Alliance of Civilizations or Clash of Civilizations?

John L. Allen Jr. recently posted a very provocative article – A Catholic contribution in Egypt. I encourage everyone to read and judge it. It is the basis on which I make my remarks below.

A part of me says this article and this so-called “Alliance” is naive. As a combat veteran who has served in the Middle East and as someone who looks at foreign policy and international relations with a “realist” perspective I have many questions and concerns about what is now occurring in the Middle East. As a former Muslim I also bring some insights and experiences to this topic. (Refer to my posts below on Islam.)

To be sure this is not a new topic. Dr. Peter Kreeft created quite a controversy a few years back when he published his book, Ecumenical Jihad. Dr. Robert George also for many years has focused on who or what are the problem(s) with modernity.

For me though it ultimately comes down to this question. Who do you follow? Do you follow the rhetoric of fear from Newt Gingrinch, Glenn Beck or Rep. Allen West or do you follow the Holy Father? What say you? I for one choose the Holy Father. As Mnsgr. Luigi Giussani personally told me, “we must follow the Holy Father and by doing so we will save the world.”

I would refer folks to the important work of Oasis and the recent Cairo Meeting.

Articles of Interest:
Between Allah & Jesus: What Christians Can Learn from Muslims by Peter Kreeft

Islam (Part One and Part Two) by D.L. Jones

The Ground Zero Mosque And Religious Freedom (4 Parts) by D.L. Jones

For your reading enjoyment on this topic I would refer folks to the below books:

Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Between Allah & Jesus: What Christians Can Learn from Muslims

A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews With an Absolutist

An Ocean Full of Angels: The Autobiograph of ‘Isa Ben Adam

Clash Of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis

Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism: A Call to Action

111 Questions on Islam: Samir Khalil Samir on Islam and the West

Videos of Interest:

America At Risk
YouTube Preview Image

Glenn Beck on the 12th Imam
YouTube Preview Image

Rep. Allen West’s Keynote Speech at CPAC 2011
YouTube Preview Image

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

15 Responses to Alliance of Civilizations or Clash of Civilizations?

  • Eric Giunta says:

    I for one find most disturbing that unthinking papolatry of such statements like “We must follow the Holy Father and by doing so we will save the world.”

    What a load of bull.

    I respect the Holy Father’s person, am obedient to his authoritative teaching, and certainly hold in high regard his wisdom and counsel, but on those questions that do not directly implicate immutable principles, what he has to say has to be critically reflected on and scrutinized for its own intrinsic merits, not regurgitated and acceded to unthinkingly. Certainly where one hasn’t given due thought to an issue such deference might be called for, but once one has the “For the Pope, and truth be damned!” mindset of too much of the orthodox Catholic establishment is just sickening.

    It’s precisely this kind of attitude that gives us bad Popes (Alexander VI) and bad governance (John Paul II). We need to be obedient but respectful, but also speak truth to ecclesiastical power and spread a dose of realism when our pastors harbor utopianist expectations disengaged from the real world. Catholicism is not papalism, obedience is not blind servility, and respect is not mindless agreement.

  • patrick wells says:

    I do have a great deal of respect for Fr Giussani and I am a humble son of the Vicar of Christ.

    I also completely agree with Eric Giunta’s comment above. He is spot on.

    I would also add that there is no real alliance with Islam. Mohammed is a false prophet infinetly worse than Fr Marcel Macial, LC.

    The Coptic Priest Zakaria Botroson the other hand has the right thrust of things, it would do well for the Vatican Diplomatic Corps to heed his efforts and fruits:

    Finally I would ask you to quit taking minor political figures and asking folks to choose between them and the Bishop of Rome.

    The real choice is and always has been between Our own Will and Jesus.

    -Patrick

  • Ivan says:

    Most of us would not care one way or another about political change in the Muslim world if it did not follow a wellworn, predictable script of Us against Them. Now in Egypt apparently all is hunky-dory between Muslims and Christians, inspite of the trivialities that Christians are routinely murdered and their right of worship curtailed. Let that pass for the sake of argument. What I find tiresome, is the dissimulation that Muslims practice when it is to their tactical advantage, a gross example of which is the Three Abrahamic religions canard that is routinely bandied about in ecumenical circles. Supposedly Muslims respect Isa, or Jesus, but to them he is a prophet inferior to Mohamet; Christians do not worship a mere prophet or holy roller in Jesus but God Himself Who died for our sins. Therefore the esteem they hold Christians is not unlike the regard that lunatics are held in. With the Jews it is a similar story, their foundational myth of special election, the near sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham is reworked by Islam to have Abraham attempting to sacrifice Ishmael instead. These are no mere fibs, but outrageous onslaughts on the authenticity of the Christian faith which descends by way of the Jews. Many other examples of Islamic deception can be adduced by anyone rummaging the archives of Jihad Watch. Why then should Christians participate in fraudulent make-believe soirees all of which are destined to end (I hope only figuratively) with the heads of Christians on pikes?

    Sheikh Quarwadi in Egypt, has already made initial forays with the old divide-and-rule playbook of Muslims when faced with wary Christians. He alludes to the joint efforts of Muslims and Copts in overthrowing Mubarak, which is as good as it goes. But who are the true villian here, the omnipresent manipulators absent whom, the Middle East would be an Edenic paradise? It is the Israelis, the Jews whom he hopes to overcome with the help of the Egyptian Army. Now Israel is capable of giving a good account of herself in any future war, after which it would inevitably be the turn of numerous Copts to confront their own existential question.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    “As Mnsgr. Luigi Giussani personally told me, “we must follow the Holy Father and by doing so we will save the world.”

    It isn’t our job, or his, to save the world. This is a problem with the entire post-conciliar modern Church: this obsession with world peace. Jesus came not to bring peace, but a sword. A spiritual sword, first and foremost, to divide those who hear the truth from those who reject it. A temporal sword, if needs be, in a legitimate and just defense of Christendom from her mortal enemies.

    Matt. 12:30: “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.”

    That applies to Mohammed (and his followers), whom popes throughout the centuries have condemned as faithless and a reprobate, and whose religion was viewed as a pagan abomination. These truths have not suddenly become untruths, vanished down the memory hole. They have simply become inconvenient to the globalist political movement and its spiritual corollary.

    Must we hate the Muslim? No. We must pray for our enemies, and love those who persecute us. Do we have every right to defend ourselves from the threats of Islamic pirates? I am with Urban II and Thomas Jefferson on that one.

    But this obscene heresy must end, whereby it is said we “worship the same God” as the Muslims. We pray to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Muslims deny that Jesus is God and believe the Trinity is polytheism. There is no common ground theologically.

    But this has almost nothing to do with the political problem of Islam. Islam is overruning Europe because the people of Europe apostatized from the Catholic faith. They stopped having children, they started having abortions and sterliziations and, as Mark Steyn puts it, their one “designer baby” well into their 50′s – and now they have no young workers to pay for the upkeep of their whithering bodies. So like parasites they invite hordes of Muslim youth into their countries to toil, and feed off of their youthful energies like vampires. It’s quite a spectacle.

    As for the conflict with America, it is simply a fact that America has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East since it took over the job from the British Empire, that many Muslim groups were formed and manipulated in the Cold War against the Soviets, and that these groups have now turned on their creator. Islam was virtually dead as a political force in the Middle East after the collapse of the decaying Ottoman Empire, until it was revived by Western interventionism as a counter-weight to radical secular and in some cases socialistic and communist movements that would upset the balance in the region.

    Islam is a false religion that violently persecutes Christianity, but many Muslims are pawns in international politics. I pray for their conversion, their full conversion and not this nonsense where we pray for them to be “better Muslims” (which means better murderers of Christians).

  • Eric Giunta says:

    I think Mr Hargrave goes too far when he asserts that it is heresy to say Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Anyone who worships God (especially true monotheists and especially Abrahamic monotheists) is worshiping the same being Christians are, even if they have disordered understandings of the Deity. Paul implied as much in the Areopagus, Acts seems to presuppose it in the case of the Gentile Cornelius, as does the Old Testament and Jewish tradition with their respectful presentation of any number of righteous Gentiles who were God-fearing, but nether Jews nor Jewish converts.

    (The bit in the Nostra Aetate about Christians and Muslims worshiping the same deity by the way, is lifted directly from a letter by Pope Saint Gregory VII to a Muslim prince.)

    Reason also tells us this is the case. I can have a true knowledge of Joe Hargrave than the guy next to me, but that does not mean we do not refer to the same person when we speak of Joe Hargrave.

    Finally, depending on what one means by being a “better Muslim,” particularly when such sentiments are voiced by the unsophisticated (e.g., Blessed Teresa of Calcutta), and by which are meant: “May so-and-so, who is a Muslim, become a better man,” which of course would include a better adhesion to God and his true religion, i.e., Catholic Christianity.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I’d like to see a link to that letter.

    As for the rest, Paul actually said that the pagans were praying to devils.

    “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:20) That’s an explicit statement and no mere implication.

    In the commentary for the Douay-Rhemis Bible, moreover, we read of Acts 10:35, the passage in which Peter speaks after Cornelius:

    “Beware then of the error of those, who would infer from this passage, that men of all religions may be pleasing to God. For since none but the true religion can be from God, all other religions must be from the father of lies, and therefore highly displeasing to the God of truth.”

    You would of course not see that in a modern Bible.

    As for the rest, whatever case might be made for a pagan who lived before the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be made for someone who exists in a religion that is a mish-mash of paganism, Judaism, Christianity and other innovations, and that only exists because it overran and destroyed areas that were formerly Christian. They know what Christians believe, and they reject it. They know of Christ, and they reject Him.

    If you confess that Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, you logically must confess that the Muslims do not worship God. They worship something described by the false prophet Mohammed as the true God.

    I mean, really – if there was a religion based on the notion that Eric Giunta was God, and some people came along and said Eric Giunta wasn’t God but only a second-rate prophet, I would have to conclude that they worship different gods.

    Finally, you know, I really love being told over and over that we can never judge a person’s heart, but then being told what a person “really meant” by their statements. Someone clearly says that a Muslim should be a better Muslim, which is a fairly clear cut thing, and it is translated into “become a better man.” That isn’t what she or anyone else who says that means. What they mean is that Catholicism is not necessary; only that one be faithful to some religious tradition, preferably the one they are born into and are most comfortable with.

  • Eric Giunta says:

    Joe:

    You engage in categorical conflations, as do most fad-trads with a very myopic understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and plain logic.

    The letter from Saint Gregory can be read in its entirety here:

    http://www.catholicresearch.org/PopesCouncils/GregoryVIItoKingMauritania.html

    Honestly, the fact that you do not know of this letter’s existence really should humble you and make you reticent to speak with the air of certainty that you do. This letter is not some obscure document but explicitly referred to in the footnotes of Nostra Aetate, precisely in reference to the statements turned into a fake controversy by fas-trad polemicists.

    And like most fundamentalists, you act as if the Scriptures present one and only one perspective to any number of theological subjects. I Corinthians 10 is not the first, nor the final, word on the subject as to whether pagan worship (or rather, the disposition of the pagan offering it) is or is not pleasing to God, and under what circumstances. There is also a clear difference between the rank and superstitious polytheism that Paul probably has in mind in I Corinthians, and the monotheism or near-monotheism exhibited by many a non-Christian, which is probably why we find a much more nuanced and charitable approach to pagan religion in certain parts of the Old Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles, even the Gospels (Jesus sure assumes that the Samaritans are worshiping the same God the Jews are, if improperly so). And naturally, the Fathers themselves distinguish between the nobility of different sorts of paganisms.

    Don’t make the same error the fundamentalists make, confusing one tile of one color for the entire mosaic. Reality — even theological reality and Catholic tradition — is more often than not a lot more complicated than what you can glean from the volumes of TAN or Angelus Press.

    You also speak rashly against the personal faith of sincere Muslims. A Muslim cannot be assumed to be culpably ignorant or hostile to the Gospel simply because he knows that Christians and Christianity exists. God alone knows whether the true religion has been credibly presented to any given person, or whether that person has sincerely pursued the truth and failed (for a whole host of possibly psychological reasons) to accept it. We have a duty to evangelize regardless, but not a duty to ruminate on who specifically gets saved and who doesn’t.

    By your perverted logic, Jews and Samaritans don’t worship the same God Christians do either, and that is plainly false. Likewise, your (il)logic fails to distinguish between knowing the same subject, and knowing it better or more deficiently. Your perspective may be the “tradition” of fad-trad hate sites, but not that of the Church (certainly not with any degree of unanimity). That Muslims and Christians worship the same God (though the former in a seriously deficient manner) has always been taken for granted by Christians who live in Muslim lands, and by others besides. It’s why so many of the Fathers did not even regard Islam as another religion, but as a heresy.

    Finally, context (that enemy of both fundamentalism and fad-tradism) is everything. We know who Mother Teresa was, we know that everything she did was for Christ and His Church, we know that she and her sisters did catechize and evangelize, that she subscribed to all of the Church’s teachings, and that she converted many to the Faith by her loving example. Not everyone has a theology degree, nor the intellectual tools at their disposal to convey with precision (especially in off-the-cuff spontaneous remarks) every nuance of a subject when they speak. Commonsense and an awareness of context should serve to clarify, to anyone without an ideological axe to grind.

  • Fred says:

    David,
    These comments show you why Fr. Giussani first did recon in America, to understand the immense challenge of the Protestant mentality which permeates everybody including secularists and Catholics. Instead of being provoked by what Giussani said, the chorus has dismissed it as equivalent to one or another positions they’ve already rejected. To allow oneself to be provoked would mean to ask a series of questions: what does it mean to ‘follow’ the Holy Father? what is it that America needs to be saved from? and what would be left of America after having been saved? As to the question of following the Holy Father, there were several preconceptions listed above: blindly following or having an affection for him that’s not related to what he says. I think Fr. Giussani meant something beyond this simplistic strawman.

    The other issue completely unexamined is the events you refer to. What happened in Cairo? What is happening with Oasis?

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Eric,

    I actually had heard of the letter – I had just never been able to find it or read it. But thanks for the rash, uncharitable assumption anyway.

    Let’s peel through your own layers of arrogance and insults, shall we?

    In the first place, this is far from some sort of infallible document. It is a diplomatic letter. There many other documents in which Islam and Mohammed are denounced in the most severe terms.

    “Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.” — Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19

    “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.” — Pope Callixtus II

    St. Francis called Mohammed a “wicked slave of the devil.” This man believed in the same God we do? No. His false religion, like all others, was inspired by Satan.

    Pope Gregory VII was being diplomatic – all he does is acknowledge that Muslims claim to worship the same God we do.

    “And like most fundamentalists, you act as if the Scriptures present one and only one perspective to any number of theological subjects.”

    Yes. I believe there is a true perspective that arises from an honest reading of words, and a deceitful one that arises for political or personal reasons. There can be no room for totally contrary interpretations of Scripture, which is why we used to have a Church that told us the precise meaning of it. For her first 1960 years the Church was obviously handing down only one “perspective” precisely so that people wouldn’t become a confused mess.

    “I Corinthians 10 is not the first, nor the final, word on the subject as to whether pagan worship (or rather, the disposition of the pagan offering it) is or is not pleasing to God, and under what circumstances.”

    I didn’t say that it was, though I don’t see you bringing up anything to offer a different perspective. But you’re the wise, learned, and knowledgeable one, and I, the ignorant, bigoted fundamentalist. I will stand here and await enlightenment.

    ” There is also a clear difference between the rank and superstitious polytheism that Paul probably has in mind in I Corinthians, and the monotheism or near-monotheism exhibited by many a non-Christian, which is probably why we find a much more nuanced and charitable approach to pagan religion in certain parts of the Old Testament….”

    What? Are you serious?

    Leviticus 17:6-7: ” And the priest shall pour the blood upon the altar of the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, and shall burn the fat for a sweet odour to the Lord. And they shall no more sacrifice their victims to devils, with whom they have committed fornication. It shall be an ordinance for ever to them and to their posterity”

    Pslams 95:5: “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.”

    Baruch 4:7: ” You have been sold to the Gentiles, not for your destruction: but because you provoked God to wrath, you are delivered to your adversaries. For you have provoked him who made you, the eternal God, offering sacrifice to devils, and not to God.”

    And of course we have what I already cited to add to this, and the notes in the Douay-Rhemis, undoubtedly to be dismissed as “fundamentalism” by the likes of you.

    You are either worshiping God or devils. Modernists such as yourself think you can read your silly notions of universalism and tolerance into the Old Testament itself, and treat what you label “fundamentalism” as if it were a mental disorder. You invent this “nuance”, you insult others when you think they haven’t heard of this or that document and you cite absolutely nothing to back up your own “perspective.”

    And this I am supposed to take seriously? Waste of time. Empty posturing.

    “Jesus sure assumes that the Samaritans are worshiping the same God the Jews are, if improperly so”

    As I understand it, though I am sure that you, learned and wise one, understand better, the Samaritans were a heretical sect, equivalent roughly to what Protestants are to Catholics. I don’t deny that Protestants worship Christ. They profess belief in the Holy Trinity. In the same way, Samaritans believed in YHWH.

    “You also speak rashly against the personal faith of sincere Muslims.”

    Que the Public Service Announcement.

    I don’t doubt at all that Muslims sincerely believe what they believe. What does this have to do with anything? When they’re being sincere Muslims, they are being sincere Christ-deniers.

    ” A Muslim cannot be assumed to be culpably ignorant or hostile to the Gospel simply because he knows that Christians and Christianity exists. ”

    Right. He has to first convert to Christianity, and after years of thoughtful reflection, decide he hates it and likes Islam instead. But even then he would be “sincere.” So what if he just hates it animalistically, without “sincere” reasons? Oh, well then he wouldn’t be culpable because he’s consumed with rage or whatever. There’s no way a Muslim of any kind, no matter how educated or how consumed with hatred for Christ, could ever be excluded from the picture in your eyes. The people who lop off heads, stone women, and blow up buildings are very sincere. No one doubts this, I least of all.

    And nothing could be less relevant.

    “We have a duty to evangelize regardless, but not a duty to ruminate on who specifically gets saved and who doesn’t.”

    Who did this? You’re so wrapped up in yourself that you make things up. If we have a duty to evangelize, though, it presumes that those who do not hear the message will not be saved. Otherwise it would be a pointless and fruitless task…

    “By your perverted logic, Jews and Samaritans don’t worship the same God Christians do either, and that is plainly false.”

    To worship God the Father alone – what would you call that? If it isn’t worshiping a “different God”, it is a total blasphemy. I see no problem with saying they don’t worship the same God. God IS the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If you are not worshiping that, you are not worshiping God.

    “ikewise, your (il)logic fails to distinguish between knowing the same subject, and knowing it better or more deficiently. Your perspective may be the “tradition” of fad-trad hate sites, but not that of the Church (certainly not with any degree of unanimity).”

    Look how pathetic this is – going from calling me illogical to weakly admitting that this isn’t even the unanimous view of the Church, tacitly conceding that my view has always been a valid view and in fact used to be the only valid view. And you have the gall to tell me to watch my supposed arrogance!

    And you use the modernist liberal slur of “hate”, when I specifically said that Christians are not to hate Muslims. You consider it HATE to simply state that they do not worship the same God, to not give in to your insane, baseless, and BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION tenuous claims about the subject! You call this HATE!

    You need to check your own premises and assumptions. And to many people, your characterization of Islamic worship as “seriously deficient” would be considered HATE!

    You’ve lost all credibility with me. Don’t post on my posts. And you’re off my facebook list as well.

  • American Knight says:

    I find it interesting how we proceed to engage in discussions without context. That seems very Protestant to me. Instead of using Biblical verses as proof texts out of context, we use papal documents and Vatican letters out of context.

    Jews and Christians worship the same God. For Jews it is a cloudy perception of God, because for Jews God was the Lawgiver, they did not have the revelation of the Trinity until Christ revealed it to them. For those Jews who did not become Christians, they remain in worship of the God as revealed by the Old Testament, clearly the same, One God we Christians worship. The old dispensation gave way to the new with the Advent of Christ Jesus. Some Jews have remained int the old dispensation which is still true, just not completely true.

    Moslems on the other hand, began to believe what they believe 600 years after the Advent and Revelation of Jesus the Christ. Mohammad can lay no claim to authentic revelation because the doctrine of the Trinity was already known. In the Hejaz at the time that Mohammad established his worldly political ideology masquerading as a religion the Arabs living there were already either pagans who need the Good News, Jews who practiced the ancient faith and Christians who worshiped the One Triune God through Jesus Christ. Mohammad attempted to ally with the Jews by appealing to a common ancestry through Abraham, he was rejected for attempting to innovate the Hebrew faith of the Old Testament, so he developed a hatred for the Jews. He could not appeal to Christians doctrinally because Islam was and remains incompatible with Christian revelation. He borrowed the patrimony of the Hebrews and mixed it with the heresies of the outer reaches of the Easter Roman Empire, primarily Nestorianism and mixed it with the Zoroastrian mysticism of the Persians.

    At best this can be considered a monotheistic heresy, or a pagan injection into garbled Christian heresies. Most probably it is demonically influenced. Any way you look at it, Islam in no way, shape or form proclaims worship of the One God of the Jews and Christians. That being said, the problem is with the ideology of Islam and the first few generations of Moslems. Now, removed by over thirteen centuries, it is probable that pious Moslems (not jihadists) are worshiping the same God we do, but this is despite Islam and not because of Islam. In the same way that Luther and Calvin were heretics; however, faithful and pious Lutherans and Calvinists today are considered separated brethren – they have been indoctrinated in the heresy since birth and have grown up in a non-Catholic (unified) West as opposed to a Catholic Christendom. They are still wrong, but less culpable than their heretic ancestors five centuries ago.

    The hope for Moslems is in reform. By reforming the political ideology of Islam, it loses its imperial, plundering nature and jihadist mentality. That leaves a pious religion that is full of errors and without the mandate that conversion means death, Moslems would be free to learn the Truth about the nature of God as revealed by the Law, the Prophets and ultimately Jesus Christ. Is it a clash? Of course it is. The moment Christ was Incarnated, the world began to clash with Him. He promised this to His followers. Catholics will always clash with every other force in the world. Only one Truth is possible and since we have it, everything else, no matter how much truth it may contain, have one thing in common – everything that is not Catholic, well, isn’t Catholic, therefore it isn’t true, at least not fully true and this includes every single variation of Islam. The clash is inevitable.

  • D.L. Jones says:

    I appreciate the comments from everyone, especially those from Fred. Allow me to make a few additional points worthy of consideration.

    1. I accept and believe in the dogmatic teaching of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. If anyone is saved it is by Christ through His Church. Evangelization and Apologetics are works that are necessary. How they are done (the means, styles, methods, etc.) are a matter of prudence. Good Catholics can disagree.

    2. We have much to learn from the writings and thought of the former Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. I would encourage folks to seriously engage his thought and not just give it a hand-wave of dismissal. Maybe a good place to start would be his Regensburg Lecture. Ultimately I think what Don Guis and Pope B16 did/are doing is asking a series of questions which leads to answers on what it means to be human. Catholics and Muslims are able to come to some common understandings. The divide between Monotheists is much shorter than those who do not profess any faith or deny it outright. This is the point that Don Guis, Pope B15, Kreeft, and George are making.

    3. It’s the easy way out, and possibly falling into a Demonic trap, to preach violence and hate against non-Catholics (Muslims, etc.). It is the easy way out to do this. Many politicians, especially Neoconservatives, love to throw kindle into the fire and beat the war-drums. Doing so serves their interests, which many times are not our own. There is a better way. One that involves a serious dialog with those who do not necessary share our faith, values or culture. I applaud Pope B16 and Cardinal Scola in the heavy lifting which they are doing.

    4. No dialog is fruitful unless it is rooted in friendship. You must respect and trust those with whom you are talking with. This may take years, decades, or generations. Click on they hyper-links to both the Cairo Meeting and image to read about what happened at this important event. The work of Oasis is very much worth checking out as well.

    5. I understand many of the problems and complexities with inter-faith dialog, especially those with Muslims. We must strive to do the right thing regardless how some Muslim ideologues react to us and we must pray… I leave this dialog in the hands of Our Lady.

  • American Knight says:

    I don’t think anyone, without an ulterior motive, is advocating violence on Moslems in general. What we do have to acknowledge is that jihadists, whether they be Sunni or Shia, Khomeniest or Salafasit, Baathist or Talibani, state supported or not, have declared war on us. They have declared war on us because, according to them, their prophet Mohammad told them that God demands it.

    Now, this war is not only a violent confrontation and it is not always a conventional war for conventional military. Ultimately, it is a war of ideas and the solution is engaging the people who truly want to be free from this jihadist threat and have the capability to cut off the jihadi recruiting stream. We need to promote reasonable methods of self-determination (most likely constitutional monarchies or parliamentary principalities) for genuinely pious Moslems, secular Moslems and all the oppressed minorities like Kurds, Arameneans, Copts, Chaldeans, Maronites, Melkites, women, black Africans, etc. who are oppressed by Moslem, Arab and Persian regimes. When they can achieve this self-determination, then Christians will be able to freely practice the true faith and missionaries and evangelists will be free to preach the Gospel.

    As we are engaged in this process through dialogue and support of genuine freedom movements in the Moslem, Arab, Persian and Turkish worlds we must be vigilant against jihadists. They have declared war, they are engaged in war, their resolve is strong and if we do not acknowledge that we are in a fight with them, we could lose, at minimum we suffer massive losses and the death of innocents. This clash is inevitable.

    I agree that the ultimate success rests with Our Lady. The Moslems revere her as the virgin Mother of the greatest Jewish Rabi (although they deny the Divinity of Christ) and we know that she loves all her children. She will conquer the hearts of the Moslems. Of course, since she leads us in the battle for souls, she also expects us to do our part to win souls for her Son and to defend the innocent against violent attacks by jihadists – sadly, in this fallen world, that means sometimes we have to engage in violence. Of course, not in vengeance (as today’s Mass readings remind us) but in defense and deterrence. Either way, we are at war. It sucks, but it is happening, we cannot stick our heads in the sand and just hope it goes away. Jihadists view that as weakness and will strike all the more.

  • D.L. Jones says:

    Daniel Pipes estimates that 10% of the Muslims world-wide are active participants and believers of this radical/militant political ideology of Islam. Another 10-20% passively support it. This is huge problem within the Muslim world and one that can only be solved from within. The promotion of violence within this radical/militant form of Islam prevents dialog even with others in the Muslim world. That’s why both the Israelis and moderate/secular Muslim governments lay the hammer down on these folks. The Islamic radical/militant form of dialog is that of total submission or death. Unfortunately that means very often putting a bullet in their heads. We live in a fallen world. To be sure evil exists and must be resisted.

    The Vatican challenges the Muslim world to reject violence. The problem lies in that violence is inherent in the very origins of Islam. To reject it means rejecting the life and teachings of Mohammad. This is just one of the many problems with dialog with Muslims. Once again I refer folks to my original posts on Islam which is in my original post.

    I would also ask folks to refer to paragraph 16 of the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH – LUMEN GENTIUM.

    “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .