Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

Update III:  The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable.  Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”.  It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board.  Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.

Update II:  Rumor confirmed.  Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.

Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this.  So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.

The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.

The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.

Yeah, that’s the compromise.

If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival.  Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

  • It’s George Orwell’s 1984, except the date should be 2012.

  • …only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control…

    And who pays premiums into the insurance pool? The Religious Organizations and in most cases, their employees. This is no compromise; it’s word-smithing.

  • Exactly Big Tex.

    I wish I were more eloquent and prescient as you were, but I wanted to get this out and digested before Obama did another Pravda Announcement.

  • Next, he’ll offer 30 pieces of silver, the price of a man.

    I’m insulted.

    He must think we are as stupid as he.

  • Pingback: . . .Breaking: Obama Compromise is No Compromise. . . | ThePulp.it
  • Politics at its worst. This administration is not caving in on anything. They are mandating and telling the insurance companies what product to sell and at what price to sell. Unconstitutional.

  • He’s on the run.

    Don’t accept the first.

    Counter with: “Resign tyrant.”

  • Let’s pretend that birth control is a health issue (hahahah, sorry — I’ll stop laughing now). Since when is the President qualified to ORDER medical treatments? Did he go to medical school or something?

  • Lord have mercy. Has Sr. Keehan have no shame? No conscience? Her bishop should have a friendly chat with her, remind her that part of the reason the Church and the entire country is in this mess is in part her doing, and then politely ask her to keep her mouth shut.

  • Unfortunately it may be that Sr. Keehan has no problem with contraception, sterilization etc.

  • She also has no problem in wearing anything but a habit.

  • HHS was The Institute of Medical Services idea. BO and KS said so.
    The change in payment was recommended by some Insurance Business Institute.
    One, quick little mention of ‘religious liberty’ being intact, so there you guys who are complaining so much.

    Contraception was the whole focus of what HHS means to USA, no mention of the laundry list of other ‘care’.

    Contraception is good for preventing women’s health problems. What about all the studies of causes for women’s cancer? Women, not girls, what happened to the 11 year olds that were going to be ‘cared’ for? Not PC for a noonday speech for Catholic listeners. Ugh. More questions than answers from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.

    Contraception is the lowest common denominator of appeal for those who would trash Church teaching before letting go of complacency.

    No apology for using the word Mandate in olden times like yesterday. Now, it’s all about being the bearer of ‘good’ compromise for all concerned, especially those who want contraception. Politics, pandering to voters, and shutting up the Church.

  • I think Sr. Keehan has no idea how insurance works.

  • from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.
    He said so.

  • Too busy today to do anything right now except to note that this is no compromise and anyone who thinks it is is either a fool or a knave. Obama truly does have nothing but contempt for those outside of his ideological bubble.

  • Who is this Senior Keehan?

  • Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group.

    Gag me with a spoon. I wonder which Catholic group funded his community organizing. I wonder further if those funds made their way through the CSA.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-announce-accommodation-religious-groups-contraceptive-rule-enough-170500694.html

  • There can be no compromise with evil.

    I would hold out for his resignation. That’s me.

  • Another great takedown of this duplicitous “compromise” over at Vox Nova.

  • Haha Paul. I’ll comment on that later. I’ll let others read the takedown first.

  • “Sister” Keehan is a traitor. If she approves of this, then it is not to be trusted. The road of compromise is never ending! Don’t take it. Time for Catholics willing to suffer persecution to stand up and be counted. If Obama wins this, it’s all over for Faith and freedom. Wake up America!
    Immaculate Conception pray for us.

  • I’ll update my post with that link, Paul. Good catch.

  • If the bishops will not or cannot make (Sr.) Keehan behave then hopefully the vatican will discipline her and her order. She is a disgrace to American nuns who are pro-life. In effect, she is giving comfort to the enemy and she needs to be stopped!!!

  • I clicked on the link thinking someone at Vox Nova had actually written something critical of Pharaoh Obama’s “compromise.” It seems most there are content to retreat into philosophical condemnations of American Democracy and other acts of mental onanism.

    I suspect MM is waiting for the Dem talking points.

  • Phillip:

    Kudos. I am afflicted with violent nausea by ravings of lunatics that believe in a vast array of dumb and illogical rubbish.

    Apparently, that pack of catholic Commies (adherents of the gospel of Mao) believe the destruction of the evil, unjust private sector justifies both the damnation of souls and the denial of basic human rights, i.e., religious liberty.

    Seems, they have bought into the tyrant’s alibi: the “welfare of humanity justifies enslaving humanity.”

    You are too kind and genteel. I would have waxed sort of alliterative: “acts of mental masturbation.”

  • The vn are not compromising with evil. They are evil.

  • There aren’t enough exorcists — are there?

  • I was going to rebuke T Shaw for going a bit too far, but he’s really not far afield. To rationalize this decision in such a way is just astounding. There really is no road low enough for these folks at VN. That said, I have to agree with Tony on one thing.

    Think of Romney attacking Obama when he did the same thing in Massachusetts!

    Well, at least that one was non-demented sentence in the rant.

  • How did Sr. Keenan get quoted? I understood this article was about what Catholics thought?
    Dan Malone

  • May God Change Sr. Keehan’s heart. We all should pray she converts and repents. She is truly a lost soul directing others to HELL.

  • The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration Mr President, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

  • Me and my wife have been trying to have a child for over a year and we are seeing a fertility doctor who is putting my wife on birth control for one month to regulate her cycle (i.e., as part of a plan aimed at treatments during the following month). I don’t think this is a sin and I don’t see any problem with the Catholic Church providing those contraceptives if I worked for them. I don’t see the catch-22 Nancy describes because it seems the sin only occurs when contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy. Although contraceptives can be used in a sinful way, so can other health-related drugs, medical devices, or equipment. The most obvious examples are the use of many prescription drugs to commit suicide or to be abused. In the case of these other drugs, the Church doesn’t eliminate the drugs from their health plan but instead provides them and expects Catholics to follow its teachings and not use the drugs in the commission of a sin. Why are contraceptives different? They have a number of non-sinful uses, including use by non-Catholic employees or to regulate menstruation (i.e., in someone who is not having sex). I don’t see why providing these drugs would be any more a sin than providing Oxycontin or morphine. Would it be a sin for the Church to provide baseball bats because they could be used to commit a murder?

45 Responses to The New Progressive Martyrdom

  • That is unfair.

    Catholics for Obama are not as evil as Judas.

    They are about 2% less vicious.

  • “They are about 2% less vicious.”

    And paid a whole lot more than 30 pieces of silver!

  • I got it the first time, but the second cartoon is great! Some “catholics” just don’t want to get it……all those babies gone from their chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…..and the chance to have loving moms and dads and to learn about the future. The only thing that passes as hope is that the millions of babies not born are angels in heaven now.

  • St Augustine wrote in the City of God.

    “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. . . . still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.”

  • Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote. While I’m a majority of them were of the National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) stripe, a significant degree of them were pro-life orthodox Catholics. Catholics like most people vote their perceived economic interests more than any other factor.

    In my mind, this is an indication of a woeful ignorance of the principle of subsidiarity, the bedrock principle of Catholic social teaching. Consequently, Catholics, by and large, have absolutely no clue as to how economic issues affect the culture and life issues and vicea versa. When was the last time anyone has ever heard the bishops even mention the principle of subsidiarity, much less give a coherent explanation of it in the context of our present circumstances? While Obamacare was being shoved down our throats, the only U.S. bishop, at least to my knowledge, that even raised the question about how a takeover of one sixth of our economy can be squared with the principle of subsidiarity was Bp. Lori of Bridgeport, CT. In fact, if it wasn’t for the abortion funding provision they would have been completely on board with Obamacare.

    No, our bishops are usually too busy taking sides on issues they have no business taking sides on like capital punishment, immigration (it was the same Abp. Dolan who praised Cdl Mahony’s equating AZ’s SB 1070 with Communist and Nazi tactics while issuing an irresponsible and I think calumnious attack of his own) etc.

    Until the bishops actually spending time teaching the faith as opposed to using their good offices pursuing their ideological agenda under thin guise of social justice, their pleas on stuff like this will lack the credibility it needs.

  • What Greg Mockeridge said…

    Also, what exactly did 0bama Catholics get for voting for him? In other words, what represents the 30 pieces of silver? I hope it was something more than a warm, fuzzy feeling.

  • I take great exception to these characterizations of Catholics who voted for Obama.

    I know many who did and, while I strongly disagree with their choice, these attacks are entirely unwarranted and unjust.

    Many believed that abortion was at a stalemate – they bought, hook, line, and sinker, the story spun by the Left that the Executive Branch was powerless to affect the abortion question. Foolish? More than a little. This is, though, the result of not teaching civics over the last fifty years – of failing to educate Americans as to how their government works.

    Lambs led to a slaughter – not partners in evil.

    There is no good and just cause to alienate our brothers and sisters with such talk and recrimination. Indeed, it isn’t even smart! Do you really want to drive them back into that fold just as they are waking up?

    Folks… Charity is called for, not meanness and a deadly dose of “told ya so.”

  • Lambs being led to slaughter…….sounds like the jews in nazi germany!!!!!! It is about time Catholics..American or Catholics from every country..wake up. We are only in this world for a short time…and will be in eternity forever…We can have a lot of fun while we are here….God has been good to us, but there are a few rules we have to follow. Those who think they can constantly turn against those rules will have to answer one day..I am not judging or condemning anyone. You cannot convince me that adult American Catholics do not know what abortion is…and the far reaching results for the economy and future of our country…not to mention what the results will be for us in the next world

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY U.S. POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • “Wake up!” is an excellent message to send. The first cartoon captures my feelings well.

    “You are traitors and knowing conspirators with evil” is precisely the wrong message to send to our fellow Catholics; uncatechised men and women who grew up in a culture which treats religion as a window-dressing, people who want to be good and to do right but are confused by the myriad of demands and mixed messages.

    My grandfather used to say that it isn’t fair to judge men by what they do. Even our best plans fall far short of what we hoped for. By that measure, we are all utter failures. You can only judge by what a man meant to do: either good or evil.

  • “Lambs led to a slaughter – not partners in evil.” Thank you, G-Veg. My beloved American Catholics, stop tearing one another apart and rally around your Bishops. Even the “coward” Peter who denied Jesus three times, still rose to the occasion of the Mission his Master gave him of leading His Infant Church. We need to remember that this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. She is both Divine and Human. Divine because She is Holy, Human because Her Leaders are human – just as we all are, with all human frailties. Therefore, whenever She has been under persecution and emerged victorious, God’s Power was confirmed and Her Holiness re-affirmed.

  • Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote. While I’m a majority of them were of the National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) stripe, a significant degree of them were pro-life orthodox Catholics.

    I will wager that about 70% of them were derived from the pool of Catholics of the modal type: those not at Mass. They would not know the National Catholic Reporter from the local pennysaver.

  • G-Veg & [email protected],

    Your points are duly noted.

    For the time being the post will remain up.

  • Mr. Edwards,

    I am not asking that any posts or comments be removed.

    My taking exception reflects my views. I do not speak for any other and do not ask that anyone be silent on my account.

  • Sorry, but I don’t regret any of it. Because . . .

    It wasn’t abortion.

    It still is abortion;

    Plus contraception; gay privileges; divorce; universal promiscuity; public school destructions of children’s consciences while prohibiting parental intervention; etc.

    They are going to vote for that way again.

    Worst: They buy into the class envy, hope and change thing. The evil, unjust private sector is being destroyed. So, with what will the ominpotent, omniscient state replace it?

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

    Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself – even if he earned more than you.

  • I’m reminded of that scene in The Omen in which the girl leaps from the building happily shouting, “Damien, It’s all for you!”

  • Mr. Edwards, my plea was that we do not look back at the mistake the American Catholics made by voting for Obama. No one – then – knew exactly what his Agenda was. So all those who voted for him, did so in good faith. But now that he has shown his hand, we should all join together and fight the Evil. From my beloved Kenya, Obama’s father homeland, we are on our knees praying for your Country and our Holy Mother Church to win this War because God has been pushed too far. The Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy daily pray for your country at 3.00 O’clock – The Hour of Great Mercy. We are all in this War together.

  • Mary:

    Actually we did know much of what his agenda really was. There was much written about his past regarding his influences, what his beliefs were and who he associated with (e.g. Jeremiah Wright who had close ties with people like Louis Farrakan) domestic terrorist William Ayers, etc.

    This, among other things told he was someone no honest intelligence person had any business supporting him, much less a conscientious Catholic.

  • I meant to say “inteligent person”.

  • Greg, were you aware that he had disdain for Organized Religion? Because I want to believe that if the faithful American Catholics knew this – and the Catholic Church being “The Church”- they would probably have thought twice about voting for him. Unless The Faith in your beloved Country has ceased to be of any importance or influence in people’s lives. Which would be really sad.

  • People in this country have had it too good for too long and seem to support anyone they think will keep things static. They are so secularized that what is in it for them is more important than what is right. I keep hearing about how 85-98% of Catholic women use contraception….If that is so, does it negate the natural law?
    So, yes the Faith has ceased to be of importance in many people’s lives. It is hard to live in half million dollars houses and drive luxury cars if there is a chance of a new child arriving and putting a dent in the financial tone enjoyed by mom and dad and their one or two children! All the Catholic young people in the public schools rather than in parochial schools attests to this also. The tuition for parish schools cuts too deeply into parents’
    comfortable lifestyles. Imagine what another child would do !
    I am not judging anyone//but am pointing out how secular this country is…and how life after death is often put on the back burner while life here is filled with one’s own selfish desires.

  • Nope!

    In 2008 it was all Justice and peace!!!

    It was all human dignity, faux charity, “have-you-no-decency” wailing and gnashing of teeth, which was, of course, truly nothing but partisan bu!!$hit.

    And in 2012, a majority of the same moral vermin tacitly support drone assassinations and keeping the Gitmo tortuary operational.

    It’s peculiar, how just as in 2008, the death penalty, the evil tax cuts for the evil rich, and water boarding still trump abortion, contraception, gay privileges, the moral destruction of American youth, tyranny, etc.

  • G-Veg & [email protected],

    Thanks for clarifying your points.

    You guys can call me “Tito” by the way. 🙂

    Maybe we need to distinguish between Catholics that supported Obama and now regret it and those that will still vote for Obama.

  • One should be skeptical of easy answers to complex questions. The American tapestry is woven with more types and colors of thread than we pretend.

    My view is that there are two major education defects that affect American Catholic decision-making: we are not catechized and we don’t know anything about civics.

    In Peter Berger’s “The Sacred Canopy,” he posits that Man needs the concept of “god” because it provides answers to those questions that plague the human mind. I think this is essentially correct. The catechism – any system of moral and religious teaching really – provides Man with answers, answers that we desperately need in order to remain sane.

    Catechism gives Catholics ready answers. Most Catholics who are catechized are willing to accept those ready answers without much question, primarily because they are too busy living to inquire all that much into the areas of human consciousness beyond their daily needs. Catholics without catechesis NEED answers and, so, search for plausibility. There being no definite truth in their minds, it is no wonder that they reject faith-based reasoning in favor of seemingly scientific answers through the popular culture.

    It is the backdrop of uncatechized Catholics against which the present drama is being played out. We may go to church and partake in the sacraments but the underlying philosophy and the richness of Catholic scholarship is lost to most of us. Without it, we seek to meld popular culture into the surface level Catholicism that is practiced by our Protestant brothers and sisters – a religion that is largely impotent in the public sphere and only relevant in its ability to organize our private lives.

    Statements like “I would never have an abortion but who am I to tell others what to do” reflect this reality.

    In a similar way, the lack of civics education in America forces Americans to judge policy by its effect on partisan interests rather than its fit in the broader framework of our political life. Not knowing what the Constitution says or the development of Western law and culture, we ask “does this fit my worldview.” What does not is bad and what does is good, without respect to whether the policy is lawful or even intelligible.

    Our willingness to accept omnibus bills that are admitted to have been unread before signed off on seems to demonstrate this truth.

    These observations represent, admittedly, just a small portion of the causes of our decline as a people and as a religious group within the larger culture. They have to be considered though when seeking to justly chastise and problem solve.

    Our fellow Catholics don’t have to be stupid, ignorant, evil, or hypocritical for the agenda we see to take root. They need only be wrong.

    Their culpability is limited to their knowledge – or so says Jesus for, “to he whom much is given, much is expected.” It will surely go worse for a certain law professor and ambassador than for the college kid, steeped in the Marxist and hedonistic culture of an American university.

    When we assume ill will in a Man’s choosing to sin or to support a political or social cause that is at odds with Church teaching, we do a great disservice to them and the Church. Our duty is to illuminate, not destroy the vestiges of faithful understanding that remain.

  • Mary:

    Like I said, when you consider his associations and the fact that he opposed the Child Born Alive Act and organized religion is the strongest advocate against abortion, this HHS mandate really isn’t a stretch. No decent person, much less a faithful Catholic had any business voting for him.

  • I would no more want to sit down and chat with one of Hitler’s henchmen than with a doctor that makes his living off of abortions. I would nor more support one of Hitler’s henchmen than support a supporter of partial birth abortion. This is evil plain and simple as I am sure Hitler and his henchmen had some good qualities about them yet the evil shadows that.

  • MissKitty,

    It is true that, at some point, the enormity of crimes makes plain the disorder of the soul.

    What is of issue though is not whether one should sit down with a mass murderer but a fellow Catholic… Confused but Catholic.

    Let us assume that every Catholic on this blog knows at least one practicing Catholic who is using artificial birth control. Beyond a doubt, the Church’s position on artificial birth control is well known. What, then, should be our response to such a one?

    It is a lot more complex an issue than your response betrays. Talking to Catholics who voted for Candidate Obama is not at all like sitting down with Josef Mengele.

  • As a Catholic I am both offended and embarrassed by these cartoons. This is not loving and it certainly doesn’t reflect anything our Lord would do. Christ himself taught the separation of Church and State. We don’t live in a Catholic country ruled by the Papacy. We live in a nation which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    I believe in life at conception. I tolerate choice in this country because it’s not my place to impose my beliefs on the atheist down the street. Share the good news and if someone doesn’t want to listen, turn around kick the dust off your sandals and walk away. Don’t any of you read scripture?

    It’s far more loving and productive to put our energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than spending millions of dollars over decades trying to force females to give birth to children they don’t want and would probably keep rather than place for adoption. A little education and support go a long way.

    Teaching abstinence is a joke. It doesn’t work, it only leads to teen pregnancy. If you love your children, teach your sons to respect women and to keep their pants zipped. Teach your daughters to respect themselves and to grow up knowing they don’t need a boyfriend in order to feel valuable as a young woman. And please, pull your heads out realize that your children are more than likely going to have sex before they get married, so teach them about birth control and disease prevention.

    Do you really believe that God would prefer more unwanted and poorly taken care of babies populating the planet?

  • Faithful,

    Your comment is pure rubbish.

    Once you dissent from the teachings of Jesus, your life becomes a lie.

  • Tito,

    Thank you for sharing your Christian love and wisdom. Please provide the verse or verses in which Christ taught that abortion is a worse sin than divorce, adultery, rape, war, destroying the earth, cheating, lying, and persecuting others.

  • How will abortion prevent divorce, adultery, rape, war, destroying the earth, cheating, lying, and persecuting others?

    Abortion is murder. As such it encourages all those other things. Indeed, a nation that murders its unborn automatically creates the environment for divorce (I don’t want your baby), adultery (a woman is just a sex object), rape (I don’t care about woman or babies), war (I will war against the unborn), destroying the earth (I will kill the unborn so that there are no stewards of God’s green earth), cheating (I don’t have to have a baby, so I can cheat on my wife whenever I please), lying (it’s just a blob of flesh and I am the god who controls its destiny) and persecuting others (let’s start with dismemberment of the unborn during abortion).

  • “Faithful’s” objections are very similar to what a neo-Nazi feminist group has been circulating on Facebook. They call themselves Strong and Intelligent Women Choosing Equality and Freedom Instead of Religion, and they have a placard question the pro-life movement’s stance on war, capital punishment, environmentalism, etc. I analyze and debunk their points here:

    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2012/02/you-still-be-pro-life-after-shes-born.html

    Nope, I am not politically correct, so forewarned is forearmed.

  • Post Script – “Faithful”, I used plenty of Bible verses to backup the points in my essay, since that is a specific request of yours.

  • Faithful:

    Faithful to what? Molech.

    Major weakness of liberals: they are convinced everyone is stupid.

  • Faithful: old saying “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

    Cease and desist: You have provided ample evidence of your moral bankruptcy.

    PS: Caesar did not decree any of those sins to be licit; nor did he tax people to pay for the sins. In fact, he did not force the Judeans to worship idols or eat sacrificed meats as the Hellenists attempted.

    liberal

  • Ergi, Obama is worse than Caligula.

  • Faithful:
    The main reference for you to start on is the Fifth Commandment of God.
    Thou shall not Kill.
    Why don’t you look through the Bible, which is God’s Word, for many warnings of woe to those who harm children, and also disregard the Sixth Commandment. The Gospels have specific teachings about results of keeping children from Jesus.

  • I am overwhelmed by your hatred. I have already stated that I am pro-life, ergo, I believe in life at conception, therefore I also believe that abortion is taking a life. I believe it’s a violation of my rights when my tax dollars fund abortion. I’m not embarrassed to share this with people. I’ve argued this with the most militant of feminists.

    As an American, I still believe that choice should remain legal and privately funded. There have always been, and will always be, people who practice unsafe sex outside of marriage. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. There will always be females seeking abortions whether I like it or not. I don’t think that any female should have to die because she made bad choices. It’s hideous that anyone ever find themselves in that position.

    I have read and studied the Bible plenty, regardless of what you choose to believe. I was taught by Jesuits. Paul, I didn’t ask how eliminating abortion could prevent other sins. I asked where Jesus ranked all of those sins. It’s those other sins, lust, envy and adultery that lead to abortion. The Church now tolerates divorce. Does that make the Church morally bankrupt?

    Thank you for confirming my decision to treat people with love and kindness rather than hatred and insult. I came to this site to learn. The only lesson I walk away with is how not to treat people with whom I disagree.

  • I was taught by Jesuits.

    That explains much.

  • “There will always be females seeking abortions whether I like it or not.”

    Just as there will always be murders whether you like it or not. That is not an argument for legalizing murder, just as the fact that there will always be abortions is no reason to legalize them.

    “The only lesson I walk away with is how not to treat people with whom I disagree.”

    Apparently your way is to go off in a huff when you run into people who disagree with you.

  • That was huffy to you? Goodness. I disagree with you on this particular subject. I’m guessing if I met any of you on the street we’d more than likely agree on quite a bit and have an enjoyable conversation, perhaps a lively debate. I’m not the one attacking and belittling others. I disagree with hateful attacks and arguments. I don’t think we progress when we satirize. I don’t see value in celebrating disrespect and I’m not a fan of sarcasm. I’m not clear how that makes me huffy.

    Donald, you make a valid point in countering my argument. There will always be murder and no, that’s no reason to legalize it. The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.

    I don’t expect you to agree with my position and welcome respectful disagreement. Once again, I don’t understand Christians battling with hate. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  • Faithful, please do not walk away. If you are a truly “Faithful Catholic”, we need to stick together and fight for God. As Donald points out, we cannot accept abortion because it will continue to happen anyway. Abortion is Murder Most Foul. Why? Because one kills an innocent defenceless human person is their first home, where they should be safest. It is Murder Most Foul because a mother – after gratifying herself – decides to murder the result of her irresponsibility.

    And Please, Faithful, the Catholic Church HAS NEVER ACCEPTED DIVORCE, NEVER. Just get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read for yourself. You say you have read the Holy Bible exhaustively. Well, the Catholic Church has two more Pillars upon which She stands. The Tradition and the Magisterium. Any Catholic who wants to be a true Catholic takes the trouble to be fully familiar with these two Pillars as well. A faithful Catholic knows we do not pick and chose what to believe and accept and what to brush away and ignore. You are either a Catholic or you are something else. “I believe in all the Truths which the Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, You Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, Amen”. Does that Prayer ring a bell in your mind, Faithful??? I hope so.

    Reading the responses from you all on this Website, I want to place my Faith on the fact that, since your Government has demonstrated its evil designs against the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit will stir and invigorate your consciousness and you all rise up and defend Mother Church. You should all join with your Bishops, support them and fight for God Whom your Government is determined to chuck out of the window and install Satan on the Throne. You should not accept Laws which are contrary not only to Divine Law but also against the Natural Law. To you, Tito, thank you for getting my point. We are with you, American Catholics, in this War.

    Again to you, Faithful, this Statement is regrettable : “The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.” Any reasonable person KNOWS life BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. Whether majority of Americans believe otherwise, does not change the Truth. If someone wants to remain in error, even when the Truth is hitting them right between the eyes, that shall not affect the Truth. My prayer is that now that the Catholic Church is under the most vicious persecution in your country, all people of goodwill will rise up and protect the Anchor that holds your country – and indeed mankind – together as I am reading it is enshrined in your Constitution.

  • “The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.”

    Laws almost always help the victims of gross injustice, and the grossest injustice being meted out in this country today is to the unborn who have no legal protection accorded to their right to life. As for people disagreeing about this you are of course correct, just as 150 years ago white Americans were fiercely divided about whether blacks should be free. Division of opinion is no reason not to remedy injustice and protect the victims of it.

  • The essence of the evil which is murder/abortion is that the murderer/abortionist usurps God’s Will in determining who dies and when.

48 Responses to Thomas Woods and His Critics, The Austrian vs. Distributist Debate Among Catholics

  • Good post, David. Off-topic, but are you in CL?

  • Great post – I agree this discussion is fascinating. IT it is very much improved by the frank admission and acceptance of the principle of the autonomy of the temporal order, and the civility of the contributors to the discussion. I hope to see more posts like this here.

  • I hate this post. I don’t like things that remind me of how poorly read I am. 😉

    In seriousness, thank you very much for writing this; I think it will give people like me a basis for understanding this debate. Now if only you could out enough time to go with the many links!

  • Great roundup. Thanks.

    Let us generalize about right-liberals and libertarians of various stripes (I might be described as paleo-libertarian, but the concept still seems to me to be in development, and I dislike all liberalism):

    Insofar as they are fine with a determinism of the “free market” economic conduct, they are wrong:
    by this I mean a view that the market is incompatible with ethics. “Efficiency” is NEVER to be valued above morality. The “market” has NO “inner logic.”

    Thus a good society is built upon the morality of its people, and culture is more important than politics and the construction of economic structures.

    Market-Determinism, it might be called, is anti-human, just as collectivism is anti-human (Ayn Rand was right about the Soviet Union and wrong about herself).

    Markets come from society. They are social institutions, flowing from law and custom. A market mechanism punishes inefficiency – great. But morality and family (and from family, tribe, and from tribe, nation, if a nation is not to have large-scale internal conflict) must be the foundational basis of organizing influence upon a polis.

  • Chris,

    Absolutely.

  • I have one issue with this debate – it seems too narrowly framed. Although I admire distributism, I don’t really regard myself as one. It’s a little narrow in its focus. And the Austrians are a little kooky and fringe. The real argument is between Catholics who support the postwar experiment in Christian democracy (which, as the pope says, is very close to social democracy in its economic aspects), and the resurgent laissez-faire liberalism that held sway long before Hayek started worrying about welfare states and dictators.

  • I’m curious about something and would like to it throw something out here. I am not very well read on economics, but I’m under the impression there are no major true laissez-faire capitalist voices out there. My impression is that most everyone acknowledges a role of the government in the economy, and that the debate is really one of degree and type of involvement. Is that a fair assessment?

  • resurgent laissez-faire liberalism

    The Libertarian Party is good for 0.7% of the national vote. Dr. Paul won about 5 1/2% of the Republican primary and caucus ballots two years ago; Alan Keyes once did about as well.

  • MM,

    If you really want to talk about real, current alternatives in the current political and economic landscape, I’m not clear that Christian Democracy or even Social Democracy are much on the table either.

    If I were to venture a guess though, I think that the appeal of Distributism for many Catholic readers/writers is that:

    a) It is a specifically Catholic phenomenon, which Social Democracy is not and Christian Democracy only partly is and

    b) For many Catholics, I think that the European example of Christian Democracy and Social Democracy in the post-war years is seen as tainted by what seems to have followed naturally from it: a breakdown of the communal in favor of the individual, and a relationship between individual and state replacing other more subsidiary relationships.

    Distributism, in it more communitarian forms, appeals to those who might be more receptive to ideas of Christian Democracy if they hadn’t seen how it worked out in reality. In that Distributism has (or can have) communitarian elements, yet lacks the centralizing and statist impulses of Christian Democracy, its fans hope that it would fair better.

  • Regarding a supposedly resurgent laissez-faire liberalism….since when exactly? Maybe in the time of McKinley and Taft, but certainly not since the first large-scale American centralizations, which began with Wilson (who could make W. Bush look like the head of the ACLU) and continued with the New Deal and the Great Society and continues right on up to the corporatist spirit and value transferrence of….well, today’s Republicans and Democrats (although, hey, maybe the big banks and companies and major foundations and Wall Street crowds will give a lot less to leftist parties and causes this year, given the economy – typically they fill up those coffers).

    The real argument is, increasinly, between our elites (government, media, big business, big public sector labor unions, ethnic activists, those that transfer instead of create value) and the folks really getting hammered – small business owners, family farms, manufacturers, ect (ie people that make our economy hum and don’t want to think too much about politics as they raise their families). Douthat hinted at this yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06douthat.html?_r=1&ref=rossdouthat

  • My impression is that most everyone acknowledges a role of the government in the economy, and that the debate is really one of degree and type of involvement. Is that a fair assessment?

    I’d say so. These days even anarchists acknowledge a role for government.

  • Chris,

    Thanks for this excellent overview!

    Many of you know that I am intimately involved in this dispute. I was a contributor to the Distributist Review, and was unceremoniously dumped when I began to take more libertarian positions.

    Indeed I have been characterized as a “Distributarian” for my attempt to reconcile the two positions (and I thank you for including my old article, my first attempt at that).

    I have been fascinated with the work of Hayek and Ropke, and I have come to believe ever-more strongly in the positive goodness of economic liberty. I think my evolution is quite similar to David Jones’, in that it is impossible for me not to acknowledge what the Austrians get right.

    Those who want to learn more about my perspective are also invited to read:

    http://joeahargrave.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/markets-and-morality-ron-paul-and-wilhelm-ropke/

    http://joeahargrave.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-distributist-manifesto/

  • Blackadder,

    Yes I am in CL. Drop me an email if you desire.

  • The Distributists err when they claim the Austrians are a bunch of heretics. In Catholic Social Doctrine there is the principle of the “Autonomy of the Temporal Order”. The Church does not mandate we embrace a specific economic (or political) model. The Church has been critical of both Socialism and Capitalism in the past, but also recognizes that we live in a global economy today. The prudential application of moral principles can be applied in both a Distributist and Capitalist economic model.

    Actually, the charge is that the Austrians deny that the Church has any sort of teaching role in economic matters (and the concomitant claim that economics is completely separate from ethics). The Church does not mandate any particular order for all polities, but it does provide general principles.

  • (and *affirm* the concomitant claim that economics is completely separate from ethics).

  • Let me also say that I agree with Johnathan Jones about the importance of culture. We cannot have Locke without Burke. We cannot have freedom without values. We cannot have liberty without Christ!

    But having said all that, I believe many of the critics of economic liberalism undermine the free-will that is inherent in human nature, that is a property of the souls God gave us. It is free-will that bestows a dignity upon man above all of the animals; it is free-will that makes us moral beings. To undermine free-will by attempting to micromanage the economy is to degrade humanity, in my opinion. There should certainly be a framework, but within it, there should be as much freedom as possible.

    I think we are voluntary collectivists by nature. So I reject involuntary collectivism as well as voluntary individualism. And I think Christianity is ultimately voluntary collectivism, and what we ought to be working towards.

  • Excellent. Thanks for taking the time to put all that together – I hope to get through it all someday.

    I think a great point made, that deserves to be mentioned again, is that the issue is morality, virtue and character.

    Austrians maybe right about the market (I happen to agree); however, men are not angels. Although the market is the preferred method for ferreting out problems, it fails without Church (conscience) and government (fair broker). The problems we face are that we do not have a church in this country, we have churches and although there is really only One Church in truth, we are not there yet. We also have to deal with the fact that centralized statist power necessarily attracts men of low character and questionable morality, if any. Therefore, the government is not a fair broker.

    The government and the corporatists look out for each other at the expense of everyone else. This is what caused Jesus to flip tables in the Temple.

    We need to have this debate; however, in order for it to be something more than an academic and theoretical one, we need to restore the US Constitution, apply subsidiarity (federalism) and restore the moral order – first within ourselves, our Church, our communities and then elect men of character as our representatives. Then this discussion can have practical results.

    In the current corporatist-statist paradigm neither Austrian theory, nor Distributism have any place. We are given the option of Socialism leading to Communism leading to an evil oligarchy and reducing us to serfs (slaves), or Capitalism leading to corporate usurers being in control leading to an oligarchy and reducing us to employees (slaves). The result is the same either way.

    Me thinks the majority of people given the latter two choices, would prefer either of the former choices as an economic system for this country.

  • In meaning that culture is more important than politics, and that the family is the very foundation of a good society, it should also be noted that the strands of activist statism and liberalism (because even right-liberalism is an invitation to statism, as “freedom” is isolating and people become open to state-sponsored communion, and so I use liberalism to mean “equal freedom”, as enforced equality is left-liberalism) invite hubris. Protection against this is the genius of Madison in Federalist 10, writing that a dim view of human nature is most reasonable for the conduct of public affairs. “The good life of man” he traced to the Greeks, who asked not what kind of society can we mold but how can we mold ouselves to a concept of the good. Such (proper!) questions are why literary insight matters so much to governmental organization – as governmental organization should be concerned with following the good order of souls, which will always gravitate towards communion (hopefully in the Eucharist), no matter their stated desires (and so I agree about humans being “voluntary collectivists).”

  • Actually, the charge is that the Austrians deny that the Church has any sort of teaching role in economic matters (and the concomitant claim that economics is completely separate from ethics).

    The Austrian position is more limited than this. Here, for example, is Woods:

    My position, therefore, in no way involves the claim that the sciences per se, including economics, are exempt from moral evaluation. They are, however, exempt from technical critiques on the part of the Church, since churchmen may speak only as individuals on such questions and not for the Church as a whole. Thus if a certain medicine could be produced only by ripping the hearts out of living human beings, the Church should condemn such a thing, no matter how many doctors were in favor of producing the medicine. But if two kinds of medicines are suggested to treat a particular ailment, and no moral objection can be raised to either one, then in such an area the Church must defer to those who are schooled in that specialized science.

    The confusion arises, I think, from the fact that Catholics often make moral claims which presuppose certain factual assumptions. These assumptions can seem so obvious that a person doesn’t even realize they are there. It just seems like straight morality. So when an Austrian denies the conclusion and says it goes beyond the Church’s competence, it sounds like he is denying a moral teaching.

  • Blackadder: Do the Austrians claim that economics is purely descriptive? If so, then on what basis do they make normative claims?

    Medicine or pharmaceuticals is a product of art subordinate to biology — it’s not exactly a good analogy since all human transactions are moral in nature and cannot be studied in abstraction of their morality. One cannot say that these are just our observations about how operate work in the “marketplace” and they are morally neutral. If economics were just like physics or biology, one could claim the Church has no competence to criticize. But it’s not.

  • “We cannot have Locke without Burke.”

    That’s a good argument for getting rid of Burke.

  • Joe H. Says, “We cannot have Locke without Burke.”

    Why would we want Locke at all?

  • In America, we’re stuck with Locke, and I don’t think he was all bad.

  • @ John C.M.

    LOL

    …Locke, Stocke, and Two Smoking Barrels!

    (Couldn’t resist)

  • It’s not longer a matter of will, intention, rationality, etc.? We’re just stuck with him?

  • Well, I think Locke is a part of the American political tradition via the founding fathers and particularly Jefferson.

    So no, I don’t think you can just will the legacy of Locke’s ideas out of the American political consciousness.

  • Locke’s influence on the Founding is overrated. Locke was but one of many writers that were quoted and cited in the literature of the time, but if you look at the philosophy of the men who truly formed our republic – Madison, Hamilton, Adams, etc – he was not a formative influence in any meaningful way.

  • And how did we even get onto this discussion in the first place? We make some funny detours around here.

  • David & BA,

    CL as in Communion and Liberation?

  • One thing that strikes me as peculiar about the point of origin of this discussion is your identification of ‘Austrian’ economics as the counterpoint to certain trends in Catholic social thought. ‘Austrian’ economics is an odd and controversial set of conceptions and not accepted by aught but a small minority of macroeconomists with an affinity for libertarian notions of justice.

  • jonathanjones02 & DarwinCatholic – All brilliant comments and observations. I agree with them, I think.

    Joe – Blosser referred me over to your blog. Wow, great stuff. You and I will be talking I am sure. I will definitely read the links you provided above. I am especially interested in learning more about Ropke’s thought. If memory serves me correctly ISI publishes some of his works or at least book(s) about his thought. At this moment I am reading the foundational texts of Distributism. I also what to read the newer books of Distributism that the Distributist Review Press is putting out. I also desire to read more Robert Nisbet, Russell Kirk, & Karl Polanyi. Maybe I can find time for Ropke as well. You might find this article of interest.

    http://www.mmisi.org/ir/41_01/carlson.pdf

    PB – I agree with you.

    American Knight – Brilliant comments as well. I would slightly differ with you on that it is possible to find small ways to live the Distributist lifestyle in our time. Refer to the works and thought of Wendell Berry, Eric Brende, Rod Dreher, Caleb Stegall, etc. The work and thought of John Médaille and Richard Aleman are especially helpful in this regard. Refer to the Aleman’s recent talk at the Chesterton conference. I am not sure it’s available yet though.

    http://chesterton.org/2010conference.htm

    Maybe he will be kind enough to provide the text of the talk to us. Refer to his podcast interview though on Uncommon Sense #17.

    http://uncommonsense.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=573724

    John Médaille – As a 2001 IRPS grad (last class under Bushman) from UD I salute you. Thank you for all your years of work advocating Distributist thought. What you and others have done with the Distributist Review is simply beautiful. I am really excited about where DR is going.

    WJ, John & Joe – I prefer Burke over Locke… I wonder what Russell Kirk has to say about Locke? I would also remind folks of Masonic influence on Locke’s thought. Blosser is now beating his head on the table. hehe

    http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2005/09/freemasonry-and-america-part-iii.html

    Tito – yes CL means Communion and Liberation in my case.

  • What concerns me about the Austrians or anarcho capitalists, especially Rothbard’s and even Lew Rockwell’s thought as far as I have read or heard them, is this… They never it seems to me distinguish between the local, state and federal governments. All government is bad, all the time. This is simply not reasonable. This is not in line with Catholic Social Ethics either. Things should be handled at the lowest level possible (subsidiarity) – individual, family, neighborhood, parish, community, state, nation, etc. Government is not evil though, which is the presupposition of the Austrians. I reject that. Government is necessary for the common good in a fallen world.

  • In addition to the above link that I provided here are some others. Here are just some of the historic conversations I have had with Blosser and others on the influence Masonic thought on our Founding Fathers refer below.

    http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/09/george-washington-and-freemasonry.html

    http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-charles-carroll-influenced-us.html

    Locke and others are talked about in the comments of this last link.

    One could argue the liberalism (classical?) that they Austrians argue for is related to this topic as well.

  • As an attempt to gently guide us back to the topic of the main post. If you had to put me in a box politically I would state I am a traditional conservative, or to use Rod Dreher’s term – a crunchy conservative. Refer to his book, Crunch Cons. Libertarianism for me is like a shoe one size too small. I am very attracted to it at times, but the shoe just doesn’t fit. I like what the Austrians have to say about the monetary policy (i.e. fiat currency & the Federal Reserve), but I can’t swallow their promotion of anarchy, either in the economic or political spheres. I agree with the comments above about the importance of morality and values. A government can enact moral and just laws. A government can regulate the market for the common good. I would just argue this needs to be done at the lowest level possible. I share the same concerns of many above about collectivism.

  • I hear you David. I think matters would be helped if we considered that there is a difference between:

    1) “government” and “the state”, and

    2) “the state” and “the State”

    Re. 1, I think it is arguable that “the state” – the modern state as we know it – is a relatively recent invention. It is a permanent set of coercive institutions operated by professional bureaucrats. Governments, I think, are the sum of administrative institutions. At least that’s how some people would draw the distinction. There are anarchists who say they are “anti-state” but not “anti-government”, and that’s how they do it (crudely, roughly). Personally, I don’t see how you have a government without at least a minimal state – the “minarchist” position.

    I’m closer to minarchism these days, but I do see a positive role for government in providing benefits and incentives to inherently good and socially beneficial activity. Really I’d just like to go back to city-states, in my fantasy land 🙂 Catholic city-states… like medieval Venice… I think those accord much better with CST than say, the reign of the Sun King.

    Re. 2, here much confusion arises, especially among Catholics. I think when the pre-councilar popes, especially Leo XIII, are speaking of “the State” with a capital S, they are speaking about something somewhat different than say, our federal bureaucracy. When I read Aristotle’s Politics, for instance, it seems rather clear to me that in many places in which “State” appears, we might use the word “society” or even “civil society” – as a sphere distinct from coercive authority. And I see a similarity in Leo’s encyclicals. It could mean both, it could mean either.

    So “State” capital S seems to suggest a great deal more, and at the same time, a great deal less from the coercive power.

    I could be wrong I suppose. But if I’m right, then it puts some of the social teaching in a new light.

  • Joe – I am curious to get your judgment of Carlson’s article on Karl Polanyi when you get a free moment.

  • David,

    I have the tab open. That means it will be read today 🙂

    It looks fascinating, and so yes I will comment!

  • David,

    I read the article. Polanyi’s arguments are very familiar to me, and indeed I used to share many of them. At the root I still share them, but I think many of the individual ideas are based in a selective and incomplete historical narrative.

    “Laissez-faire” is a slippery term. But the argument that production for exchange isn’t “natural”, i.e. Aristotle’s argument, is just not obviously true. It makes sense in Aristotle’s world, but then, so did slavery and the total subjugation of women. At the same time, Aristotle recognized the implications of technological progress in a very poetic and perhaps unintentional way when he wrote in Book I of the Politics, justifying the reduction of a man to an instrument of production:

    “For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet,

    of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;

    if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.”

    Arguably our modern technology has brought us far closer to this fantastic ideal than Aristotle could have ever imagined. So those who use Aristotle to try and justify reactionary economic arrangements today would do well to realize that Aristotle was something of a technological determinist himself.

    Next, the idea that there was this marvelous social order on the eve of the 19th century that laissez-faire broke apart forcibly is only partially true. These processes had been taking place for centuries, and it is arguable that it began with the massive labor shortages caused by the Black Death.

    It also ignores the rise of commercial capitalism in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Italian city-states, in which there were limited-liability contracts, profitable lending (some would call it usury), and other financial instruments to encourage economic growth. The maritime trading empires of Venice and Genoa especially were built on the “unnatural” form of wealth-getting.

    Alongside commerce and trade existed the Church, whose morality was the foundation upon which all was built. Leo XIII recognized this as a great example of the Church’s positive contribution to civilization in Libertas:

    ” Neither does the Church condemn those who, if it can be done without violation of justice, wish to make their country independent of any foreign or despotic power. Nor does she blame those who wish to assign to the State the power of self-government, and to its citizens the greatest possible measure of prosperity. The Church has always most faithfully fostered civil liberty, and this was seen especially in Italy, in the municipal prosperity, and wealth, and glory which were obtained at a time when the salutary power of the Church has spread, without opposition, to all parts of the State.” (46)

    Here, btw, is another example of Leo’s use of the word “State” meaning something different than our use of the word “state”. Clearly here “State” means more than the coercive power and its bureaucratic appendages.

    This brings me to the last critique I would make of Polanyi: his belief that the artificial, bureaucratic interventions of the welfare-regulatory regime somehow “restored balance” to a social order upset by laissez-faire. I can see how at the time these institutions and interventions were seen as necessary; I believe a century of historical experience has shown that they make the problem worse. The state cannot replace local, organic, spontaneous institutions created through a shared culture and values. Instead it becomes something like a powerful magnet that, through sheer force, draws all of the atomized individuals to it in an undifferentiated mass.

    And the labor unions have proven to be a reactionary force as well. I think they actually prevent the Distributist goal of widespread ownership by bolstering illusions in wage labor. Nisbet mentions “unions and cooperatives” as if they are part and parcel of the same process; I say that the latter will really only begin to thrive as the former finally disappear. I see them as rival visions for improving the lot of the common man.

  • Pingback: Is Economics Universal? « The American Catholic
  • the Daily Bell
    Let’s Talk About Natural Rights by Dr. Tibor Machan

    When various skeptics question the soundness of the American political system, one of their targets is the idea of human nature. After all, the founders took their political philosophy mainly from John Locke who thought human nature does exist and, based on what we know of it and a few other evident matters, we can reach the conclusion that all human beings have certain rights. This is what is meant by holding that there are natural rights and that they are pre-legal, not a creation of government…

    http://www.thedailybell.com/1357/Let-Us-Talk-About-Natural-Rights.html

  • Pingback: Catholic Distributariaism: A Preemptive FAQ « Non Nobis
  • Pingback: Catholic Distributarianism: A Preemptive FAQ « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: The Next Great Depression « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Libertarianism vs. Catholicism « The American Catholic
  • “It’s not an either/or solution, it’s a both/and solution. Test everything, hold fast to what is good in both camps.”

    I have been saying this very thing for a couple of years. Both “camps” seem to me to be excessively doctrinal (and academic) in their writings and debates; so much so that I felt the need to withdraw and take a “time out” to digest it all.

    It’s hard enough for non-academics to absorb this stuff without the the exchange of missiles between the two sides.

  • Pingback: A Union of Conservatives and Libertarians? | The American Catholic

Firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell to be Reviewed By University of Illinois Committee

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

Last week I wrote here about the firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell who had the audacity, in a class about the Catholicism, to actually state Catholic doctrine about homosexuality.  There has been enough of a furor since that the University of Illinois is acting, according to this story in the Chicago Tribune:

A faculty group at the University of Illinois’ flagship campus will review the decision to fire an adjunct religion professor for saying he agreed with Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

Urbana- Champaign campus Chancellor Robert Easter said Monday he hopes to have a decision on the firing of Kenneth Howell from the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure by the time fall classes start. The review is to determine whether Howell’s academic freedom was violated.

“We want to be able to reassure ourselves there was no infringement on academic freedom here,” new university President Michael Hogan told members of the Faculty Senate on Monday. “This is a very, very important, not to mention a touchy and sensitive, issue. Did this cross the line somehow?”

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell to be Reviewed By University of Illinois Committee

Catholic-Islam Dialogue: Reciprocity the Key

Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010

For the past few years I have been taking my Catholic school students over to the nearby Mosque, as part of their World Religions research. It has gone well, everyone is on their best behavior, and it gives the students a chance to hear about Islam from devout Muslims, in their own place of worship. I also have visited the Mosque and Islamic community during the time of my run for public office to speak and dialogue about issues where we would find some common ground. It has all been a very positive experience, but there is one large elephant in the room that must be paid attention to.

Continue reading...

53 Responses to Catholic-Islam Dialogue: Reciprocity the Key

  • Even if we were to accept all of Saudi Arabia as a special case similar to Vatican City, what about the entire rest of the muslim world? The constitutions of Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan all recognize Islamic law as the basis for their legal system, often to the exclusion of anything else. Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p16600.xml?genre_id=3

  • Good argument. So much for the Vatican-Saudi Arabia comparison. I can understand Mecca, and perhaps Medina, not allowing churches or synagogues, but not Riyadh or the rest of the country. That us like Milan or Venice not allowing non-Catholic places of worship.

  • You are wrong.

    Muhammedanism is a vicious affront to Our Lord and Savior, and a threat to world peace. It has been waging a desultory war against the rest of mankind since about 640 Anno Domini.

    Your ‘good’ muslims are biding their time and financing global terrorism . . .

  • T. Shaw- I take my cue from the Magisterium- dialogue is encouraged, Muslims worship the same God as we- Jews do not worship in full comprehension of the Blessed Trinity- but we do not say they do not worship the One, True God.

    In some very important ways we have much more in common with a faithful Muslim than with a hardened secularist who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and so forth- if we are talking about non-negotiable type issues.

    The problem is the reciprocity of religious liberty- and this is a major, major stumbling block that must be addressed for honest dialogue to take place- otherwise we would do well to suspect that dialogue is a one-way street and infiltration of our society in order to radically curtail our Christian freedom is a real threat to society- so let’s not go too far with our beef against Islam, but let’s stay connected to our Magisterium in how we proceed in relationship to these believers.

  • Tim,

    A good post.

    Though there is one point I disagree with and that is jihad.

    jihad is usually described as an internal struggle inside each man’s heart for moral purity.

    Only within the last couple of decades has this line of thought been thrown around.

    Jihad explicitly does mean the subjugation of non-Muslim nations if they refuse to convert without force.

    There is nothing in the Quran nor the hadiths that state anything close to the Just War Doctrine that we have.

    Just my two cents worth.

  • I work with several devout, normal muslims & I like them. I doubt very much that they’re “biding their time”, for heaven’s sake.
    OTOH, since you’re taking your cues from the Vatican, I hope you explain to your class what the word syncretism means.

  • Vatican Council II indicates that all Jews and Muslims in Rome are on the way to Hell. The Bible, the Church and Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them. Ad Gentes 7 says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.

    Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.

    Ad Gentes 7 says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.

    Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

    Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

  • Tito- as for jihad- what I was describing is how the Islam rep. describes it when asked about it- also most of the textbooks go with this description over the one you gave. As for Just War Doctrine- that was not their chosen term but it was my own given how they described the militant dimension to jihad- basically that a Muslim population has the right to defend themselves when attacked- which is how many feel about situations in the Middle East as in Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan- they would say that the fighting was provoked by foreign invaders- and the only thing they regret are the terrorist responses against civilian targets. That is their side of things anyway- for me the issue of religious freedom/reciprocity is the one that they could not come up with any kind of decent response, and seem to be hiding from such a dialogue on that front- which is why I think it is important to put stress on it as I believe the Holy Father has strongly suggested-

    to gb- I’m not sure if I’m catching your drift- are you of the view that since the Church teaches that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as we do- despite not having an appreciation for the fullness of the truth of the Blessed Trinity- that this is syncretism- or am I missing your point?

  • CATECHISM, VATICAN COUNCIL II, EX CATHEDRA DOGMA AND CDF INDICATE ALL ROME’S MUSLIMS AND JEWS ARE ON THE WAY TO HELL

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that de facto non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. It also uses the word all (CCC 836) as does Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).

    CCC 1257 affirms the dogma when it says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. This is a reference to explicit salvation for all with no known exceptions.

    CCC 1257 also says that for salvation God is not restricted to the Sacraments. This must not be interpreted as opposing the dogma or the earlier part of CCC 1257. This is a possibility, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and we cannot judge any specific cases.

    However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God’s will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.-CCC 848
    Those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved -and this does not conflict with the ex cathedra dogma that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell. It is a conceptual, de jure understanding.

    How do we understand this saying from the Church Fathers? All salvation comes from Christ through his Body, the Church which is necessary for salvation because Christ is present in his Church…-CCC846

    Here the Catechism places de jure and defacto salvation together. It does not conflict with the ex cathedra teaching that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church .We cannot personally know any cases of a genuine invincible ignorance, baptism of desire or a good conscience.

    The Father wants to reunite all humanity into his Son’s Church. According to St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, the Church was prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saved the world from the flood.-CCC 845
    Here again we have an affirmation of the ex cathedra dogma, the infallible teaching that de facto everyone needs to enter the only Ark of Salvation.

    The dogma, the infallible teaching is that de facto every person needs to enter the Catholic Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body (Colossians) for salvation, with no exceptions, known to us. Pope Pius XII called it the infallible teaching (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).This would apply to non Catholics in Rome.

    If there are exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation which is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith it will be known to God only and Jesus only will judge. So in a sense mentioning it is irrelevant at the level of personal evangelisation personal contact with non-Catholics.

    All men are certainly called to this Catholic unity. The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ and all mankind belong to or are ordered to Catholic unity.-CCC 836
    Here again we have an affirmation of the ex cathedra dogma and the word all is used as in Ad Gentes 7.

    Here is the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.).

    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).

    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS)
    The ex cathedra dogma does not say that ‘those who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel or Christ or his Church, or who have a sincere heart’ do not have to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. Everyone has to enter the Church and there are no exceptions. This was the infallible teaching for centuries (Letter of the Holy Office 1949)

    However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God’s will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.-CCC 848
    It means that those who are the exceptions to the baptism of water are rare cases,’ in certain circumstances’, known only to God (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). We cannot judge. So the explicit salvation teaching for all to enter the Church, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church still holds. It is in accord with the dogma.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church says all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven, the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood and the Catholic Church knows of no other means to eternal beatitude other than the Baptism of water (which is given to adults who have Catholic Faith).The Catechism says God wants all people to be united into the Catholic Church, it is in the Catholic Church that God wants all people to worship him. So this is a reference to the infallible teaching based on the Bible and Catholic Tradition. It is the teaching of the Magisterium of the past and today.

    Vatican Council II indicates that all Jews and Muslims in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell. The Bible, the Church and Vatican Council II say Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them. Ad Gentes 7 says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.

    Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
    Ad Gentes 7 says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.

    Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
    Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican has positively endorsed the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church in which it refers to ‘the traditional doctrine’, ‘according to Catholic doctrine’

    Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and Archbishop Angelo Amato, former Secretary, CDF emphasize in Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church:

    Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

    This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.]the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.-Responses to Some Questions Regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.(June 29, 2007)
    So Responses to Some Questions Regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church does not explain are understanding of Church (ecclesiology) as a break from Tradition and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It repeats the message of Vatican Council II that the Church is a necessity for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14). We do not separate Jesus from the Church, even though elements of salvation can be present outside the visible boundaries of the church. De facto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church; it is a necessity for salvation .All non-Catholics need to enter through the ordinary way of salvation which is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De facto everyone needs to enter the Church.

    De jure (conceptually, in theory, intellectually, in theology) we could debate or discuss exceptions to the need of salvation, those without the baptism of water. However these are exceptions known only to God. They are unknown to us. They are unknown to us since only Jesus can judge. He will decide.

    Responses states

    “It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”
    In ‘certain circumstances’ as Pope Pius XII states (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) those with implicit faith, those who are not Catholics ,can be saved (without Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water).So we cannot interpret ‘It follows that these separated churches and Communities….’ as referring to the ordinary way of salvation. Since only in ‘certain circumstances’; exceptionally and known to God only can members of separated Churches and communities be saved without Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church. The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. For example the Catechism states that the Catholic Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith). So this is the ordinary way. Yet CCC 1257 also says salvation is not limited to the Sacraments. So here we have the dejure, extraordinary reference to the exceptional means of salvation. In a way it is irrelevant to us since it will be judged only by Jesus.

    If ‘“It follows that these separated churches and Communities…’ was a reference to the ordinary way of salvation then it would contradict Vatican Council II. Since Ad Gentes 7, states “all people” need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All.

    If de facto we know specifically, personally, that someone in ‘these separated churches and Communities’ can be saved, then it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    So dejure, conceptually we know “It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness…’-is possible. De jure (conceptually, in theory, intellectually, in theology) we could debate or discuss this possibility.

    De facto it is clear that there are no exceptions to ‘ Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

    De facto (in evangelising, in personal contact with non-Catholics) there is no one who specifically has the baptism of desire, who I know is in invincible ignorance or who I can judge has good conscience.

    We know that all Muslims and Jews in Rome need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. This has been Catholic teaching for centuries and it is affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Council II, the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document, besides other Church documents and the Bible.

  • The reason I think that the reciprocity of religious freedom is so important is not just so that the small/minority Christian populations may live to see another day- but also so that the Good News of Jesus Christ can lawfully be preached in order to fulfill Christ’s command to His disciples. We are obliged to preach the saving Gospel- yet we are not here to judge- that is Christ’s work- so we cannot go around asking folks- “Are you Saved?” for we are working out our own salvation in fear and trembling. Ours is to witness Christ and His Church to all people everywhere- and the fact that America has chosen to go about doing business as usual with two major nations that have zero respect for religious liberty and the freedom to preach Christ and Church- well that says a whole lot about the powers-that-be in this Land of ours. Of course, some Free Market ideologues will claim that doing business with tyrannical forces- giving mighty tithes to those powers and letting them set upon their own peoples to exploit their labor and “compete” against workers in other lands who have their freedom- that this is all part of God’s plan of free corporate enterprise.

    The question I have is when does engagement really just mask a selling off of your own ideals and morality in the name of Money- the love of which is the root of many evils??

  • Lionel, Vatican II states (in Lumen Gentium 16) that “those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

    The same paragraph talks about Jews & Muslims having the possibility of salvation.

  • Another aspect in the dialog with the imam (assuming he’s interested in continuing it) is that Christianity does not compel its followers to force it upon others, nor does it say that we must prohibit other places of worship.

  • I’m not entirely on board with the idea that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. It would require divorcing God from his nature too much — how much of the Christian understanding of God has to do with the Trinity and Incarnation? If Muslims deny those doctrines outright, I don’t see how they’re actually worshipping the same God. The theology is too important to dismiss the differences.

  • ” During the class visits the question of terrorism and jihad always comes up and that isn’t the big problem for the Islamic representative as one might think. They distance themselves from an interpretation of the Qu’ran that allows for the killing of innocents- and jihad is usually described as an internal struggle inside each man’s heart for moral purity. Most Muslims seem to go along with a rough sketch of the Catholic Just War Doctrine, which allows them to support military “resistance” such as in Palestine and elsewhere, but not to agree with all the tactics of warfare conducted as such. Similar to what many Catholics would say about America’s involvement in World War II, but not agreeing that the dropping of nuclear bombs on civilian centers was legitmate. So much for that hot button issue. ”

    Very many mosques in the United States are influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Wahhabism. The great paradox is that whilst both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US, maintain the fiction that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States, Saudi Arabia is in fact a committed enemy of the United States.Wahhabism will not accept that any country that ever was under Muslim rule can be legitimately ruled by non-Muslims, it is as simple as that. Since both Spain and America are pledged to mutual defense under the NATO treaty, that from a Wahhabi perspective places America in a state of war with the Muslim Ummah, ( World Wide Muslim Community ),.

    It is inherently dangerous to use the word terrorism in discussion with Muslims, in the way the author of the article may well has used it, for the reason that Muslims who are committed to deception ” taqiyya ” of Christians and other non-Muslims have ample scope for word games in relation to the term ” terrorism “. For example, if asked about 9/11, they might say that they ” unreservedly condemn the terrorism, that occurred on 9/11 “, sounds good doesn’t it, what they could be saying is that they fully support aircraft having been hijacked and crashed in to the Twin Towers of the WTC, NYC, NY and they fully support an aircraft having been hijacked and crashed in to the Pentagon but condemn as an act of terrorism, attempts by the crew and passengers of United Airlines flight 93 to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. As regards ” innocents ” in war, one must understand that term within the context of the territorial claims of the Wahhabis, once the US does not recognize Spain as being a rightful part of Islamic territory, all Americans who do not reject the US Government’s position that Spain is not an Islamic territory become legitimate targets for military attacks. The difference between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda is not one of theology and interpretation of Islam, it is one of tactics. The Saudi religious establishment believe for the present, that more can be achieved with respect to Islamic conquest, by infiltration and manipulation of the enemy through political, ideological, economic and psychological warfare techniques than simple military attacks, whilst al-Qaeda believe more conventional military insurgency techniques are appropriate at this time.

    Undercover Mosque the Return

    By the way with regard to the nuclear weapons used against Japan, it is arguable that more Japanese would have died if the US had sought to bring the war to a conclusion using conventional military methods.

  • Middle East oil is poisoning Western society, since for example the Saudis use a substantial part of their oil revenue to foster interpretations of Islam, which are antagonistic to Western liberal, ( that is ” liberal ” as used in British English, as is quite different to how the term is used in American English ), society. America needs to ramp up alternative energy technologies that will displace oil consumption. One of the arguments that the oil industry uses against supporters of renewables, is that they want people to live in huts, eat porridge and wear clothes made out of grass, simply not true, there is nothing of green freakery in for example sitting down in a restaurant car having a fine meal in a train cruising at 350 miles per hour which is being supplied with electricity by wind turbines.

    TGV world train speed record 3/4/2007 357mph English version

  • From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    •841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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.”[330]

    This is the basis for any fruitful dialogue- but without reciprocity of religious freedom we would be fools to participate in commerce and provide student visas for those who are serving the brand of Islam that would see the Saudi system of governance as ideal. In fact it is our substantial involvement with Saudi Arabia that actually provokes the bin Laden element- that along with the other biggie- support for Israel over the Palestinians. If our ties to the Saudi leadership was actually leading to religious freedom for Christianity in that country, it would be one thing, but our economic/political ties seem to have the added negative of encouraging the Saudi leaders to continue proving their Islamic bonafides by cracking down on anything non-Islamic and funding Mosques in Rome and supporting radical Islamic causes other than the ones directly targeting the Saudi leaders themselves. We totally played into this during the anti-Soviet era by encouraging Saudi money and Intelligence into Afghanistan-

    Let us do business with Muslim-Majority States that respect religious liberty and allow for Christian free speech and worship, and cut way back on ties with those Muslim States who don;t- this should be a big issue among Christians in this country- but the pragmatists and corporatists are the ones dominating the political and economic decisions.

  • ” Let us do business with Muslim-Majority States that respect religious liberty and allow for Christian free speech and worship, and cut way back on ties with those Muslim States who don;t- this should be a big issue among Christians in this country- but the pragmatists and corporatists are the ones dominating the political and economic decisions. ”

    Some people would argue that the above is a naive dogooder policy but it actually makes a lot of sense from a perspective of hard-nosed realpolitik, national security and the long term financial perspective. My view is that donations from Saudi Arabia to US mosques, educational establishments and pressure groups should attract substantial rates of US taxation and that the US Federal Government should have a discretionary power to withdraw tax exempt status from organizations which accept donations from Saudi Arabia.

    WELSH Guard plays “Darth Vader” for Saudi King

  • Chris we cannot interpret LG 16 as de facto salvation. This would be heresy. It would contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes7 and CCC 836.
    Also there is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of.Only God can judge cases of implicit faith.
    The popes and Councils knew about implciit faith (baptisms of desire,invincible ignorance etc) and did not interpret it as de facto but de jure salvation. Something we accept in principle, de jure, as a concept, ‘in certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known only to God.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tgICQ9ErVs&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • Tim,
    It is true that we worship the One Creator but the Church teaches that Islam is not a path to salvation and there is no theology which can say that Islam is a path for its members to go to Heaven(CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis s.j 2001).

    There are good things in Islam but there is also the Arian heresy and they are not free from Original Sin.

    Here is a video of a Rosiminian priest in Rome, who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian, saying that every Muslim needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZxeMPNclKU&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • Joseph,
    It is true we Catholics do not force our religion upon others but we do not have the obligation in dialogue, in mutual sharing, to say that Muslims are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    God wants every Muslim to worship Him in the Catholic Church(CCC) and the Church know of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (CCC 1257) given to Catholics with adult faith.
    Here is a video of Catholic priests, who celebrate Mass in Italian and affirm Vatican Council II, also endorsing the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbWzbKLBu8s&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • ” During the class visits the question of terrorism and jihad always comes up and that isn’t the big problem for the Islamic representative as one might think. They distance themselves from an interpretation of the Qu’ran that allows for the killing of innocents- and jihad is usually described as an internal struggle inside each man’s heart for moral purity. ”

    Anjem Choudary ONLY Muslim are Innocent rest can be Killed

  • I would like to point out that those whom submit to God’s will are called Muslims and their religion is called Islam. Not moslems, moslemism or Mohammedism written in the comments. Muslims do not worship Mohammed (Peace be upon him) nor do Muslims believe he is the founder of Islam. The name Islam and Muslims is what God calls in the Quran, it is not a religion named after a man.

    Muslims believe in Jesus (peace be upon him). They also worship the same God. And regarding why muslims believe Jesus (peace be upon him) is a prophet, and not Son of God or God, is answered in the following links.

    Prophet Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them) in the Holy Quran and Previous Scriptures
    http://theradiantlight.blogspot.com/

    Islam
    http://www.islamreligion.com/

    Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him)
    http://www.rasoulallah.net/

    Quran Tafseer/Explanation meaning
    http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=1

    By a German diplomat
    http://teachislam.com/dmdocuments/Muhammad_Aman_Hobohm_Islams_Answer_to_Racial_Problem.pdf

    Ihope this comment clear all the wrong misconceptions and stereotypes associated with Islam and its association with terrorism. I encourage you to research the islamic websites provided when obtaining information, and not anti-islamic websites and productions which feed your mind and others with incorrect information and hatred. Those whom produce Anti-Islamic/offensive productions inevitably intend to incite and provoke unrest and intolerance among people of different religious beliefs, and to jeopardize world peace and stability. Hidden under the cover of freedom of expression.

    It says in your scripture “blessed are the peacemakers” I hope there will be better understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims for peaceful co-existance. We should all be increasing peaceful dialouge, not fueling hatred and extremism.

    …………………….

    Islam is Peace
    Was Islam Spread by the Sword?
    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/677/

    The Tolerance of the Prophet (peace be upon him) towards Other Religions
    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/

    Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion
    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/661/

    The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam
    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/374/viewall/

    What Does Islam say About Terorrism
    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/238 /

  • Were one to compare Vatican city to Mecca and/or Medina, then one is comparing apples-to-apples, except that non-Muslims may not visit those two cities, while anyone can visit the Vatican City.

    I have very few kind things to say or think about Islam, or the Prophet Muhammed. I would not think a thing, however, about a ban on Christian worship, mission or construction in Mecca or Medina. It is rank sophistry, however, for the Iman to compare all of the K.S.A. to Vatican City.

    But then puerile sophistry is par for the course with Islam.

  • Adrian/tryptic

    CATECHISM AND VATICAN COUNCIL II ENDORSE MESSAGE IN CATHEDRAL OF BOLOGNA PAINTING

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II indicate that Mohammad was not saved and was oriented to Hell barring the exceptional. The religion he founded-the Catholic Church and the Bible indicates, is not a path to salvation. The Last Judgment by Giovanni da Modena, is a 15 th century fresco in the cathedral of San Petronio, Bologna it shows the Prophet Muhammad being cast into the flames of Hell. This is relevant for inter religious dialogue.

    Catholics do not accept Mohammad as a prophet, nor Islam as a path to salvation. Muslims in general, according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, need Catholic Faith and Baptism to go to Heaven. They need to be baptized in the only Church Jesus founded, to reap the benefits of His Great Sacrifice for all people, Muslims included.

    This is the mercy of God the Father. He provided a way for all people, even before the time of Abraham, to go to Heaven, through the Supreme Sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ.

    PONTIFICIAL COUNCIL FOR INTER RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE, VATICAN

    Islam is not a path to salvation and Muslims need Catholic Faith and Baptism to go to Heaven said Father Felix Muchado, Former Secretary, Council for Inter Religious Dialogue (PCID), Vatican. He was speaking with me at the PCID office near St. Peter’s Square on Tuesday (26.02.2008) morning. He was asked if non-Catholic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam etc) are not paths to salvation (i.e. to go to Heaven and avoid Hell).He said YES.

    Do non-Catholics need Catholic Faith and Baptism in general, except for the exceptions, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell, he was asked. He answered yes. This was not mentioned in a triumphal sense or with hatred. It was a matter of fact statement.

    Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican in an interview in the Italian daily Avvenire has emphasised the importance of Catholic Mission. He quoted the text from the Council Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14) which says:

    ˜All must be incorporated into Him by baptism, and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself explicit terms affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.

    He was interviewed at the Salesian University, Rome by Gianni Cardinale (Amato: non ce Chiesa senza missione, March 8, 2008, Saturday p. 21, Catholica, Avvenire).

    Archbishop Angelo Amato, CDF, Sec., Vatican was saying that Judaism without the Jewish Savior is not a path to salvation and all Jews in general, need the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

    MONS.RAFFAELLO MARTINELLI: ISLAM NOT PATH TO SALVATION
    Islam is not a path to salvation and their members need Baptism and Catholic Faith to avoid Hell said Mons. Raffaello Martinelli at his residence on the Via del Corso, on the solemn feast day of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God (Jan1, 2008).

    Mons. Raffaello has since 1980 been working with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican. For the last 23 years he has assisted Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Mons. Raffaello was also a coordinator in the preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.The Archpriest (Primicerio) of the exquisite Basilica dei Ambrogio e Carlo al Corso in Rome he said that the Catholic Church teaches that Islam is not a path to salvation but Muslims can be saved, who are in invincible ignorance and those who die in good faith.

    “Are they saved through their religion?” he was asked to clarify. He answered no. Their religion does not save them.

    “Do they need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell?”

    He answered yes.

    All Muslims, he said, are called (by God) to enter the Catholic Church.

    He was asked if they are simply just called (optional) to enter the Catholic Church, through the baptism of water, or, are they called to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. He answered that they are called to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

    The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ he said. The Church is the general, normal way to be saved.

    He made the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation.

    The Church, the Body of Christ is the ordinary means of salvation. So the Baptism of water is needed for all people in general. However through the extraordinary means of salvation Muslims can be saved within Islam. They too are saved by Jesus Christ.

    “Who are these exceptions, saved implicitly through the extraordinary means of salvation?” he said, we do not know. We cannot judge. Only Jesus knows. We cannot say that a particular person is in invincible ignorance, has good faith etc. We humans cannot judge.

    NON CATHOLICS GOING TO HELL DEFINITELY-VATICAN COUNCIL II

    Yet Lumen Gentium N.14 is clear that those non-Catholics who know they should be in the Catholic Church and who have had the Gospel preached to them, and yet do not do so, will go to Hell.

    The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II refer to these non-Catholics going to Hell, definitely.

    We do not know who is in partial communion or full communion, we do not know who is in invincible ignorance or has perfect contrition or has a good conscience-only Jesus does.

    When we meet a Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim we assume that he or she is not saved, not because we know personally but because the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit tells us so.

    So would Mohammad come under the category of exceptions? No. Since he knew. He knew about the Catholic Faith.This is seen in the Koran. He chose not to enter the Catholic Church and formed a new religion. Interestingly, Muslims still pray that he may have peace.

    Jesus however is saying that those Muslims who believe will be saved, those who do not will be condemned (Mk.16: 15-16, Jn.3:5)

    The condemnation is to Hell. It was Dante who described the Inferno he saw.

    Mohammad was among the many people whom the Italian poet Dante Alighieri saw in Hell.

    DANTES EXPERIENCE OF HELL SIMILAR TO CATHOLIC SAINTS

    Dante saw Hell with caves and special tortures for different people. There was fire and water, demons and the presence of Satan. He saw suffering which would never ever end in time. The Catholic saints Teresa of Avila and Maria Faustina Kowalski also describe Hell similarly. Dante’s experience of Hell can also be compared with Sr. Josepha Menendez. It is similar to Hell shown by Our Lady to Sr. Lucia at Fatima.

    The Catholic saints were permitted by God to see Hell while they were alive and were allowed to tell the world about it.

    Dante’s vision was contemplation, said Mons.Marco Frisina, during a series of talks on the Divine Comedy of Dante, given at the Basilica dei Ambrogio e Carlo al Corso, Rome.

    After one of the talks, I spoke to him about the visions of the Catholic saints and how they were similar to that of Dante.

    I asked him, “Was it just contemplation or did Dante really go to Hell?”

    He replied, “Non lo so” (I don’t know)

    Unlike Dante the Catholic saints do not name names. St. Maria Faustina Kowalski recognized in Hell, people whom she knew. So did Sr.Josepha Menendez.

    Most of them in Hell said St. Faustina were really surprised to be there. Surprised! They expected to be in Heaven, once past the Particular Judgment. Were there were those who thought it was enough to be a Jew or Muslim?

    St. Faustina Kowalski and Dante saw demons in Hell and Satan being present to torment the people sent there. St. Teresa of Avila noted the dirty water with reptiles, so did Dante. They both observed there were special places and caves for the demons to torture people forever. Josepha Menendez saw people tortured in a special way in the parts of the body, which they used to sin. So did the Polish saint Maria Kowalska. This was what Dante saw and described.

    Sr. Lucia saw people amidst fire. Dante described many realms with fire. The Bible and the sacred books of other religions also list fire in Hell. However Dante is more explicit and covers a large range of the specific suffering in Hell. Sr. Lucia seemed to be shown, by Our Lady, just one area.

    The Catholic Church tells us that a category of non Christians will go to Hell. That non Christians can go to Hell is clearly said in Vatican Council II and the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    Jesus cautions us about Hell in the New Testament. The road to Hell is wide and many take it He said. This warning was His love for us. The Old Testament and the Psalms have many references to Hell. Isaiah (33) asks who can withstand a devouring fire for eternity. The Quran refers often to Hell.

    The message of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that those non Catholics who have had the Gospel preached to them and who know that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church of God, founded by His Son Jesus Christ, and who yet do not enter through baptism and Catholic Faith will go to Hell (they cannot be saved).

    Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved. – Decree on the Missionary activity of the Church, Ad Gentes # 7, Vatican Council II

    Mohammad knew about Jesus Christ and the Church Jesus founded. This is clear in the Quran. Yet he refused to enter it. He had the Gospel preached to him. His soul, Catholic teaching indicates is oriented towards Hell.

    Many Muslims who have had the Gospel preached to them, who know that God the Father founded his only Church through his Son Jesus Christ. They know that they need to join this saving-Church because this is what God wants of them. Yet they do not do so. They are oriented towards the Inferno at the time of their death.

    The Bible and the Catechism say that just one mortal sin at the time of death, is enough for a soul to go to eternal death. Muslims, do not have the help of the Catholic Sacraments.

    And whosoever shall keep the whole law but offend in one point is become guilty of all. For he that said: Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also: Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10-11). (Douay-Rheims Bible)

    So there are not only Mortal sins of Faith, which is relevant to Mohammad, but there are also Mortal Sins of morals. The Church specifies which are the mortal sins e.g. committing or encouraging murder-abortion, euthanasia, fornication, homosexuality, fornication.

    There are many Muslims who believe that they are doing good and have a good conscience. With mortal sins of faith and morals they are oriented to Hell, while living as Muslims. This is not what God wants of them.

    The Catholic Church teaches us that the religion Muhammad founded has good things but it is not a path to heaven. It also has errors and deficiencies (Dominus Iesus). It carries the fourth century Arian heresy which denies Jesus is God. It denies the Trinity and the Crucifixion of Jesus.

    THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT CONDEMN ANY PROPHET OR RELIGION

    The Catholic Church, however, does not officially name any particular person in Hell. It does not even say that Judas is in Hell (or Heaven) even though Scripture indicates that Judas’ soul is cursefreesite in Hell.

    One can appreciate many good and holy things in the religion Muhammad founded.

    This report here hence is not a condemnation of Muhammad and Islam. Neither does the Catholic Church condemn either.

    The sin of heresy however is a Mortal Sin.

    ‘…those who do not believe will be condemned’ says Jesus (Mk.16:15-16).

    They have chosen their condemnation. They have chosen eternal death. Muhammad, like Gandhi knew about the Catholic Faith. They chose otherwise.

    Muhammad, like Gandhi, was born with Original Sin. Muhammad carried the image of Adam (1 Cor.15:45-49).Through Baptism ‘we bear the image of the heavenly one’- Jesus. Muhammad died with the stain of Original Sin. He could not say that Jesus is Lord. He who cannot say that Jesus is Lord is the Antichrist the Bible says.

    Muhammad’s concept of Heaven is not that of Christians. St. Faustina Marie Kowalski describes her vision of Heaven which is Trinitarian. (N.777Diary). She described Paradise where Catholics are in happiness, amidst great beauty and give praise and glory to the One Triune God. It is a place of pure love for God without the presence of evil. (Whatever ones religion or lack of it, if one is saved it is through Jesus and the Catholic Church, one is a Catholic in Heaven).

    VATICAN COUNCIL SAYS ISLAM NOT PATH TO SALVATION

    Vatican Council II actually says that Judaism, Islam and the other religions are not paths to salvation. (Ad Gentes 7) Their followers need Catholic Faith and Baptism in general, to avoid Hell (Lumen Gentium 14).

    The Council asks us to have “a high regard” for the precepts and doctrines of these religions “which often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate, N.2), but does not anywhere say that these elements are sufficient for salvation.’-Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Christ to the World (1981)

    Not to believe in the one God as in Catholic Revelation is idol worship. It is contrary to the First Commandment. Idol worship is to make ones ego a god. It is to make ones badly-formed conscience god (CCC 2104, 2105, 2113, and 2114).It is choosing to worship as one wants to, personally, and not as God wants to be worshipped. We can choose to make television, or the editorial in a particular newspaper are idol, our god. Muslims can choose to stay within their religion, and circle the stone Kaaba, in a religious pilgrimage, in Saudi Arabia.

    REFUSAL OF THE EUCHARIST FOR FIRST CLASS HERESY

    Muslims who know the truth about the Catholic Church and yet choose to remain in the religion Mohammad founded are in heresy. Heresy is a grave sin (CCC#2088).Persistent grave sin; with full knowledge is a Mortal Sin.

    A Catholic in persistent Mortal sin, known to many people, can be refused the Eucharist. It means the loss of Sanctifying Grace. Heresy on this issue, means giving up the right to receive the Eucharist. For a Catholic religious it is giving up the right to celebrate Holy Mass or to canonically hold an office as a Catholic.

    Muslims cannot receive the Holy Eucharist.

    We appreciate all the good and holy things inIslam which are a preparation for the Gospel and entry into the Catholic Church.(Notification,CDF,Dupuis 2001).God loves Muslims.

  • Adrian,
    The Youtube video of Choudry shows that Islam says the same as the Catholic Church, only we said it some 500 plus years before them.We do not advocate violence and war and do not force are Catholic beliefs on any one.
    However the Church does teach that everyone needs to be a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.It is the will of God that everyone be united in the Catholic Church(CCC). The Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood(CCC),the Church can be compared to a Door in which all must enter for salvation(CCC/Church Fathers).

  • Tim/T.Shaw
    We do not personally say that anyone is going to Hell because we personally know- we don’t. However the Magisterium says that the Imam is on the way to Hell.Since he is educated and knows about the Church and yet does not enter.(Vatican Council II).He also has Original Sin and is oriented to Hell (Ex Cathedra, extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
    So in dialogue would you tell the Imam that the Church teaches that he is oriented to Hell fires?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1KXFspkG4Y&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJRCIHNqc4&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • ” The Youtube video of Choudry shows that Islam says the same as the Catholic Church, only we said it some 500 plus years before them.We do not advocate violence and war and do not force are Catholic beliefs on any one. ”

    Dear Lionel Andrades I am well aware that the thinking of the Catholic Church, ( or at least a good part of it ), during the era of the 15th Century had much similarity to the opinions of Mr Choudary but the way you have written your posting makes it ambigious as to whether the Catholic Church has abandoned the position that it is okay to kill people simply because they do not accept elements of Christian theology, for example the divinity of Jesus, when the reality is that the Catholic Church has abandoned enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on others through the sword.

  • Adrian

    We affirm the same orthodoxy as the 15th century(extra ecclesiam nulla salus) but we do not force people to accept our views, neither do we advocate violence.

  • If an adherent of a particular religion, wishes to claim that this or that individual or this or that group will burn in hell fire for all eternity, that is often in of itself of little concern to me. Where it starts to get problematic is in faiths, that do not leave it go to God dispense justice in such matters. This is a particular problem in Islam.

  • Adrian

    Islam believes in Hell with fire just like Catholics. They also believe all of us non Muslims are going there. So they conduct Mission(dawah) to convert us.
    Some do it peacefully others through violence.
    We also believe that Muslims are oriented to Hell unless they convert.So we proclaim are faith peacefully and can even expect to be killed.
    God will dispense justice of course, Hell or Heaven however we still proclaim the hard truths of the Catholic Faith.

  • But not all of us Catholics have the same view on Islam.
    Joan Lewis is the Bureau Chief of EWTN in Rome and over the last few years I have been asking her three questions about Catholic Mission and Salvation and she will not answer them. She can also be heard on Radio Vatican which continues the slander on Fr. Leonard Feeney implying all of us Catholics who agree with him are also heretics.

    To reject the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a mortal sin. So how can Joan Lewis receive the Eucharist at the Church of Santa Susanna Rome and worse still also be a Eucharistic Minister?

    It is possible becaue of the Rector of Santa Susanna Fr.Gregory Apparel, a Paulist Father. In a homily he openly rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and cited Vatican Council II.After I corresponded with him via e-mail he asked me to stop coming to that Church.

    Joan Lewis would also give the Eucharist to John Allen, a former member of the Church praish council. Allen, at the National Catholic Reporter has rejected the dogma and supported homosexuality,syncretism and other evils.It is all there in public.

    EWTN has a similar policy as the Vatican Radio English Service. Even the Vatican Radio Press Service has been issuing press releases as if they have received a special dispensation from the Church to reject the extra cathdra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The rejection of Church teachings and the criticism of the Catholic Church is familiar on Radio Vatican (English).
    They could politey tell you that the Imam does not have to convert.

  • To “World Peace”-

    I’m inclined to give you the space to defend Islam- in fact I think it fair to allow all religions to speak their piece- even go door-to-door to hand out literature or attempt to start a conversation with anybody on the questions that are the most important in life- Is there a God? Has He revealed Himself? What truths have been conveyed from Above? This freedom to speak and share- as long as there is no pressure or harassment conveyed- is what I call religious liberty- along with the right to worship and display articles of one’s faith on their property and selves- this is the whole point of my posting.

    Catholicism promotes religious liberty even as She preaches that the Church has the fullness of the Truth- the fact that Jesus Christ will come again and judge the living and the dead- and so forth- there is no contradiction in holding these two concepts- one that everyone should have religious liberty and two that God has revealed Himself and we have the obligation to preach the Good News in good weather and bad. The United States and most of Europe seems to allow for these two actions to occur simultaneously. Respecting individual consciences and respecting religious adherents to practice and preach their beliefs in public and private- with only minimal interference ideally.

    The problem I would address to “World Peace” is the seeming difficulty in the lack of reciprocity in some key Islamic dominate nations such as Saudi Arabia- if Christians are not free to do what I detail above in Saudi Arabia- why should we allow Islamic adherents to increase in numbers here in the U.S. or receive student visas, and profit mightily from an economic relationship- when the preaching and teachings of Jesus Christ are banned from the lands of Islamic dominance? If Islamic adherents were to be working toward ushering in an era of true religious freedom in their homelands- that would seem to merit a healthy presence in our country- but without that one must be concerned that if or when the numbers change and Islamic adherents become a majority here in the U.S.- would we see a push toward turning the U.S. into a replica Saudi legal state? I prefer not to have to worry about all this- and the situation would be easily rectified if Saudi Arabia and other such states would move in the direction of respecting religious freedom- there are plenty of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, and I imagine that there are Saudi citizens who are Christians but who fear criminal charges for coming out as Christian. Here in the U.S. Christians converts to Islam are in no way targeted by the laws of our land- why not put your respect for our Christian faith into real terms by proclaiming the need for religious freedom in Saudi Arabia et al? This would be a necessary first step in ensuring that any kind of positive dialogue could take place- otherwise you can speak all you want of the wonderful qualities of Islam but if in fact Islamic nations have zero tolerance for Christian expression, there is no reason for Christians to pursue good faith dialogue with those who apparently do not have the good sense to actually respect our lives and consciences.

  • One question I would posit based upon (CCC 846-848)

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    847
    This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

    848
    “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

    I would argue that the question of salvation turns on the question of the knowledge or lack thereof and possessed by Muslims concerning the Gospel of Christ or his Church, and the extent to which, their ignorance is vincible or invincible in nature As Pius IX pointed out in paragraph seven (7) of

    7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 10 August 1863 which was reaffirmed in paragraph twenty-three of Mystici Corporis Christi dated 29 June 1943

    23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.Mystici Corporis Christi dated 29 June 1943

    We as Catholics must tread carefully when speaking of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. because Pope Pius XII excommunicated Rev. Leonard Feeney 13 February 1953 for adopting a position that was to rigid on the subject. Even though the excommunication was lifted some twenty years later it instructive in the sense that it demonstrates the danger that exists in adopting absolutist positions.

  • Nathan:

    There is no Church document which says that Pope Pius XI excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office (1949) during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI refers to disobedience to Church authorities. The Letter mentions extra ecclesiam nulla salus as ‘the dogma’ and the ‘infallible teaching’.
    Here is the dogma, the infallible teaching.

    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.).
    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).
    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
    There cannot be two positions about the dogma, there is no rigid and non rigid position, there is no absolute and non absolute position, a dogma is a dogma.
    As can be seen from the dogma above Pope Pius XI was saying that every Jew (and Muslim) in Boston needs to convert to avoid Hell.
    The Jewish Left media refer to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma (as if there can be two interpretations) but that is their political position. The stuff of Wikipedia and the New York Times.
    The Catechism and Vatican Council II are in accord with the dogma.
    CCC 847 says all people are saved by Jesus and the Catholic Church. It includes those saved explicitly and those implicitly. It does not rule out everyone de facto having to enter the Church for salvation.
    CCC 847 like Lumen Gentium 16 mentions those who can be saved with implicit faith and who are known only to God. There are no de facto cases of invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire that we can judge or really know of. So 847 does not refer to de facto salvation and is not in contradiction to the dogma. It is a reference to de jure salvation, something we accept in principle and is possible ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
    CCC 848 refers to those saved in invincible ignorance and who are known only to God.
    If salvation depends in particular cases on one’s knowledge or lack of it, in a Muslim, then this is acceptable in principle, de jure and will be judged only by God. The dogma and Ad Gentes 7 says all Muslims, everyone, need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.
    We do not know for example how many Muslims in Rome have the baptism of desire or are in invincible ignorance. However Ad Gentes 7 indicates that they are all on the way to Hell since they know about the Catholic Church and yet do not enter.
    Neither can we say that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is the general means of salvation for all Muslims and Jews.The church corrected ‘the theology of religions’ being proposed by the late Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J (Notification, CDF, 2001)
    After every thing is said and done, debated and argued we have the dogma clear before us.

  • Tim,
    There are blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.Does the Imam condemn it in public ?

  • Lionel,

    I respectfully disagree Rev. Feeny was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 as proof of his excommunication I submit the declaration of excommunication

    100 Acta Apostolicae Sedis – Commentarium Officiale

    ACTA SS. CONGREGATIONUM SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII DECRETUM SACERDOS LEONARDUS PEENEY EXCOMMUNICATUS DECLARATUR

    Cum sacerdos Leonardus Feeney, Bostonii (Saint Benedict Center) residens, qui propter graviter denegatam oboedientiam Auctoritati Ecclesiasticae
    a divinis iamdudum suspensus fuerat, non obstantibus iteratis monitionibus et excommunicationis ipso facto incurrendae comminatione, non resipuerit, Emi ac Revmi Patres rebus fidei ac morum tutandis praepositi, in Plenario Conventu Feriae IV, habito die 4 Februarii 1953, eundem excommunicatum cum omnibus iuris effectibus declaraverunt.
    Feria autem V, die 12 Februarii 1953, Ssmus D. N. D. Pius Divina Providentia Papa XII Emorum Patrum decretum adprobavit, confirmavit atque publici iuris fieri iussit.
    Datum Romae, ex Aedibus S. Officii, die xin Februarii a. MCMLIII.
    Marius Crovini, Notarius

  • Lionel, I never said Father Feeny was excommuicated for heresy. I know that he was excommunicated not for heresy but for grave, continuing disobiedence and refusal to submit to Ecclesiastical Authority as demonstrated above. His disobiedience originated with his refusal to conform to the position taken by the Ecclesiastical Authority on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

  • We have to avoid the Fundamentalist Christian trap of claiming to full well know God’s will in deciding any particular individual’s ultimate destiny. Church teachings indicate that only Christ can Judge such things- and we believe that Christ is the one who judges all individuals- He is not our personal jesus, He belongs to everyone – or more accurately everyone belongs to Him. We also know that salvation is mysteriously worked out through the Church of Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. We know that there are explicit members of good standing who are knowingly and wittingly Catholic, and we know that there are individuals below the age of reason who are nevertheless baptised Christians, and we know through reason and Church teachings that there are those who are separated from God by mortal sin- who are inside and outside of the visible structures of the Catholic Church.

    We also know that there must be an element of “knowing” of one’s sin, and “knowing” that the Catholic Church is really and truly the One, True Church- these elements are where the mystery of each man’s heart and mind kicks in. We should not presuppose that someone is a good sort and is definitely going to or is in heaven, and we should make the automatic opposite assumption that someone is definitely heading to hell- with no qualifiers- just a plain certainty that this or that fellow is going or is in hell. The Pope doesn’t even allow that Judas is for certain in hell- we know that hell exists, we know that Jesus warns of it and many parables suggest that there are many who end up there- but again the bottom line on ultimate status is one that is best left to Jesus Christ Himself. It is hard enough to sort out an official Saint of the Church.

    Now we are obliged to share the Good News with everyone, never assuming that a non-Catholic is necessarily such a good sort that they are heaven-bound no matter their beliefs concerning the Catholic faith. We have a duty to preach the Gospel in season and out. We can allow that children raised in non-Catholic or “bad” Catholic homes will have a more difficult journey when you take in the truth that we are all to honor our mothers and fathers, and when we are led astray by those who are put here to give us the best possible helps- well that makes for a confusing situation- add to that growing up in a society where nearly or very definitely everyone is a non-believer, or an adherent of a different religion, then you can start to appreciate some of the complexities in determining one’s freely chosen beliefs concerning explicit understandings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II even wrote in his book- Threshold of Hope- of how it was understandable how someone like Gandhi would have troubles in accepting Christianity from the hands of the same forces that oppressed him and his homeland.

    So- I hope to conclude my post with something approaching the true guidance of our Mother Church- we are called to witness for Christ and Church- there is no way to suppress that demand of all disciples of Christ. We must also be gentle as doves, and shrewd as serpents in doing so. We must evangelize with our lives, our words, our works and so forth. But we are called to stop short of making ultimate Judgements on the outcomes of any one man’s soul. We know the prescriptions for holiness as orthodox Catholics- we need to keep pulling the planks out or our own eyes first, but not neglecting to admonish all sin and sinners we encounter- with charity and without coming across as “clanging gongs” full of truth but too little love.

    I am not down with just outright bashing of folks who are Muslim, Jews, Buddhists, or even non-believers in anything Holy. We don’t know that these people who belong to some degree to these other faiths are necessarily going to hell- anymore than we can say with complete certainty- I’m saved, I’m going to heaven- Jesus has no say in the matter- well hold onto your horses. One can use the “Judge Not” Scripture to bad effect, but I think it is to be applied to making these Ultimate Judgments on particular human souls. We can apply good theology and sound reason, and we need to keep abreast of what language and what approaches our Church Hierarchs are activating, so that we can be better witnesses for the Faith. If someone sounds just way too harsh, or way too gentle and wishy-washy, I try to find some speech or talk from the Pope on the subject or watch to see how he conducts himself in the company of non-Catholics. In trying to become little christs, we should draw upon the guidance from our Holy Father- Santo Papa. As such I am pursuing the important issue of reciprocity of religious freedom, without making blanket assertions about all Muslims heading to hell- assuming that they fully understand the implications of not viewing the Catholic Church as Church founded by Jesus Christ to be the provider of the normative means of salvation for universal humanity. I try to step back and appreciate the Mystery of Salvation, and humbly submit my will to God for moral improvement and clearer insight into the human condition. God bless all those of goodwill- I would like to offer non-Catholics a welcome to consider what being Catholic means by reading our Catholic Catechism in it’s entirety, along with reading Holy Scripture, and the Papal Encyclicals on all manner of topics. Welcome!

  • Nathan,
    Here is the English version of the same DECREE:
    I am glad that you agree that he was not excommunicated for heresy.
    He refused to be obedient to the Archbishop of Boston, the ecclesiastical authority, who finally time showed, never affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither did he issue a clarification when the secular media in Boston repeated that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
    Fr.Feeney also refused to go to Rome to defend himself.He was disobedient.

    Pius XII – Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953

    Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

    The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

    DECREE

    THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

    Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

    On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

    Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

    Marius Crovini, Notary
    AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
    ___________________________________________________

    Since he was not excommunicated for heresy, the ‘absolutist’, ‘rigorist’ position of the dogma stands. It is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

  • Tim,
    ‘Making blankt assertions that all Muslims are going to Hell….’
    All Muslims are de facto going to Hell according to the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which you still have difficulty in affirming.
    Here is the ex cathedra dogma,once again.

    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).

    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS
    http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/)

    The Church does not say that Judas is in Hell and neither does the Church say that he is in Heaven.However the dogma does say that all Muslims are on the way to Hell.
    So when I meet a Muslim I know that he needs to convert since I cannot judge if he has the baptism of desire etc.The Church says that he is oriented to Hell with Original Sin and mortal sins committed in that state.He lacks the Sacraments including that of the baptism of water.

  • What would Scott Hahn say if he mt th Imam ?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJdigrcFDFc&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu15hXWQ7Qc&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • What would Scott Hahn say if he met the Imam ?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PtCFSVuKAc&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ECtRajdJc&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • FRANCISCAN PRIEST SAYS LUMEN GNTIUM 14 IS THE ORDINARY WAY OF SALVATION

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om0mrS_H4w4&hl=it_IT&fs=1&]

  • Lionel-

    It is agreed that if there is any saving to be done- it is Jesus Christ who is going to do it- He is God- not a mere prophet or holy man. I don’t know that we have a dispute on formal theology because I also agree that the normative means of grace and salvation are found inside the Catholic Church- this is why we must as Catholics witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ and to the truth of the Catholic faith- I think we both agree here. Where we are getting tied up in knots is how do we go about evangelizing Muslims, Jews, Hindus, non-believers and so forth. Your way is to hit them over the proverbial head warning them that they are on the path to hell- that is one means of evangelizing the truth- another way is the way I see witnessed by our modern popes and current Pope- when I read their speeches regarding Muslims I don’t get this over-the-top approach in the way they evangelize- it seems that they are speaking the truth with nuance- recognizing that while the normative means of salvation are the surest path- we cannot exclude the extraordinary Mercy of our Lord.

    If you desire to help someone who has inherited a faith from parents they love and adore- you would do well to enter into an oftentimes slow and difficult dialogue if you hope to convince and convert someone. If you show up on their doorstep and announce to them that their parents are leading them straight to hell and come with us to be saved in the Catholic Church- well I imagine the means of communication will be such that most people will order you off their property and then regard Catholics as rude, insensitive blow-hards who couldn’t possibly have anything in common with a God of Love. You see Love and Truth go together- it is like in courtship- the first thing that may draw you to a woman may be her physical beauty- now you could approach her and say- “hey you’re hot, let’s get married and make babies!”- that may be a dominant thought in your mind, but love brings in the mystery- you show gentleness, patience, kindness, you chase after her- you don’t try to overpower her with logical reasons why she should simply choose you over the other men.

    Evangelization is a loving process as well as a truthful one- if you truly wish to convert someone over to Christ and Church you cannot just overpower them with threats of hell- you may feel good about yourself in telling others the raw truth- but if you approach people with clanging gongs in your voice, your words, your personal bearing- you will not be serving the Good News you are ostensibly trying to convey- at least not very well.

    As a convert to Catholicism myself- I was won over by a friend who was Catholic, who offered a personal life witness and who slowly put me in touch with such things as the papal social encyclicals, and then with Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies. He could have rushed the process, cut to the chase, and told me- “if you want to be my friend, become a faithful Catholic now and avoid the pits of hell” Well- maybe that approach would have been something common in Jehovah witness circles, but how has that approach been going for them? As Father Corapi says in his conversion tape- “I discovered that the name of God is Mercy”. Many sins are covered by love, how many? We cannot know- Jesus the Just and Merciful will judge all of us- we should all do our best, and learn how best to convey His Name to those in ignorance. We can choose to court the non-Catholics, or we can just try to overpower them with our clubs of Truth. I think that we resort to the clubs only as a last resort, when a society tries to shut down our freedom to be and put into practice our Catholicism- or maybe when a society is engaged in a genocide of the innocents..

  • As far I am aware World Peace and please correct me if I am wrong, internet websites did not exist at the time of the revelation of the Noble Koran to the Prophet Mohammad PBUH by the Archangel Gabriel, what you have provided in your links to the web site
    http://www.islamreligion.com
    is links to a website, not to Islam as you apparently claim to be the case. You may sincerely believe the pages on that website represent the most accurate and correct interpretation of Islam but there would be very many Muslims who would disagree with various things on those pages. This is not some esoteric technical argument about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle but can be literally a life and death issue for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For example, some Wahhabi clerics will declare Shi’ite Muslim clergy to be apostates and within the Wahhabi frame of reference, apostasy from Islam carries the death penalty. One thing I am particularly interested in respect of that website, is I could not see who the people are, who are operating it nor could I find what interpretation of Islam they subscribe to, maybe those things are clearly posted, if so could you provide a link or links to a places or places on that website where such matters are detailed.

  • Tim,
    We both agree that the normative means for salvation is Jesus and the Catholic Church.
    My focus has been on doctrine and dogma.
    There can be different approaches to evanglisation.The Holy Spirit can guide us.
    For the sake of peace we cannot change the teachings of the Church.
    There is confusion when you say ‘while the normative means of salvation are the surest path we cannot exclude the extraordinary Mercy of Our Lord’. This seems a rejection of Catholic doctrine, it is also ‘playing God’.
    We can choose different ways and times for presenting Catholic doctrine but the doctrine must be clear to us.In this case ALL Muslims are on the way to Hell.

    Tim,I am glad that you responded to the Holy Spirit and became a Catholic in a way that was appealing to you.Love and Truth go together and with gentleness,kindness and patience we can keep affirming the difficult truths of our faith.
    Usually in answer to a question, or in a polite matter of fact way we can say that the Church teaches that all Muslims ( and Jews etc) are presently on the way to Hell.You can smile kindly and speak it gently.And if your met with anger still be gracious but get the message across like St.Paul.

  • VATICAN APPROVED BOOK INDICATES ALL MUSLIMS IN ROME ON THE WAY TO HELL

    ALSO AFFIRMS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION WITHOUT DENYING THAT DE FACTO EVERYONE NEEDS TO ENTER THE CHURCH TO GO TO HEAVEN

    An apologetic book in Italian published by the Vatican press ( Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2008) and approved by Bishop Luigi Morelli, Bishop at the Rome Vicariate (Vicariato) indicates all Muslims in Rome need to convert to avoid Hell.

    50 Argomenti di Attualita by Raffaello Martinelli ( p.98 Cristo SI, Chiesa, No?) states those persons cannot be saved who know the Church has been founded by Christ and is necessary for salvation and yet do not enter. This passage is from Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7.

    Muslims in Rome know about Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. They are all oriented to Hell.

    The book also explains outside the Church there is no salvation(p.98,99) as, all people saved explicitly and implicitly by Jesus and the Church (Compendium of the Catechism,171).So it does not negate the centuries of teaching that de facto everyone with no caption needs to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

    Here is the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.).

    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS: http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/ )
    The dogma is saying that all Muslims in Rome and elsewhere in the world need to convert to avoid Hell. This is also the message of Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).

    Ad Gentes 7 says ALL need to enter the Church for salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 836 also says ALL need to enter the Church. Muslims have Original Sin and need the Sacraments for salvation.
    The dogma is saying that all Muslims in Rome and elsewhere in the world need to convert to avoid Hell. This is also the message of Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).

    Ad Gentes 7 says ALL need to enter the Church for salvation. The Catechism 836 also says ALL need to enter the Church.

    The ex cathedra dogma is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 said Fr. George Puthoor on a YouTube video. Fr. George Puthoor is a Rosiminian priest at the Basilica of San Ambrogio and Carlo, via del Corso, Rome. The book is available at the entrance of the basilica.

    Since Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) refers to a concept only and not to de facto salvation it is not opposed to the Catholic infallible teaching that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell.

    Those who are in invincible ignorance or who have the baptism of desire are known to God only.There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of.

    Fr. Gorge Puthoor removed ambiguity in the book which could suggest Muslims all over the world are not oriented to Hell because some could be in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire that we can de facto know of.

    We do not know de jure (in principle) the number of cases presently with the baptism of desire in Rome. Neither do we know de facto the number of baptism of cases which exists presently in Rome. Nor do we know if there really are any cases of the baptism of desire presently.

    Mons. Raffaello Martinelli was recently appointed a bishop of Frascati, Italy. The Rosiminian priests and sisters continue to manage the basilica of San Carlo and Ambrogio via del Corso. The book is available free of cost along with apologetical pamphlets in different languages.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/05/vatican-approved-book-indicates-all.html#links

  • MONSIGNOR WHO SAID ISLAM NOT A PATH TO SALVATION APPOINTED BISHOP OF FRASCATI, ITALY

    Mons. Raffaello Martinelli has been appointed Bishop of Frascati, Italy. In an interview he had mentioned that Islam is not a path to salvation and that Muslims needed to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L5202FYCMs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCyWwQSHatc )

    In his book on apologetics, Argomenti d?Attualità in forma dialogica,Frammenti di Verità Cattolica. Come la Chiesa considera le religioni non –cristiane? P.54 (2006) he indicates that Muslims need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation according to the teachings of the Church.

    Raffaello Martinelli (born June 21, 1948) is an Italian prelate of the Roman Catholic Church.

    He was born in Villa d’Almè, and was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Bergamo on April 8, 1972. He served as bureau chief at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    On July 2, 2009, he was appointed Bishop of Frascati by Pope Benedict XVI.He received his episcopal consecration on the following September 12 from Benedict XVI, with Cardinals Tarcisio Bertone and William Levada serving as co-consecrators, at St. Peter’s Basilica- Wikipidia

  • i am from pakistan i love america to help pk and afghanistan

  • i love usa to helping pk by us aid

  • Pingback: How about protesting for a church in Saudi Arabia? « Daily Page
  • There is a more workable analogy with Saudia Arabia, taken from history: the Papal States.

    I don’t know nearly enough of the details of the laws and how that sovereign state was run before it was dismantled in the 19th century, but it would make a more realistic comparison with contemporary Saudia Arabia as an actual theocratic country. While obviously not approving of religious intolerance in the latter country, personally I would be wary of condemning everything about it with too broad a stroke, lest I shoot myself in the Catholic foot.

A Perfect Post

Wednesday, December 9, AD 2009

Occasionally one runs across a post that’s particularly nicely done. I think Matthew Boudway’s recent reflections on a column by Clifford Longley on the new atheists comes dangerously close to perfect. It’s brief, highlights an interesting article, and adds a thoughtful perspective that provides more depth to the article it cites. Here’s a snippet:

[In response to Richard Dawkins’s claim that it is wrong to “indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them,”]

“There is no such thing as value-free parenting,” Longley writes…Longley proposes this as an argument about parenting, but it is hard to see why it wouldn’t also apply to education. If the argument doesn’t apply to education, why doesn’t it? If it does — and if it is a good argument — then people of faith have a compelling reason not to send their children to schools where the subject of religion qua religion is carefully avoided. One could, I suppose, argue that the tacit message of such schools is that religion is too important to get mixed up with the tedious but necessary stuff of primary education, but of course public schools approach important matters all the time, and cannot avoid doing so.

Continue reading...

Marci Hamilton's Crusade

Tuesday, March 31, AD 2009

Several weeks ago there was a rather unpleasant exchange in First Things, between Marci Hamilton of the Cardozo School of Law, and Martin and Melissa Nussbaum of the Diocese of Colorado. Ms. Hamilton supports lifting the statute of limitations for child sex abuse claims, while the Nussbaums are decidedly against the idea. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, and, in this particular discussion, unreasonable arguments on both sides. But I think removing the statute of limitations, as Ms. Hamilton proposes, is likely to provide little benefit in terms of deterring abuse, and myriad opportunities for malicious or frivolous litigation. Furthermore, Ms. Hamilton’s professed concern for children has been rather morbidly focused on the Catholic Church rather than, for instance, public schools, where abuse problems are far more rampant.

I thought at the time I read the exchange that Ms. Hamilton’s name sounded familiar, but I couldn’t quite place it. And then I remembered: Ms. Hamilton was the author of a rather incautiously written book entitled God v. the Gavel, in which she made a case against many traditional religious liberties (noticing a theme in her oeuvre?). I say incautiously because the book contained enough errors and sloppy argumentation to elicit a legendarily harsh book review from Douglas Laycock, one of the field’s most distinguished scholars. The whole review is worth reading if the topic is of interest to you (or if, like me, you enjoy reading rigorous criticism), but here is the conclusion:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Marci Hamilton's Crusade

  • More children are abused each year in the California Public School System than there are children in the whole US Catholic School System…. Public School teachers are many more times likely to abuse a child than are clergy of any religion, and Catholic clergy are even less likely than all religions…. We are just too big a target.

  • Few things please me more than reading a good negative book review!

  • Yo, Marty (Nussbaum):

    So we don’t get off on the wrong foot here, let me introduce myself. I am a life-long Philadelphia Catholic who values his religion/faith dearly. Married for over 34 years with two special needs daughters..I tell you this because this writer is quite accustomed to speaking up and out and advocating for those who fall victim to the agencies/organizations whose mission it is to serve people and, in this case, Catholic parishioners.

    If your style is anything like the lead counsel to Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Phila., then this will be most interesting. I’m sure you have had some communication with the very special William Sasso, and, if not this icon, surely the head of his non-profit group, Mark Chopko (former counsel to America’s Bishops).

    Anyhow, I would like to quote your opening statement from a “First Things” article in 2003. I just love that publication, “First Things”, because it so aptly describes and portrays the US Catholic Church, its leadership, both lay and religious as well as its management and organizational style. In other words, the “first things” we take care of is “ourselves.” No, no, Marty, you don’t understand, Our Lord made it quite clear and the “first things” are the children.

    “Let us stipulate from the beginning, as we lawyers say, that the Catholic scandal is fueled
    by a minority of priests who, mostly from the mid-1960s through the early 1990s, egregiously
    violated their ordination promises; by the bishops who reappointed known perpetrators; and by
    partisans of the left and the right now seeking to advance their pre-existing agendas for Church
    reform.”

    Marty, partisans, left and right, advance pre-existing agendas for Church reform, etc…….Marty, maybe it’s the high altitude in Colorado but you’re making as much sense as the Catholic leader, Cardinal Kaput (yeah, I got it right, he’s over and kaput). See if you can follow this one, I’ll take it slow…….the agenda here is to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

    You can jump in anytime and help out if you want. Why don’t you take your high-powered legal expertise and address the sovereign immunity issue regarding sexual abuse of children in public schools. This way, Marty, you take care of the children in the public arena and Marci will take care of the children in the religious arena. Now that sounds like a plan,….what do you think, Marty?

    Back to the original point of this correspondence….I envision a title bout between Marty and Marci……we have the Vegas venue on your end or the Atlantic City venue here. As mentioned, you guys can use the sobriquet “Abusers-Enablers” and Marci’s side will be appropriately called “Children-Survivors” We would have all of the accompanying hoopla as the date/day approaches with the media, press and oddsmakers weighing in on the outcome. We have all of the factors for an interesting bout……age, gender, experience differences and concerns. Height, weight, reach and even, you guessed it, hairstyle.

  • Michael S.,

    You failed to advance any argument for either side. Your comments are neither constructive nor helpful.

    I appreciate the passion on both sides of the debate, but mocking people for taking a position will not be tolerated on this blog.

  • Sir…..satire and what you call “mocking” aside, the only truth that matters here is that “First Things” in our society should be the protection of our children. Marty’s diatribe that is personally directed at Ms. Hamilton and her extraordinary efforts to protect this nation’s children, both now and in the future….now this, sir, is mocking behavior and conduct.
    Mr. Nussbaum, as counsel to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, would do well to obey the court’s directive as part of the settlement agreement and turn over the personnel files…..stop the obfuscation and delay.

  • Michael S.,

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    The comment is back up again.

  • [Comment deleted: Michael, you’ve already made your point; any future comments in this vein will be deleted – JH]