugs in Hamas and Hezbollah, maybe even the green light to the Israelis to bomb Natanz, etc.) from our current President when it becomes obvious the Iranians won't cooperate with the current efforts to stop them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I also think you are exactly wrong about the Reagan analogy -- I think Fitzgerald's point and Lydia's point is that we do need Western leaders (perhaps not the Pope) who are willing to stand up and condemn much of what Islam is doing around the globe to its own people, to minorities (especially Christian minorities) that live under its influence, and to the western communities they are attempting to change to conform to their evil ideas about freedom of conscience and speech, honor killings, anti-Semitism, etc. And we have to be willing to back up some of this tought talk with actions, including actions that might kill people. Last time I checked, the Church (and the Pope) haven't made the case for pacifism, have they? Finally, I nominate General Petraeus to lead the new crusade (he seems Protestant to me, but I'm not 100% sure).

But all of this takes this thread far afield (my fault!) from the beautiful truth B16 proclaimed at the Holy Sepulcher. On that, and probably not much else, we can all agree.

Kevin,

One more quick item related to the question of who will stand up for the West. Sometimes I think VDH writes more common-sense commentary than just about anybody working today.

Don Juan,
Happy you checked in. As you probably noticed we don't force Moors to convert at sword-point, or sell captives into slavery anymore. Thanks to technology you never dreamed of though, and a lack of faith that would have broken Pius V's heart, we do worse things without having to see, feel or touch it. What would take months to run up the death toll in your day can be achieved in minutes in ours. I know the saints weep. You're not the only one allowed calling privileges into this area code.

There is so much to I'd like to ask you; what is purgatory like and were all those flings with the ladies worth it, but we can do that offline. Instead, if you get a chance, could you buck-up some of those here who feel abandoned, betrayed and leaderless. Who should they turn to in their hour of need? In their despair they are turning to sources that either have the right diagnosis, but the wrong prognosis, or shout the truth so loud it becomes a lie. These sources have lead some into error and my nation into some Grade A geopolitical blunders. God only knows what's next if they turn to a Geert Wilders-type sans the platinum hair and spandex.

Tell them what turned the tide at Lepanto. They'll listen to you. Please, tell them!

The comment threads need to have numerals affixed to each distinct post, which would allow easy reference in a lengthy thread.

Kevin, could you define for us what constitutes "sin" to a muslim?

Can you explain for us how they determine what is, or is not, a moral act.

And while you're at it, could you explain for us what their understanding is of the Decalogue, which should throw some light on what followers of mohammad actually mean when as you say they accept the divine progeny of both the Old and the New Testament.

You said that islam is not some "unified mass." Well outside of the trivial differences that cropped up via ethnicities, could you explain for us some of the essential and core differences within what to many would appear to be some "unified mass." Sure we know about the clash between Sunni and Shiaa, but beyond that, where are the differences within their main schools of islam.

Lastly, could you point out for us less learned than yourself where there are what could reasonably be termed "moderate" schools of higher education WITHIN greater Arabia, within Persia, within Egypt, within those places of historical import for islam?

We'd appreciate it a great deal.

Thanks.

Oh and Kevin, you asked LYDIA not to link you to an essay over at Jihadwatch.

Well, I took the time to send that guy over at Jihadwatch an email. I mentioned that a little "dialogue" was going on over here that was comparing and contrasting various aspects of the great "Abrahamic faiths."

Now I don't know if he's going to stop by or not. God knows he's a busy guy, what with his endless research, his keeping abreast of what's going on within each of the handful of main islamic schools of theology, his constant monitoring of what's going on throughout islam by reading their blogs, their newspapers, {all of which he can do in Arabic of course...}. So to be sure he's a real busy guy, and of course he's constantly working on some book or other that many have real problems answering.

But maybe he'll come over.

I'm sure you're real eager to make his acquaintance. And I'm sure that he'll be eager to hear your views on islam. He's always eager to be disabused of something he's mistaken about.

So I'm sure you'll be capable of clarifying many issues about islam for him.

All of us will look forward to that.

Q
Excellent! Let's go to the original source for the" Pope betrayed us, Islam is not an Abrahimic faith and he was wrong to say so, and Moslems are a monochromatic mass with few major meaningful strains or diverging interests discourse that has come to a head here.
And while were at it, I can ask your stand-in what he thinks of two recent developments in 2 of the largest countries in the world that contradict the "war without end" meme that keyboard krusaders like yourself have been pounding out with the faux bravado peculiar to those who never see the battles they so tirelessly advocate from their desktops.

Kevin,

Sorry, I can't offer to "stand in" for Robert Spencer, for the simple reason I haven't gone over nearly a fraction of the material that he has.

I don't speak Arabic, which means I haven't, as he has, read the material in its original language.

I don't have complete command of the Koran, the Haddiths, the Sunna, and other sources, all of which he does.

Nor is my understanding of the life of the founder as complete as his, which is comprehensive, for Spencer knows mohammad's tale, and knows it from all of his main and accepted biographers.

And Kevin,

we're still waiting for your answer to my questions from three posts back, beginning with "what constitutes a "sin" for muslims? So if you could begin there, we'd all much appreciate it.

And unlike him, I'm not completely up to speed on the handful of islamic schools of theology.

"Sometimes I think VDH writes more common-sense commentary than just about anybody working today."

Personally, I'm a Srdja Trifkovic fan. He manages to be anti-jihad without being a global expansionist.

I want all of you to consider for a moment the Churches mentioned in the final book of the New Testament. Not a single one of those Churches mentioned now exists. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE Churches was completely crushed by the dark forces of islam.

Watch the video here:
Crisis in the Holy Land

Unfortunately, there are those Christians who would rather turn their backs on these ancient (original) Christians whose generations go back to the very early churches founded by St. Paul & St. Peter.

The worse part about this is that only a few Protestants (such as the Lutheran minister in the video) are aware of the plight of these Holy Land Christians; most Protestants would rather see their ruin and total demise than for the people of Israel to give them any state comfort less they surrender to wicked Palestinians.

Have Christians become so ignorant of their history, have they actually surrendered themselves to that God-awful nihilistic enterprise of the modernists, that they would consign to oblivion even these ancient Christians who, more than any of us, are more deserving of the name as their very lineage goes all the way back to the original Christian churches founded by St. Paul & St. Peter?

Are we so wont to destroy that ancient Christian heritage (and, in particular, a people almost as ancient) that forms an integral part of our patrimony?

And Kevin, --------- who are you referencing to when writing "Let's go to the original source...."

I hope you're not attributing such to me, and that doesn't remotely correlate to what Spencer has written.

Aristocles,

I was referring to those Churches listed in Chapters 2 and 3, Revelation. They are in order of mention Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. I wasn't referring to those within the Holy Land per se, though as your video makes clear, they too are on the brink of extinction.

I'm not one of those still supposedly "protesting" Rome.

My point in the quote you noted was to call attention to Churches, great Churches, that no longer exist as vibrant communities.

Seems some that supposedly share that great "Abrahamic" legacy are driving out Christians from Turkey, from Lebanon and of course from the West Bank.

Spencer's own family knows something about being driven out.

But we're still waiting on Kevin to respond to some substantive questions.

He wants to compare and contrast, ----------------- let's compare and contrast. I asked him some questions that cut to the essentials. He shouldn't have much of a problem with a creature like me, one he deemed, what was it again ... a "keyboard krusader."

Q:

The fact of the matter being that if the Pope were to adopt a somewhat pugnacious tone in his speech, he would most undoubtedly endanger the well-being of the remaining Christians in those Mulsim regions.

You might not yourself care for those Christians -- but I do!

They are so intimately connected with the original Christians of the past that they still even speak and celebrate the Mass in Aramaic!

Nihilistic Christians as yourselves should know better than to consign these already severely oppressed brothers and sisters of ours and their families to an Islamic Hell!

"Personally, I'm a Srdja Trifkovic fan. He manages to be anti-jihad without being a global expansionist."

Agreed, Rob G.

When VDH is good, he's very, very good. But when he is bad, he's horrid.

Trifkovic, in my experience, and to the extent that I'm able to judge, is just about always first rate.

Ari,
In Q’s defense, he is not a nihilist, far from it. He is an entertaining, if somewhat erratic romanticist. Here he is gallantly reprising the role of Adam Wayne in Chesterton’s classic The Napoleon of Notting Hill;

Yet some call for "nuance," "subtlety" and diplomatic engagement. Can you for half a second place yourselves in their shoes, can you for half a second see yourself upon the walls of Constantinople, can any of you see yourselves with the Poles, lances at rest, heading for the Turk?

Unfortunately, the florid “man the parapets you putrid poltroons” prose comes at an expense.

He pirouettes too quickly for his audience to follow the performance. After several days of debating the Pope’s alleged betrayal(made at JW)that occurred when he appealed to the Moslems limited but common biblical heritage with Christianity,(and not the all too many profound and obvious differences between the two faiths), Q gracefully, yet unexpectedly adds an odd flourish with;

I hope you're not attributing such to me, and that doesn't remotely correlate to what Spencer has written.

His ad-libs conflict with the script;
“Well outside of the trivial differences that cropped up via ethnicities, could you explain for us some of the essential and core differences within what to many would appear to be some "unified mass."

When his playwright, Robert Spencer would have said; “Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence... "there are some who are genuinely trying to frame a theory and practice of Islam that will allow for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals…"

However, his biggest on-stage failing is his sense of timing. He doesn’t save the best for last. Instead, he begins with a crescendo, as this show-stopper attests:

Good God, what a want for imagination, what a lack of sympathy, what a species of self-hate.

In spite of it all, I will form a cue for the artist known as Q and renew my season tickets.

I think Fitzgerald's point and Lydia's point is that we do need Western leaders (perhaps not the Pope) who are willing to stand up and condemn much of what Islam is doing around the globe to its own people, to minorities (especially Christian minorities) that live under its influence, and to the western communities they are attempting to change to conform to their evil ideas about freedom of conscience and speech, honor killings, anti-Semitism, etc. And we have to be willing to back up some of this tought talk with actions, including actions that might kill people.

Jeff,
Shouldn't we consult the Christians there before we attempt a military rollback of Islam? Look at the tragedy that befell the Iraq Christian community post-liberation from Saddam and the plight Lebanese Christians after the Israeli assault in Beirut.

Can you find any who Bishops, clergy or laymen on the ground who supported either action in advance or anyone who would not claim their fate is far worse now?
The common reaction is; like theswith friends e.

EDIT
The common reaction is; with friends like these.

(No, I was not writing in Arabic)

Aristocles,

who called for the Pope to display "pugnacity?"

Not me. I would prefer to see more of a display of authority; I personally would like for him to revisit that theme he began to hit upon at Regensburg, but that doesn't mean I'm looking for him to cock-a-snook and affect "pugnaciousness."

Nor did I suggest I didn't "care" for those few Christians in the Holy Land that are left.

Kevin, I haven't posted anything over at Jihadwatch. If someone over there somewhat resembles me, ----- that might be the case, but it's not me. Now I saw in the thread that Fitzgerald and Jihadwatch were mentioned. So I sent Robert Spencer an email inviting him to check out the thread, and join in.

So far he hasn't joined in.

Surely you can have no objection if Spencer cared to join in. Isn't in a robust collision that truth often emerges?

Now I'm not unacquainted with Chesterton, and I've read several of his works, but the work you mentioned is not one I've perused.

If you're not interested in responding to my questions about islam, ----- that's up to you, nobody is going to waterboard you over it. But the answers to those questions need to inform any judgement on the issue at bar.

Oh, and the maneuver in question is not properly described as a "pirouette," rather it was all a pre-calculated high-G barrel roll.

Q
Spencer is more than welcome. Love to hear his thoughts on B16's trip last week and whether he agrees with the assertion made by his colleague(s)that a papal betrayal had occurred.

That the House of Islam is a house divided is beyond dispute.I see no point of enduring another session on its theologies and the titilation that comes with a discussion of their verion of the afterlife. Is that all you theater types think about?

Failure to read Chesterton's Notting Hill will reduce you to shuttling between the lounges of Vegas and Dubai. Get with it.
A high-g barrel-roll? Glad I wasn't in the front row.

"That's because there is no necessity for minute examination; the 'betrayals' and 'failures' just jump out and grab you by the throat."

Such as the one frequently featured on The Man Formerly Known as Zippy's own set of Interesting Quotes You Might Not See Elsewhere:

"From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies -- and, I might almost say, in customs -- than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us -- or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Furthermore, which of our monks, be it a Carthusian (they who wish to appear the best) or a Benedictine, is not put to shame by the miraculous and wondrous abstinence and discipline among their religious? Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ for Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously. I sincerely believe that no papist, monk, or cleric or their equal in faith would be able to remain in their faith if they should spend three days among the Turks. Here I mean those who seriously desire the faith of the pope and who are the best among them."

-- Martin Luther, preface to the Tract on the Religions and Customs of the Turks, published in 1530.

It seems I missed a lot today.

Q's initial comments made me look over my shoulder for the Cosa Nostra.

Kevin summoned the blessed soul of Adam Wayne (and how proper a champion, that man who was only half a man; while some men cannot see the forest for the trees, his malady was reversed. He could not see individual men, for the image of God was before his eyes).

I think Kevin has something of Wayne in him. I think a lot of the writers on this blog have the spirit of Wayne in them. I don't quite pin Q for Auberon Quinn though.

And Ari dusted off one hell of a quote. A real zinger that

Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display.

Luther, if that's the way you felt...No need to have gone schismatic over Christ.

Of course, all of this is by the bye, the thread has settled into that sedentary hour; the minds have been made up and we should wait to meet another day.

Just dropped in to pass along this alarming article: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1338480?eng=y

"Eurabia Has A Capital: Rotterdam

Here entire neighborhoods look like the Middle East, women walk around veiled, the mayor is a Muslim, sharia law is applied in the courts and the theaters. An extensive report from the most Islamized city in Europe"

Side note to IANS:

All that you say is true, but we must be honest about things as they are: the reason Benedict must talk so frequently about "the hermenuetic of continuity" is that VII is muddy enough to make a decent case for a "hermenuetic of rupture". If we are not on our guard history will judge *us* the schismatics, heretics, kooks and oddballs. The advocates of Futurechurch are more numerous and better placed than many Catholics are willing to admit.

Rotterdam. What's in a name?
Nature- abhors- a- Vacuumville just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Young Josef Ratzinger was part of the ressourecment school that called for the Council. He knows it from the inside-out and is being led by the Spirit. Everytime you reach for an air-sickness bag remember: the first hundred years after every Council are always the hardest.

Brett,

Luther, if that's the way you felt...No need to have gone schismatic over Christ.

I'm sure you're well aware of the distinction between schism & heresy, no?

Besides, such a topic is hardly something to be discussed at an ecumenical blog less we rudely offend our separated brethren.

Mr. Cella has graciously extended to Rome a very kind tribute; let's not offend our courteous host as a token of our appreciation.

Ari,

Point graciously taken. That comment was misplaced, and it lacks the charity deserved by the moderators of this site.

Given the foregoing discussion, there is an apposite allegory in this incident: as a guest, someone else's stage isn't the place for all of your thoughts.