Great Moments in Interreligious Dialogue: St. Fernando III

July 25th is the feast of Santiago Matamoros, "St. James the Moor-Slayer", the patron saint of Spain. In honor of St. James - and calling to mind a former day and time when men of God had not yet started down the desolate path of "dialogue" with Islam - we bring you this marvelous little passage from the life of St. Fernando III.

Fernando III (r. 1217-1252), King of Castile and later of Leon and Galicia, won back more territory from the Moors than any other Spanish monarch of the Reconquista. In the passage quoted below, St. Fernando is speaking to his mother, Queen Berenguera, about his desire to make war on the Moors. This decision, which St. Fernando formulated around Pentecost, 1224, Fernando said was "revealed by almighty God." This inspiration would lead to the campaign that would almost entirely conquer Andalusia from the Moors. St. Fernando told his mother:

"Most beloved mother and sweet lady: Of what benefit to me is the kingdom of Castile, which, though due to you by right, your generosity abdicated and granted to me; of what benefit to me is the most noble consort [Princess Beatrice of Swabia] brought from distant lands through your solicitude and labor and joined to me in marriage with indescribable honor; of what benefit to me is it that you anticipate my desires with maternal sweetness, and before I have fully conceived them, you bring them to most brilliant effect: if I am dulled by laziness, if the flower of my youth is fading away without fruit, if the light of royal glory, which already had begun to shine like certain rays, is being extinguished and annihilated? Behold, the time is revealed by almighty God, in which, unless I want to pretend otherwise like a weak and deficient man, I am able to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom kings reign, against the enemies of the Christian faith, to the honor and glory of His name. The door is open indeed and the way is clear. Peace has been restored to us in our kingdom; discord and deadly enmities exist among the Moors; factions and quarrels have broken out anew. Christ, God and Man, is on our side; on that of the Moors , the infidel and damned apostate Muhammad. What more is there to say? Most kind mother, from whom, after God, I hold whatever I have, I beg that it may please you that I wage war against the Moors" [1].

A great moment in interreligious dialogue indeed! St. Fernando was under no illusion of how to deal with the threat of Islam. And he had greater success against the Moors than any modern democratic nation-builder. Were another great leader to arise who, like St. Fernando, was zealous for the glory of God and the kingdom of Christ, who knows what future victories God might grant?

For more on St. Fernando III, we recommend St. Fernando III: A Kingdom for Christ by James Fitzhenry, available for purchase here.

Also related: Our very non-PC Santiago Matamoros T-Shirt, available in the Cruachan Hill webstore.

Santiago Matamoros, ora pro nobis!

Sancte Fernando, ora pro nobis!
______________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Joseph F. O'Callaghan, The Latin Chronicle of the Kings of Castile (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies: Tempe, AZ, 2002), pg. 88

More Quran burning stupidity

I had originally decided to keep my mouth shut on the Quran burning controversy until I came across an articel by Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington entitled "Burning the Quran is a Bad Idea and a Sin", which you can read here.

I can certainly understand arguments to the effect that burning Qurans publicly might be a bad idea in the sense that it could lead to violent backlashes against Americans abroad. I don't necessarily agree with this argument, but I can at least understand it. My thinking is that if a huge group of people is going to be riled up to commit murder and terrorism because their holy book was burned, then this only demonstrates the degree to which they have a problem. It is the same stupid argument from Regensburg: the Pope says Islam is violent and Muslims react violently against the accusation - and it is the Pope who has a problem with intolerance!

But to say that burning the Quran is a sin? A sin, really? On what grounds does Msgr. Pope suggest that burning the Quran may be "sinful'? On the grounds that, to quote his article, "Intentionally giving offense is wrong – I do not deny that there are problems in the Islamic world. But I also know that it is wrong to intentionally and grievously give offense to the religious traditions of others." So it is wrong to intentionally give offense to the religious traditions of others, according to Msgr. Pope.

This is troublesome to me because it seems that the entire religious tradition of Christianity is one that offends and gives scandal to those of other faiths; St. Peter calls Christ a "rock of offense" and a "stone of stumbling" (1 Pet. 2:8). How can we avoid giving offense to other religious traditions if we preach the Gospel message that Christ is the only way to salvation, that "there is no under name under heaven given whereby men might be saved? (Acts 4:12). How can Muslims, Buddhists and all the other pagans not be offended if we really believe and teach the words of Christ, Who said, "Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 1:10); yes, this means that Christians believe that you Muslims and Hindus, if you are trying to attain salvation in any other manner other than through Christ and His Church, you are a "thief and a robber" and your holy men are nothing other than false prophets. 

In short, Christianity, by its exclusivity and its demand of universal allegiance, puts itself into a state of permanent antagonism with the world and with the false religions of the world, notwithstanding whatever John XXIII might have personally thought on the matter. We have it from the words of Sacred Scripture and of our Divine Saviour: 

Wonder not, brethren, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:13)

If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. (John 15:18-19)

Know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world becometh an enemy of God. (James 4:4)

The Church is in a state of emnity with the world, and the world with it. Therefore, it is inescapable that the Truth will be offensive to the world. Now, I know that saying that the message of the Gospel will give offense if different from the offense giving from a Quran burning. Granted. But the question we are looking at it whether or not it is a sin to give offense, regardless of what the offense is over. Clearly, since Christianity's very existence presumes that offense will be given to the religions of non-believers, we cannot maintain that it is always a sin to offend people. We also must acknowledge that the default relation between the Church and the world is one of antagonism and enmity; in fact, it is a life or death struggle. It is not one of harmonious relation and mutual enrichment; when the world creeps in, the Church weakens and vice versa. 

So it is not wrong to give offense, especially if the offense has to do with the Truth of the Gospel. But what about Msgr. Pope's assertiont hat giving offense to the religious traditions of others in particular is wrong? I guess someone better tell that to Gideon when he smashed the altar of Baal, to the offense and consternation of his neighbors (see here); somebody had better chastize King Jehu for slaying the worshipers of Baal and turning their temple into a latrine; I guess Elijah the prophet was wrong to intentionally mock and tease the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, insulting their false god for being unable to answer their prayers. What of St. Boniface's intolerant destruction of the sacred tree of the Germans? What of St. Benedict, who destroyed a pagan temple to Apollo that was still being frequented by worshipers of the heathen god? Shall we say the founder of western monasticism was committing a sin to so offend the followers of Apollo by destroying their shrine? Or shall we accuse Pope St. Gregory the Great of intolerance and sin when he commands Augustine to destroy the idols of the pagan Angli, though allowing him to retain the structure (here)? What of the greatest of all the missionary saints, holy Patrick of Ireland, who smashed the great idol of Crom Dubh with a hammer and destroyed the shrine of the demon, to the anger of the Irish pagans? Surely Patrick would not have acted so hastily if he would have had the benefit of reading some of our post-Conciliar literature! Well, you get the point; throughout Church history there are so many examples of saints and holy persons destroying the temples and idols of the heathens, even to their great offense, that we could say that the consensus of tradition outweighs the words of Msgr. Pope, unless the Monsignor will assert that Gideon, Elijah, Jehu, Boniface, Gregory, Patrick Benedict and all the saints acted sinfully and errantly in "intentionally giving offense to the religious traditions" of the pagans by destroying their shrines and idols.

Even book burning specifically has been given at least implicit sanction by the Scriptures and explicit sanction by the papacy. If we look to the book of Acts, we read the following:

And many of them that believed came, confessing and declaring their deeds. And many of them who had followed curious arts brought together their books and burnt them before all. And, counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and was confirmed. (Acts 19:18-20).

The message here is that some "religious texts" are worthy only to be burned. Somebody might object that here, it was not Christians burning the books of another religious group but rather converts burning their own books. I don't see this makes much of a difference; would the Islamic world be any less upset if Pastor Jones had been a Christian convert from Islam?

Furthermore, if burning the books of other religious groups were always bad, how could Pope St. Pius X command that Protestant Bibles be burned? In the Catechism of St. Pius X, we see the following articles:

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?

A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

Note that the reason St. Pius X approves the burning of Protestant Bibles is because they contain things that may be 'harmful tot he Faith." If this applies to a Protestant edition of the Sacred Scriptures, how much more would it apply to the Quran?

Msgr. Pope goes on to say that burning the Quran is a scandal because it will lead others to sin, meaning the Muslims, who will be so aroused to anger by the Quran burning that they will commit the sin of anger. Notice, however, that like the liberal media, Msgr. Pope places all the blame for the potential Muslim backlash not on Muslims, but on Pastor Jones. He says:

"Knowing that there are violent tendencies in sectors of Islam, it is wrong to inflame those tendencies and draw others to anger and violence. In effect Pastor Jones is tempting others to sin. He may have a right to do this but it is not necessary for him to do this. This compounds the sinfulness of the planned book burning. It is also wrong to endanger the lives of others by reckless behavior. It is a strong likelihood that hundreds, possibly thousands may die if rioting occurs. It is easy for us to say, “Well they shouldn’t get so worked up about it….see the problem is theirs.”  That is a debate for another time. But this action is sure to inflame passions."

How absurd! He admits freely that "thousands may die" in Islamic rioting, but if we question whether this may perhaps be a problem not with Pastor Jones but with Islam, Msgr. Pope brushes us aside by saying "That is a debate for another time." That's right! If Muslims threaten to riot and slay thousands, it is our problem, not theirs. We need to be more sensitive.

But let's go back to this issue of scandal. St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that scandal consists not simply in leading one to sin, but in "something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall" (STh II-II, Q. 43 Art. 1). Burning the Quran is a way of declaring that the book is full of falsehoods and is not worthy of the prestige Muslims assign to it, which is the truth. This is what Muslims need to hear; remember, these false religions are leading souls to hell daily and we have a duty to tell them the truth, even if that truth gives offense regarding their false religion. If anything, it would be scandalous to allow Muslims to go ahead believing that their book is full of valuable spiritual insights when in reality it is a Satanic deception. I would say that to not destroy the Quran when one has the means is scandalous.

We should also remember that scandal means one if led to spiritual ruin by the sin of another. So, to say that scandal occurs when our behavior leads another to sin is only a half-truth. Properly speaking, the sin of scandal occurs only when our sin leads another to sin. St. Thomas tells us that scandal can be of two kinds: active or passive. Active scandal occurs when one's sin leads another to sin. But passive scandal occurs when one is scandalized and led into sin by something other than sin. St. Thomas says that this can even occur with regards to a good deed:

Scandal is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly passive scandal is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succumbs to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin. Yet there can be passive scandal, without sin on the part of the person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as for instance, when a person is scandalized at another's good deed. In like manner active scandal is always a sin in the person who gives scandal, since either what he does is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it should always be left undone out of that love for our neighbor which binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbor's spiritual welfare; so that if he persist in doing it he acts against charity (STh, II-II. Q. 43. Art. 2).

St. Thomas recognizes here that though sin may certainly scandalize (active scandal), it is possible for another to be scandalized and led into sin by something that is not sinful; Thomas gives the example of a good deed. In such a case (passive scandal), Thomas says that the one who causes the scandal is not guilty of the sin of scandal since the scandalizing action was not immoral. So, when the men of Gideon's village were outraged at him for destroying the idol of Baal, so angry that they wanted to kill him, it was not Gideon who was guilty of giving scandal but the Baal worshipers who were guilty of being scandalized by the truth.

If it is not objectively wrong to destroy Qurans (and based on what we have reviewed above from the Scriptures, the lives of the saints and the words of Pius X, there is no way it could be), then we must conclude that the ire aroused by the destruction of these books cannot be imputed to those Christians who burn them, but only to those Muslims who react hostilely to the burning of their false scriptures. I would go so far as to say that burning Qurans is a prudent thing to do (since the book is full of lies and blasphemies and leads souls to damnation) and that those Muslims who are angered at the burning of their book are actually guilty of sin.

We have to lose this softness of paganism and false religions: these religious systems hold people in spiritual (and sometimes political) bondage. They lead souls to hell. Mohammed is a false prophet, and to the degree that Mohammed was inspired he was inspired by a demon to mock and ape the true Faith. Am I saying we all need to go out and burn Qurans? That's up to you; if some fell into my hands I would probably destroy them, just like I do when I get a hold of a Book of Mormon or a New Kingdom version of the Bible (the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible). But let's not get all outraged with the liberal media about a Pastor who rightfully wants to make a stand against Islam, saying stupid things like Quran burning is a "sin." The Quran is an evil book and doesn't deserve respect. Period.

Please click here for Athanasius' post on the same subject.

Rabbi pressures Pope to deny Jesus

The Pope's tour to the Holy Land has come under intense scrutiny, partially for things he has said and partially for things he has failed to say. Most recently he was fiercely criticized by Israeli Jews who came to hear him speak at teh Yad Vashem memorial for failing to apologize for the Holocaust. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said:

"I came to the memorial not only to hear historical descriptions or about the established fact of the Holocaust. I came as a Jew, hoping to hear an apology and a request for forgiveness from those who caused our tragedy, and among them, the Germans and the church. But to my sadness, I did not hear any such thing...everything that we feared came to fruition" (source).
This last sentence is particularly absurd.

At any rate, this demonstrates the fact that in Jewish-Catholic relations, the Jewish side does not really care about what the pope says, or what his message is, or building true understanding between faiths. They simply care about prying an apology out of the pope, and if this can be done, than everything he else he says can be let slide; but if he doesn't apologize, then nothing else he says matters. If you read the article quoted above, you will see that all the Jews who attended the pope's talk did so for the explicit fact that they "expected an apology." The same holds true for the Muslim leaders meeting with the Pope, who were all incensed that he didn't offer an apology for his Regensburg remarks (source).

The Pope certainly has nothing to apologize for on the part of the Church - the quote above is outrageous. It is one thing to say that certain segments of the Church perhaps could have done more to stop the Nazis. Maybe I'd entertain that - but to say that the Church "caused our tragedy," as the Knesset speaker said? That is ludicrous. The Church had no direct or indirect part in causing the Holocaust. Nor can he really apologize as a German, since the Germans have pretty much rejected him as somebody who can speak for the nation. Is every German born person until the end of time going to be pressured to issue all sorts of apologies for the Holocaust?

We have to draw a distinction here: we are rightfully upset if someone expresses anti-Semitism, or denies that the Holocaust happened or similar things. But to see so many people get outraged because, to quote another article, the Pope "failed to express enough remorse for the Holocaust" is stupid (source). Since when is "failing to express enough remorse" a crime, and besides, who judges when someone has "expressed enough remorse"? What is the definition of "enough remorse"? Another Jewish columnist described the Pope as "restrained, almost cold" (source). What does that matter? Is the way a journalist interprets the demeanor of the pontiff any grounds for wild accusations? That's almost as absurd as the Medjugorje enthusiasts claiming JPII approved their apparitions because he smiled at a banner (see here).

Equally shocking is the recent request by a Rabbi that the Pope explicitly declare that Jews do not need to accept Jesus to be saved. Dr. Deborah Weissman, co-chairwoman of some interreligious dialogue council, expressed regret that the Pope's statements on theological issues were still a bit "ambivalent" and stated:

"The pope still had not made it absolutely clear that Jews did not need to embrace the belief that Jesus was the messiah to be redeemed."
The Rabbi mentioned above cited, of course, Nostra Aetete to the fact that Jews need not accept Jesus and called on Benedict to make this declaration more specific (source).

This, of course, would be nothing other than a denial of Jesus Christ, pure and simple. Am I being too extreme here? I think not. It was Christ Himself who said (listen carefully, Dr. Weissman) that "nobody comes to the Father except through Me" and "anyone who comes in any other way is a robber and a thief."

This is what interreligious dialogue comes to: it is nothing other than a collective attempt by the other religions of the world to force the Catholic Church to institutionally apostasize by declaring error to be truth and truth to be error and is demonic in origin. Look at the tremendous pressue the Holy Father is under to deny that all persons are in need of Christ! I wish he'd stand up in front of them all and say, "Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!" Would that damage relations with Muslims and Jews? Well, they're not that great right now, despite all the egg-shell walking and pussyfooting around the issues. Why not just say what the Church has always said and let the Jews and Muslims deal with it? As I've mentioned before, we don't need any "alliance" with the other monotheistic religions against secularism. As far as I'm concerned (and I think Scripture and Tradition bears this out), when it comes to the Church against the world it is sola ecclesia; we don't ally with Pagan X so we can better defend against Athiest Y. That was the mistake of Israel: thinking they had to ally with Egypt and Syria against Babylon and Persia.

As was the case then, so it is now: the Church's monotheistic "allies" don't care about preserving the Church - they care about weakening it and compelling it to deny its perennial teaching. One rabbi recently called for the establishment of a "UN of religions"; wouldn't that be great! (source) All the ineptitude of the United Nations mixed with the theological muddiness and stupidity of the worst of the interreligious dialogue movement.

Pray for the Holy Father, for he is under pressure by enemies within and without to publicly deny Christ, which any assertion that Jews don't need Jesus would indeed be. I wish the Pope would come to the Holy Land someday and just totally ignore all the other religions there - I wish he'd just visit Bethlehem, the Cenacle, the different Christian sites, give addresses to only Christians and then just blow off the rest of them. Meeting with these other leaders of different religions has become too compromising, and they are only out for blood - chomping at the bit just waiting for the Pope to "apologize" for something and then raging when he doesn't.

Please Holy Father, stop going on these trips. It is too difficult to watch.

Critique of Obsession

Like many other Catholics I have talked to, I recently received a complimentary copy of the DVD Obsession: Islam's Radica; War Against the West in the mail from the Clarion Fund. For the most part this DVD was very good - it had some great eye-opening scenes of radical Muslim clerics inticing their followers to become suicide bombers and of children in Muslim schools being taught hatred for Jews and Christians. It also showed the duplicity of certain Muslim spokemen is claiming to be moderate and pluralistic in public while privately holding violent anti-Western views. This is an example of the practice of al-Taqiyya, or lying to the infidel, and the video catches some Muslim cleric right in the act. Most of those who read this blog already know this stuff, but it was refreshing (and chilling) to see it again in this video.

However, I have to take this DVD to task for an assumption that lays beneath much of what it exposes about Islam. It presents the radical jihadists in their native element and shows how dangerous they are, and then gives the viewer several warnings about radical Islam's desire for world domination. We are rightfully supposed to be concerned about the desire of jihadist Islam to dominate the world, but what is it about their intended domination that we object to and what does it say about our own beliefs when we object to it?

For the conservative, pop-Catholic, neo-conservative mentality, the desire of radical Islam for world conquest is one of the most offensive things about Islam. When they look at radical Islam, they say, "Isn't that terrible! Those people want the whole earth to convert to their religion and they won't stop at anything until they rule the world!" Too often I think we just nod our heads and say, "Yeah, that's awful."

But what are we objecting to? Is it the principle of one religion dominating the world? Or is it a question about the nature of the religion that wants to dominate the world? I would argue that as Catholics, we cannot object to the concept of a religion wanting to dominate the world. This is the objective of the Catholic Church in the end, after all. This very weekend at my parish one of the general intercessions was , "That the entire human race may be converted to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Gospel spread to the ends of the earth." How can we say "Lord, hear our prayer," to a petition like that and then huff and puff when Islam says it wants to take over the world?

Well of course, the nature of Islam's dominance and the type of dominance that the Church desires are entirely different - one is based on submission and one on charity. But the idea is similar: each religion is evangelistic, believes it is the only true faith, and sees its mission as to convert the entire world. Let's be clear about this: Catholicism is a religion that seeks world domination. But it is a domination based on the proclamation of the Good News, the movement of grace, and the free joining of peoples into the Kingdom of Christ, a kingdom which is built on charity and is not of this world.

When neo-cons object to Islam on the basis that it wants to dominate the world, what they are really saying in effect is that religious pluralism is the ideal state of affairs, something no person who loves the Lord Jesus could say. Christ said to preach the Gospel to all men, to the very ends of the earth, and promised through the Spirit that in the end "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Php. 2:8-10). But the neo-con ideal is a world in which different religions coexist and no one is put forward as being more right than any other, because after all, religion is a private affair.

Catholics need to be aware that this is what we are implying whenever we take issue with Islam's desire to dominate. Instead, we ought to say, "Yes, it is horrible to think about that religion dominating the world, but let us pray instead that Christ's Kingdom is established to the ends of the earth." Our issue should be not with Islam's will to dominate, but with the type of domination Islam proposes and the nature of the religion of Islam.

It is tempting to simply accept religious pluralism as the ideal just because that is what we have in America - this is an ideal that was condemned as "Americanism" by Leo XIII in the bull Longinqua, where he stated:

"[I]t would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced." (Longinqua, 6)

So, when we approach the question of Islam, do we take it for granted that our own state of affairs here in the normative one? If so, we are in for failure. A pluralistic society has never managed to stand up to the assault of a culture that demands total religious conformity. In opposing Islam, we have to take as our fixed point not the religious status quo of America, as Sean Hannity would have us believe, but the perennial vision of the Church: a vision that culminates in the establishment of the kingdom to the uttermost ends of the earth.

So, Obsession is a pretty good video. But don't be lulled into taking the default position that it seems to adopt. It also tries to show how only some Muslims are violent and that the peaceful Muslims are the "real" Muslims. Well, whatever. It certainly makes it more easy to convert them if they are peaceful, but conversion is the end goal. Let's not forget that!

Here's an earlier article I wrote on this same topic and an explanation of the Muslim "duty" to lie in the cause of religion.

"Thank you" to Muslims?

Cardinal Tauran has "thanked" Islam for bringing God back into the mind of European culture. Most of what he says in this particular article (which you can read HERE) is more of the same interreligious dialogue stuff we've heard before, but he uses some interesting words. For example, when talking about the need to open communication with other faiths, he says that all relgions are "condemned to dialogue." Condemned? I'm not sure what he was getting at here, but the Reuters article connects the statement with a recent statement by the Pope in which the Holy Father said that interreligious dialogue had to presuppose the possibility that one side is ultimately convinced by the other, which for me personally has been the elephant in the living room in the whole interreligious dialogue issue. But I don't understand the Cardinal's point about religions being condemned to religious dialogue, unless he is addressing the anguish that orthodox Catholics endure when "condemned" to hearing about such nonsense as the Assisi Prayer Meetings, etc.

But what about this idea of Muslims bringing God back to Europe? Doesn't it presuppose that Allah is the same God as the Triune God of Scripture? It must, otherwise the Muslims wouldn't be bringing God to Europe, but would be bringing in only a false-god, which of course I contend they do. They're not bringing "God" back to Europe, at least not the God we want to associate with. Thanking Muslims for introducing God to Europe is like thanking Wiccans for bringing back spirituality or thanking Jehovah's Witnesses for their evangelism efforts. The Muslim god Allah is not the same as the Trinity, nor does he even share similar characteristics. It is foolishness to thank them for bringing Allah into Europe, as if Allah is what Europe needs. Ask Charlemagne, Don Juan, the Franciscan martyrs, Jan Sobieski, St. John Capsitrano or Constantine XI if Allah is what Europe needs!

But also, the manner in which Allah is introduced into European discussion is a negative one: religion is not being discussed because European Muslims are such outstanding citizens and such wonderful witnesses to sanctity that Europeans are wanting to talk about religion. No: they are promoting religious discussion because of things like the riots over the Mohammed cartoon, the murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004, the French riots of 2005, the insane outrage over Benedict's Regensburg speech, the continued headscarf controversies in Europe and the many other ways in which Islam is bullying its way ever so slowly into a dominant position in European life and brutally attempting to silence those who oppose it. Even if we grant that discussing religion is a good thing (which it is), this is not the manner that people should want it brought to light.

Thanking Islam? Only in the upside-dwon, anti-Christian nuthouse we call modernity could members of the Vatican be persuaded to happily thank the people who are cutting their throats.

Disappointment from Madonna University

A disappointing report came out from my school, Madonna University, last week regarding the ousting of their long-standing mascot, the fighting Crusader. The decision was spearheaded by the university's "Diversity Discussion Group" who said that the Crusader was "offensive and a poor representative of Madonna's mission to be a diverse and inclusive school" (quotes from Madonna Herald, Oct. 2008). The vice-president of Madonna refered to the Crusades as "such a sad time in the Church's history" and stated that they represented "crimes against women and certain groups of people."

The interesting thing is that most kids did not see what was so offensive about the knight. Nursing major Claire Michalik said that though the Crusades were brutal, "the Crusades were also seen as a noble thing to do in that time. I link the nobility to the Crusader, too." Many other kids surveyed said they loved the fighing knight. There was also your typical tripe: like this statement by Chris Benson, associate Dean of Advising: "In a society where we are trying to be comprehensive and understanding of all the different cultures we have, I think that we have to be very sensitive and would not want to offend anybody."

This is very eye-twitching to me, because as the Crusader is being removed from the school, I also see that the university is also promoting the celebration of Ramandan and offering prayer and fasting rooms for the Muslim students. An interfaith prayer chapel upstairs greets students as you walk in the main entryway, and pro-homosexual stickers can be seen on many of the professor's office doors. Clearly, Madonna has ceased to believe in any sort of mission tied with Catholic identity and instead sees its goal as be a "diverse and inclusive school."

Though, on the flip side, Madonna Campus Ministry does have the excellent Miles Christi order as their chaplains, so it is not all bad.

It has not been announced what the new mascot will be. In true democratic fashion, they are putting it to a vote before the student body. It wil probably be some stupid animal or something.

Two questions for the vice-president of Madonna: first, has it never occured to you that perhaps there are elements of the Crusades that we can be proud of, and that it isn't all just about rapine and slaughter? And second, could it be that the reason the Crusaders undertook the Crusades was precisely because they knew exactly what type of religion Islam is? We always suppose that religious division is due to lack of understanding. The medieval Christians knew exactly what Islam was all about (unlike us) and that is why they fought it so vehemenetly, in Jerusalem, Lepanto, Belgrade, Vienna and anywhere else they were encountered.

Yes, but what do they think it says

When looking at the documents of Vatican II, it is my assertion that though they represent a radical break from the way the Faith has always been understood in the past, they nevertheless can be interpreted in an orthodox manner (despite their ambiguities) and therefore do not constitute any formal heresy or anything like that, as some Sedevecantists would argue. For many conservative pop-Catholics, the buck stops there. Vatican II can be interpreted legitimately, so that's all there is to it, and any attempt to dig deeper into the shortcomings of certain documents, point out the ambiguities in the texts, or behave in any way that suggests that you do not believe Gaudium et Spes to be the most profound statement ever made by Magisterium gets labeled as fault-finding or potentially schismatic behavior.

However, I have always taken the position that it is not good enough to say, "Well, the document can be interpreted in an orthodox manner." I recall many years back after Walter Kasper's Covenant and Mission came out, Dr. Scott Hahn was on EWTN explaining away the statements of the Cardinal in terms of, "Don't worry - there's statements in here that if we interpret in such-and-such a way will make this document conform with orthodoxy." What a pitiful commentIn the past, positions of theologians were condemned because there was the possibility that they could be interpreted in a heretical manner. Now we have theologians telling us that documents can be interpretd soundly. How pathetic! My position has always been this: It doesn't only matter what the document says, but how will others interpret it? Based on the language and tone of the document, what do other people take it to mean?

This question only arises with the issue of ambiguity. An unambiguous document needs no such explication. Nobody draws multiple meanings out of the Syllabus of Errors. There are no theologians standing around arguing about the right interpretation of it. For crying out loud, a Magisterial document is itself supposed to be an explication of the Faith. Why should they be so complex that we need explications of the explications? It often happens that within the Catholic Church, we can look at these documents in light of tradition and say, "Okay, I guess I see how one could square that away with Tradition" (no matter how tenuous). But then you get somebody outside the Church who looks at the document and is taken in the totally wrong direction due to the document's ambiguities (whether intentional or unintentional).

I had a great example of this on my blog the other day. I was doing a post on Islam, and had made the point there and in previous posts that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians. This drew a comment from a Muslim named Khany, who left the following (pay attention to what this Muslim cites in support):

Boniface, I am disturbed by the readiness with which you devour islamophobic messages..this is specially puzzling in light of the official position of the Catholic Church with respect to Islam and Muslims. In a document entitled "Nostra Aetate" dealing with the church's relationship with non-christian religions. The section on Islam begins thus: "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men." Moreover, the Catholic Catechism states: "The Church’s relationship with Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).

Isn't this interesting? I say something critical of Islam, and a Muslim comes back and throws Nostra Aetate and the CCC in my face! Now, I know that if you are a theologian, you will understand that neither of these documents explicitly affirm that Allah is the same God as the Blessed Trinity - but it does tell me that a cursory reading of them by any other person, even a Muslim, gives them the opposite impression! So, if we have an obligation to preach the truth, we must ask ourselves as a Church - perhaps our documents do technically speak the truth, but even so, what do others think they say when they are reading them?

I obviously don't think my Muslim commentator to be correct in their overall point, but I do have to agree with them on something: if you were to pick up Nostra Aetate or read the CCC passage quoted, I think one would get the impression that this is the message of the Church. No wonder the Muslims keep making overtures to Benedict - they think the Church teaches that we all worship the same God! This Muslim made a very forgivable and simple mistake - they picked up the Church documents, read them, and took them at face value! That's the way documents should be read in a perfect world - without blogs like this one having to expose ambguities, without theologians on EWTN explaining the right "ecclesiological standpoint" for interpreting a document, without Muslims and non-Christians reading the same documents and coming up with interpretations completely 180 degrees from the correct standpoint. And you know what? It is not this Muslim's fault for getting this interpretation. Not at all. It is our fault - the Magisterium's fault for wanting to please everybody and offend nobody except faithful Catholics.

This is another example of what I have always said about ambiguity: it serves nobody. It neither reinforces the faithful in their belief, nor does it clearly explain it to unbelievers. It gives non-Christians the wrong ideas and just confuses Catholics. So, when the Magisterium is getting together these documents, I think they have a real responsibility to say, "What unwritten message are we conveying with this? Even if our words say one thing, what impression will this document leave on others?" Obviously the Church does not write its documents with the sensitivities of non-Christians in mind (or perhaps it does, and that is the problem), but they should at least make sure the message is clear. There is a big difference between people not liking the truth when it is preached and simply not understanding the message, and what we have here is a case when neither the truth nor the message is clear.

Two New Vatican Documents

In the past week and a half two new documents have come out of the Vatican. The news today is the release of a new CDF document on women's ordination that was printed in L'Osservatore Romano just today. The General Decree is very brief and concise and reiterates the Church's disciplinary directives on the attempted ordination of women to the priesthood. Here is the Decree in its entirety:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

Regarding the offense of attempted holy ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of holy orders, and in virtue of the special faculty conferred upon the congregation by the supreme authority of the church (see canon 30, Code of Canon Law), in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007, has decreed:In keeping with the disposition of canon 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the person who attempts to confer holy orders upon a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive holy orders, incur the excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Apostolic See.


If the one who attempts to confer holy orders upon a woman or the woman who attempts to receive holy orders is subject to the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches, in keeping with canon 1443 of that code, that person will be punished with major excommunication, the remission of which is reserved to the Apostolic See (see canon 1423, Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches).The present decree takes effect immediately from the moment of its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada, Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

As far as I'm concerned, this issue was settled forever with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, where in one of the few clear and unambiguous declarations of his pontificate, John Paul II declared infallibly, "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Nevertheless, this new decree is a good compliment to JPII's condemnation because it outlines the canonical penalties for such attempted ordinations and if very refreshing in its brevity.

Unfortunately, the second document to come out of the Vatican in the past two weeks was a bit more of a let down. On may 20th, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued a message to Buddhists honoring the Buddhist Feast of Vesak. Have you never heard of Vesak? Well, Vesak is the celebration of several events in the life of Buddha: first and foremost, his birthday, but also his "enlightenment" and death. In both Chinese and Japanese traditions, a statue of the baby Buddha is bathed with sweet tea by all those present, and there are street processions made up of elaborate floats that commemorate events from the Buddha’s life.

Why on earth would the Catholic Church want to wish Buddhists a happy Vesak? Isn't this like saying, "Hey, you're celebrating the "enlightenment" of your false-guru with anti-Christian philosophical mysticism. Good for you. You keep on doing that." What kind of a message is this? As is typical with most messages in interreligious dialogue these days, this document (which you can read here) never once mentions the name of Jesus Christ or insinuates that Buddhists ought to become Catholics. The crux of the brief document is "evironmental protection" and it goes on the talk about how Catholics and Buddhists need to work together on projects such as "recycling, energy conservation, the prevention of indiscriminate destruction of plant and animal life, and the protection of waterways."

A document issued from the hierarchy of Korea to the Korean Buddhists is also questionable. This document, signed by Archbishop Nicholas Cheong Archbishop of Seoul and Bishop Boniface Choi Ki-san of Incheon, praises Buddha and refers to both Buddhists and Christians as "believers:"

Buddha presented the world with a life of interior peace and liberation for all who suffer and are fatigued. Believers of all religions in Korea must faithfully practice their religion. If we believers respect and love one another the world will be a better place and we can offer to all hope and consolation. It is natural for us to live together in this land, to work for development and prosperity of the nation in mutual respect and understanding to lead people towards eternal values and in this way open the door for a bright future for the people of Korea.


Who does the document refer to when it says "if we believers respect and love one another"? It is obvious that it is referring to the "believers of all religions" mentioned above, whom the Archbishop encourages to "faithfully practice their religion." So Buddhists are encouraged to go on worshiping Buddha, animists to their totems and fetishes, and Muslims to their false god. No mention is made of Jesus or the one sheepfold (John 10), but Buddha is praised as a teacher who "presented the world with a life of interior peace and liberation."

Much has been said about this type of thing over the years by many Traditionalists and concerned Catholics the world over, but I will make but two observations here. First, in attempts to stave off any notion of evangelization (or "proselytism" as it is commonly called), such statements on interreligious dialogue inevitably wind up focusing on merely temporal, worldly affairs. A prime example is the Assisi prayer gatherings for "world peace." Like those gatherings, this document from the Vatican and the Korean statement focus on purely transitory and worldly goals: environmental protection and "development and prosperity" in Korea. While these goals are good, there is the danger that as they are continually brought up time and time again, and as the name of Jesus of the need for His grace is continually neglected, it comes to pass over the years that people believe the whole reason for interreligious dialogue is nothing other than the attainment of worldly goals, or worse, that people think that religion itself if about establishing world peace or environmental responsibility.

Second, interreligious dialogue, if we want to be anal about the Latin meaning, would be translated as dialogue among religions (inter = among, between). But nothing is more one-sided than Catholic interreligious dialogue. Where are the yearly documents from the Buddhists at Christmas, celebrating Jesus' birth and praising His teaching? Where are the statements from all the imams congratulating us at Easter time on the Resurrection of our Lord? Where are the statements of the rabbis and Jews of the world saying that the New Testament is truly an inspired book and that the New Covenant is a valid covenant? How about Hindu statements on the sublimity and majesty of the Holy Trinity? They simply don't exist. These other religions expect Christians to pander to them and give credence to every false god and superstition in their pantheons but stubbornly deny to give the same to Christ.

Not that Christ needs the same from them to be validated! For unlike these hyper-sensitive apostles of tolerance, we understand that Christ does not stand or fall depending on what the Jews or Hindus say about Him. Let them scorn Him! Let them revile! I'd rather they bend the knee, but I understand that Christ and Christianity are opposed to the world system and not part of it, which is a truth we need to reclaim. Unfortunately, modern interreligious dialogue in the Catholic Church seems to be more about convincing ourselves that we are not intolerant than about converting the nations or even about understanding their religions.

That is the true paradoxical failure of interreligious dialogue. Not only do we fail to win souls for Christ, but by glossing over differences and focusing on merely temporal goals, we fail to even understand the other religion that we profess to be wanting to learn about. Anybody who studied Islam objectively is capable of understanding its historical roots, its propensity to violence, and the vision of a world caliphate with all peoples subject to it. It is only when we become blinded by false unity in the name of tolerance that we are forced to set aside such obvious observations and create for ourselves not only a false Catholicism but a false Islam as well, one that is solely a "religion of peace." Thus, while giving our own patrimony and religious traditions away, we fail to understand those we are engaged with.What a tragedy.

No alliance with Muslims

Because of his trust in God, Gideon is able to defeat a vastly superior number of Midianites with only 300 warriors (Judges 6-8)

I want to address a certain attitude that I have seen among some Catholics in the popular conservative wing of the Church regarding Islam and Secularism. This is the notion that though Secularism and Islam are both ideologies opposed to the Church, we have much more in common with the Muslims, and therefore we ought to "unite" with Islam in combating Secular Humanism (I capitalize it because, like Islam and Catholicism, Secular Humanism is a religion). The argument usually put forth is that Islam and Catholicism are both monotheistic and have fixed moral values. Therefore, we are natural allies against Secular Humanism, which regards no deity and has no fixed moral values. Peter Kreeft wrote a book promoting such an alliance, and I have heard it on Catholic radio as well. Even certain Vatican statements seems to imply that such a moral alliance is ddesirable

As an example of this view, listen to this quote from author William Cinfici, found in his commentary on Chesterton's Lepanto (Ignatius Press, 2004):

While Catholics and Protestants are finding themselves as allies trying to stem the degeneration of the West against a new Muslim aggression, they may ultimately have to forge and alliance with the Muslim world against the degeneration of the West (pg. 75).

So, in Cinfini's view, instead of being opposed to Muslim aggression, we ought to ally with Muslims in order to stop the degeneration of our own society. Islam, in this view, is a natural ally against Secularism because both of our peoples are "religious."

I say poppycock! This is an insane view, and those who promote it are guilty of seeing things as men see, not as God sees. The Church does not need allies. The Church stands alone. If we were a merely human, political institution, this would seem to be arrogance; but the promise of the Church's indefectability comes not from political consensus or social trends, but from her Divine Founder. Now, two arguments that refute this "Muslim-alliance" idea.

First: the fact that Muslims have "values" and "morality" is no ground for unity at all. So they have values? So what!? The issue is not whether or not someone has values, but rather what kind of values they have. Even the Nazis and the Communists had morality, but the wrong kind of morality. It is not enough to just have morality if it is Nazi morality. And Muslim "morality" is not the type of morality we want to ally with.

Second: God's word says: What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:15). Let's see what Scripture says about allying with powers antagonistic to the Gospel.

First, look at the story of King Asa of Judah from 2 Chronicles 14:9-16:14. This story recounts two different attitudes towards meeting one's enemies. Notice which is condemned and which is condoned:

Zerah the Ethiopian came out against [Judah] with an army of a million men and three hundred chariots, and came as far as Mareshah. And Asa went out to meet him...and Asa cried to the Lord his God, "O Lord, there is none like You to help, between the mighty and the weak. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on You, and in Your name we have come against this multitude. O Lord, You are our God, let not man prevail against You." So the Lord defeated the Ethiopian before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled...for they were broken before the Lord and His army (2 Chr. 14:9-13).

See how the Lord delivered Asa in his time of trouble? But let's see what happens later in his reign when Asa begins to lose faith:

In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might permit no one to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. Then Asa took silver and gold from the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king's house, and sent them to Benhadad, king of Syria, who dwelt in Damascus, saying, "Let there be a league between me and you..behold, I am sending you silver and gold; go, break your league with Baasha king of Israel, that they may withdraw from me." And Benhadad listened to King Asa, and sent the commanders of his armies against the cities of Israel...

At that time, Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him, [this part is important!], "Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you. Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand...You have done foolishly in this; for from now on you will have wars (2 Chr. 16:1-4,7-9).

And how did Asa end his days? In sstubbornnessand bad faith:

In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe; yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign (2 Chr. 16:11-13).

What a pathetic end for a king who initially had such great promise and who had trusted the Lord to deliver him! It was only when he put his trust in other princes that he began to have problems. Now let's look at another story, this time regarding King Ahaz of Judah, who was attacked by the kings of Syria and Israel:

Therefore the Lord his God gave [Ahaz] into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who defeated him with a great slaughter (2 Chr. 28:5).

What did Ahaz do when beset with enemies all around? Did he call on God, as Asa had once done against the Ethiopians and Libyans? Nope; he relied on men:

At that time King Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for help...[but] Tigleth-Pileser king of Assyria came against him, and afflicted him instead of strengthening him. For Ahaz took from the house of the Lord and the house of the king and of the princes and gave tribute to the king of Assyria, but it did not help him. In the time of his distress he became yet more faithless to the Lord-this same King Ahaz (2 Chr. 28:16,20-22).

When the devil presses against the Church from the left, we do not ally with another devil on the right! To say we ought to ally with Muslims against Secularism is like allying with Egypt against Babylon or Syria against Edom. It simply ought not to be done. Instead, let us use the example of faithful Gideon, to whom the Lord said, "The Lord is with you, you mighty man of valor!" (Judg. 6:13), and who, because of his faith in God, defeated a tremendously massive force of Midianites with only 300 men. Forget the admonitions of men like Kreeft and Cinfini who say we need to make an alliance with the worhsipers of the false-god Allah (and he is a false god). Let us remember the admonition of the Psalmist:

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help...happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God who made heaven and earth...It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in princes (Ps. 118:8-9, 146:3, 5).

Related: Mundabor: The First, Second and Third Enemy is Islam

Benedict Responds to Muslim Letter

This morning, Pope Benedict XVI responded to last month's "Open Letter" from 138 Muslim scholars calling for a new dialogue based on love of God and love of neighbor. The document issued by the Pope today (and signed by Tarscicio Bertone) is addressed to Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, a Jordanian academic thought to be the leader of the effort. Before I say anything about this letter (and there are some positives and some negatives), I will reproduce it in its entirety here:

Your Royal Highness, On 13 October 2007 an open letter addressed to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and to other Christian leaders was signed by one hundred and thirty-eight Muslim religious leaders, including Your Royal Highness. You, in turn, were kind enough to present it to Bishop Salim Sayegh, Vicar of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem in Jordan, with the request that it be forwarded to His Holiness.

The Pope has asked me to convey his gratitude to Your Royal Highness and to all who signed the letter. He also wishes to express his deep appreciation for this gesture, for the positive spirit which inspired the text and for the call for a common commitment to promoting peace in the world.

Without ignoring or downplaying our differences as Christians and Muslims, we can and therefore should look to what unites us, namely, belief in the one God, the provident Creator and universal Judge who at the end of time will deal with each person according to his or her actions. We are all called to commit ourselves totally to him and to obey his sacred will.

Mindful of the content of his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est ("God is Love"), His Holiness was particularly impressed by the attention given in the letter to the twofold commandment to love God and one’s neighbour.

As you may know, at the beginning of his Pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI stated: "I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace. The life of every human being is sacred, both for Christians and for Muslims. There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values" (Address to Representatives of Some Muslim Communities, Cologne, 20 August 2005). Such common ground allows us to base dialogue on effective respect for the dignity of every human person, on objective knowledge of the religion of the other, on the sharing of religious experience and, finally, on common commitment to promoting mutual respect and acceptance among the younger generation. The Pope is confident that, once this is achieved, it will be possible to cooperate in a productive way in the areas of culture and society, and for the promotion of justice and peace in society and throughout the world.

With a view to encouraging your praiseworthy initiative, I am pleased to communicate that His Holiness would be most willing to receive Your Royal Highness and a restricted group of signatories of the open letter, chosen by you. At the same time, a working meeting could be organized between your delegation and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, with the cooperation of some specialized Pontifical Institutes (such as the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies and the Pontifical Gregorian University). The precise details of these meetings could be decided later, should this proposal prove acceptable to you in principle.

I avail myself of the occasion to renew to Your Royal Highness the assurance of my highest consideration.

Cardinal Tarcisio BertoneSecretary of State

I think this was a tolerably well-thought out response by the Holy Father. It is not as strong as I would have liked, of course (there are no calls for the Muslims to convert and accept the Gospel), but neither is there any dribble about us praying together or any nonsense like that. Let's look at a few of the strong points of the letter.

First, Benedict refernces Deus Caritas Est in the context of love of neighbor. This is a very subtle point, but very important. In Islamic theology, Allah cannot love us the way God the Father loves in our Faith. Allah relates to his people as a master to slaves, but not as a father to children. Thus, the concept of God being substantially love is foreign to Islam. Allah may be merciful, powerful, all-knowing, etc. But he is not love and he certainly is not father. By referring to Deus Caritas Est, Benedict reminds them of the vast difference in the Catholic conception of God and the Islamic belief.

The next part is what I particularly like. If you recall, the Muslim letter said that we ought to base our common ground and our dialogue on two religious doctrine that they believe we share in common: belief in one God and love of neighbor. Both of these, although common to many religions, are nevertheless religious doctrines. Now, look at how Benedict responds:

Such common ground allows us to base dialogue on effective respect for the dignity of every human person, on objective knowledge of the religion of the other, on the sharing of religious experience and, finally, on common commitment to promoting mutual respect and acceptance among the younger generation.

Notice what he did? The Muslims asked to base dialogue on the religious grounds that we worship the one God and love our neighbor. Benedict turns around and says that we can base our dialogue on "respect for the dignity of every human person, on objective knowledge of the religion of the other, on the sharing of religious experience and, finally, on common commitment to promoting mutual respect and acceptance," all of them natural, worldly things. I like the line "objective knowledge of the religion of the other," which draws a good distinction that we can have dialogue with each other without having to accept each other's faith; objective knowledge of each other's religion suffices. I am not sure what "shared religious experience" means, but I don't think he means it the way JPII did at Assisi. But what Benedict categorically did not say is, "Okay, let's base our dialogue on love of God and love of neighbor, just like you said." No; he understands that their god is profoundly different from ours and that the way Muslims "love" their neighbors (like by taxing them for being Christians?) is not the type of love Jesus mentioned. Therefore, he accepted the call to dialogue, but gave different, more worldly ground son which to base it.

This letter has many weaknesses, too. I wish he would not have invited them to a meeting. If they accept, I hope he actually preaches the Gospel to them. That would be nice. But probably it will turn into some clap-trap about mutual understanding, fruitful dialogue and reciprocal respect. I think people imagine that just learning about each other will help us get along. Well let me tell you, it is precisely because I know exactly what Islam is that I despise it so much. So, just learning about each other's religion is not going to do anything at all. Let's pray to Our Lady of Victory, St. John Capistrano and Pope St. Pius V that this"meeting" does not turn into another Assisi.

Results of Unchecked Muslim Immigration

France has again been rocked by riots, described as even worse than those that it suffered in 2005. As was the case then, media reports of the riots are referring to the rioters as "roving bands of angry youths" without drawing attention to the fact that these bands of angry youth are almost entirely Muslim. This article from the International Herald Tribune does mention halfway through that the rioters are "mostly the offspring of Arab and African immigrants," but then it goes on to absolve the rioting Muslim youth from any responsibility for the disaster and simply goes on and on about how they can't help rioting because the French government has put them in this situation to begin with, blah blah blah, boo hoo.

The fact of the matter is, this is what happens anywhere the Muslims obtain a sizeable populace. They start by trickling in, saying that they are a religion of peace and that they do not agree with the ways of their jihadist cousins (remember, in Islam it is acceptable to lie to further the cause of the religion). Then, once they obtain a solid minority they start the agitation, as they are doing now in France. Then, once they grow from a slim minority into at least a 35-45% minority, they bring on the open war and jihad will be upon that unfortunate nation that took them in. We need to get this through our head: these Muslims will eventually end up rioting no matter what. The only time the Muslims in France will stop agitating is when Arabic is the official language of France, when Notre Dame has become a Muslim mosque (or Christian museum), when the firstborn daughter of the Church and the scions of Charlemagne groan under the weight of sharia law, and when the women of the humble village of the Maid of Lorraine are forced to cover themselves or face the lash. Then they will stop agitating, but not before.

Hey Prime Minister Sarkosky, if you want to stop the problem, round em' up and deport em. Easy as that. Don't complicate the matter with a bunch of questions about the "compassion" of such an act: just do it. Do you want to know what is not compassionate? Letting Islam take root in another country. That is what ought not be tolerated. Is it narrow minded? Yes, but so were the great Catholic men of old who proclaimed with unwavering confidence in the righteousness of their cause, "Paynims are wrong; Christians are right!" (Song of Roland, LXXIX/1015)

Muslim letter to Pope Benedict

On October 13th, a group of Muslim clerics and scholars sent an open letter to Pope Benedict XVI and several other leaders of the Christian world (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) in which they set forth what they claim are the great similarities between Islam and Christianity: love of God above all and love of neighbor. The first two sections consist of lengthy quotes from the Koran on how love of God above all other things is obligatory upon Muslims and follows that up with injuctions from the Koran to love one's neighbor. The scholars then quote several similar verses from the Sacred Scriptures that relate to loving God and loving one's neighbor. In this they claim that we have great similarity and a basis for common ground and thus are really allies.

How ought we react to this letter? I have little doubt that the Muslims who composed this were sincere, but the contents of the letter betray a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Christian message. I do not deny that we share love of God and love of neighbor with the Muslims. But there are two things to be said about this supposed common ground:

1) What religion is there that doesn't emphasize love of God (whatever that god may be) and love of neighbor? Have you ever heard of a religion that taught that men ought not to love God or their neighbor? These are just matters of simple justice, common to all men who have any religious sensibilities at all. Thus, the fact that both Islam and Christianity teach love of God and love of neighbor doesn't mean a thing; every religion in the world believes those two tenets in some way or another.

2) Just because we both believe that men ought to love God does not mean that we are loving the same God, and Allah is not the same God as the God of the Catholic Faith. First and foremost, their god is not a Trinity (as this letter continually points out) and the essence of our doctrine of God is precisely that He is a Trinity. Also, their god is not a Father, but Fatherhood defines what our God is. Allah was originally a pagan-Meccan moon-god, and is in no way the same god as the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To put this another way, suppose there is one religion that adores the Sacred Square, and another that worships the Celestial Circle. They may claim, "Hey, we both worship the Supreme Shape! We have so much in common!" While they both may worship a supreme shape, the essence of what the shape is is completely different in each case.

The letter closes with this warning to Christians [my comments in red]:

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes [okay, and where in the world right now are Christians oppressing Muslims because of their religion? Shouldn't it be the other way around here? This agreement to live peacefully sounds as sketchy as Gollum's promise to Frodo that "we will be kind to Master if Master will be kind to us"].

Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history. Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they make up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world [and which side is really the one who is most likely to resort to "terrible weaponry?"]; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake [this seems like a veiled threat to me; "don't think about confronting us, because you won't win and you'll just destroy yourselves"].

And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony."

How will the Holy Father respond to this? I have three scenarios: what I hope he doesn't do, what would be acceptable if he did, and what would be awesome if he did.

What I Hope He Doesn't Do: Issue some kind of flowery document in complete agreement with the Muslim's claims, calling them "bretheren" and saying that we worship the same God and calling for more "dialogue." Or even worse, invite them to some kind of interreligious dialogue meeting ala Assisi.

What Would Be Acceptable: He does nothing at all. The letter is not responded to and no comments are made about it.

What Would Be Freakin' Awesome: Benedict issues a long response in which he sets forth the importance of the Trinity and delineates why Allah and God are two different things essentially. He stresses the importance of belief in the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity and His atoning death on the cross (in which Muslims disbelieve); he reiterates the Christian call to evangelize and does not exempt Muslims from this call. Finally, he ends his letter with a plea for conversion from the Muslims (whom he refers to as "Mohammedans," "Saracens" and "Mussulmen") and invokes the prayers of Our Lady of the Rosary/Our Lady of Victory.

Click here to read the whole article (it is 16 pages long with 13 pages of footnotes).

Who searches for the most sex?

Google has recently come out with some statistics breaking down who does the most searches for certain key words by nation. Thus, for example, the new report states that Internet users in Germany, Mexico and Austria did the most Google searches worldwide for the name "Hitler." Which country or group of countries do you think did the most searching related to topics of a sexual/pornographic nature? I am sure most of you will say the United States, but this is fortunately not true; we are not even in the top three.

Then, surely it must be Europe. With their pornographic channels on the public airwaves and their legalized prostitution in many areas, they are so far down the path of secular humanism and their immorality is so widely known that they probably do the most searching for sex online, right?

Nope. Then it must be Asia, of course. Everybody knows that Asia is the center of some of the world's greatest centers of prostitution and pedophilia. God only knows how many innocent children have passed through the flesh markets of Singapore, Bangkok and Hanoi. Is it Asia? Again, the answer is no.

Then who in the world does do the most searching for sexual material on the Internet? The answer, according to Google, Inc. is the Islamic countries. Google relates that the single country that does the most Google searches for sex is Egypt. This is followed by India, and third place goes to Turkey. It looks like the Islamic countries are not as immune to western decadence as they would have us believe!

Also interesting is that the most Google searches for the word "jihad" came from Morocco, Indonesia and Pakistan.

Click here for the original report by Reuters, along with the rankings for other words like "burrito," and "Tom Cruise."

St. John Capistrano Triumphant

Speaking of the holy Franciscan St. John Capistrano (see the excellent post below), I was in Vienna earlier this month and come upon this wonderful sight that you see to the left. It is the pulpit from which the good saint preached the crusade for the defense of Christendom against the Turks. Above the pulpit can be seen the holy Franciscan trampling upon a vanquished Turk, while holding the flag of the crusaders and looking to Heaven for divine succor.

May God send us more such saints and may He protect us still today from the advance of the Mohammedans.

St. John Capistrano, ora pro nobis!

The Battle of Belgrade: 1456

We all know of the spectacular Catholic victories against the Muslims at Poitiers (732), Jerusalem (1099), Lepanto (1571) and Vienna (1683), as well as the great leaders of those campaingns: Charles Martel, Godfrey de Bouillon, Don Juan of Austria and Jan Sobieski of Poland. But how many of us have ever heard of the no less pivotal Battle of Belgrade in 1456 and the great Catholic Hungarian warlord Janos Hunyadi?

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Turkish advance did not simply cease; Mehmet II, the victor of Constantinople, geared up his forces for an invasion of the Catholic Balkans. His immediate goal was to take the Hungarian fortress-town of Belgrade (then called Nandofehervar) on the border of Hungary and the newly possessed Ottoman lands. Hungary was in a precarious situation, as it had no strong centralized kingship at the time and had been torn by baronial rivalries in the years leading up to the battle. The most powerful of these lords was Janos Hunyadi, a Serb and veteran of many wars against the Turks. Seeing the fall of Constantinople and the imminent invasion of the Turks, Hunyadi quickly made peace with his enemies and united the Hungarians against the coming infidel wave. He built up many fortresses and supplied garrisons out of his own revenues. However, no other baron was willing to assist him against the Turks, partly because they thought it a lost cause, and partly because even at this late hour with the Turks at the door, they feared empowering Hunyadi too much at their own expense. Thus Hunyadi stood alone against the Ottomans.

He did have a faithful ally in St. John Capistrano, a Francsican monk who preached a crusade against the Turk so effectively that the peasants and farmers all rose up to join Hunyadi, swelling his forces to about 25,000 men. At the very moment Hunyadi was assembling his peasant force, Mehmet II arrived at Belgrade with a seasoned force of about 70,000 Ottoman warriors, most of them veterans of Constantinople. The siege of Belgrade was commenced on July 4th, 1456. Hunyadi was still a few days away from the city recruiting cavalry for his relief effort.

When Hunyadi heard about the siege, he linked up with St. John Capistrano and made his way for Belgarde, the preaching of the friar having now swollen the Hungarian force to close to 50,000, most of them ill equipped and untrained peasants. Meanwhile, Mehmet II pounded away at the walls of Belgrade with his heavy cannons, the same cannons that had levelled the ancient walls of Constantinople. The defenders waited in fearful expectation. The Turks had set up a naval blockade on the Danube in order to protect against any advance from the south.


Hunyadi arrived at Belgrade on July 14th and destroyed the flotilla of the Turks in a single day, sinking three Turkish galleys and capturing twenty-four ships. Meanwhile, Mehmet's cannons had finally breached the walls of the city, and an all out assault was ordered on the 21st of July. Hunyadi, now within the city, ordered a fierce resistance, and flaming pitch and burning wood were hurled at the defenders. Once, a Turkish soldier managed to plant the Sultan's flag on the pinnacle of the castle, but he was grabbed by a Hungarian soldier, and the Turk, Hungarian and flag all fell from the castle and perished. The Turks were beat back for the day, but only barely.

The following day a miracle occured. Apparently by spontaneous impulse, without any orders from Hunyadi or Capistrano, the Christian rabble decided to sally outside of the castle and ravage the Turkish ramparts. The force was soon reinforced by 2,000 Crusaders, and before anybody knew what was going on, the Turks began to take flight. Panic spread throughout the Turkish camp, and the Catholic force of only a few thousand began to rout the conquerors of Constantinople. The Sultan's bodyguard of about 5,000 Janissaries tried desperately to stop the panic and recapture the camp, but by that time Hunyadi's army had also joined the unplanned battle, and the Turkish efforts became hopeless. The Sultan Mehmet II himself advanced into the fight but took an arrow in the thigh and was rendered unconscious. The rout turned into a general panic, and the Catholic army raged upon the Ottoman force with much slaughter; almost all of Mehmet's captains were killed.

When the Sultan regained consciousness, he was so distraught at the disaster that he had to be prevented from killing himself. The wounded were withdrawn in 140 wagons and Mehmet sulked back to Constantinople, the Turkish advance thus halted for the next century. During the siege, Pope Callixtus III ordered the noon bell to call believers to pray for the defenders - but as in many places the news of victory arrived earlier than the order, it transformed into the commemoration of the victory, and the Pope modified his the order to fit this interpretation. Hence the noon bell is still rung to this day for the memory of Hunyadi's victory.

Hunyadi's total force never exceeded 50,000, and the Turkish force was about 70,000, perhaps as high as 100,000. Nevertheless, the Hungarians lost only 10,000 men, and the Turks over 50,000, more than half of their army. But the Hungarians paid dearly for their victory: the carnage caused a plague to break out in the camp, which killed Hunyadi only weeks after the victory. A few weeks after that, Capistrano succumbed as well.

Though Belgrade eventually fell to the Turks in 1521, the Battle of Belgrade and Janos Hunyadi deserve to be remembered along with Don Juan and Jan Sobieski as defenders of Christendom; indeed, as its avenging angel, since it was Hunyadi's forces who killed all the warlords who had taken Constantinople and who wounded the proud Mehmet II and inflicted such disaster on him that he wanted to kill himself.

St. John Capistrano, ora pro nobis!