Tuesday, July 29, 2014


Evidently some of my commenters desire Pope Francis to be as proselytizing as this Muslim in the video below, but of course using Catholic teaching to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and apart from Jesus Christ there is no salvation. If there ever was an apologetic for Pope Francis' desire that we evangelize not through proselytizing but through attraction, this is the case for it!   I copy this from the Dallas Area Blog:

Dutch orchestra storms out from muslim proselytizing July 28, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo 
Two quick stories on the “interreligious dialogue” front; first, a Dutch orchestra was giving a performance with Queen Beatrix in attendance. Some musselman had been invited to lead the orchestra, I guess. He proceeded to try to proselytize the audience, including the Queen.  He had apparently been trying to reach the Queen for some time, and took his chance when he got it.
Note the outlandish error: claiming Christ, who constantly worked miracles that gave total proof of His Supernatural Reality, was subordinate to Mohammad, who never once performed a miracle, which even islam claims (a supposed “night flight” to Jerusalem, which no one saw, discounted).   And then we have the difference in the conduct of their lives: Christ, constantly virtuous, the most virtuous Being ever on this planet, Who also never sinned, and Who willed to die for the salvation of mankind, against Mohammad, who spread his religion by violence, cruelty, and barbarity, whose life was incredibly sinful, and who didn’t suffer for anyone, but in fact caused others to suffer.  He also repeatedly changed the beliefs of his false religion based on who he needed to please or entice from one moment to next, while Christians have a 2000 year record of constant belief going back to the Apostles and early Church Fathers.


Pater Ignotus said...

Beatrix abdicated in favor of her son, Willem-Alexander, who, on 30 April 2013, became the first king of the Netherlands in 123 years.

News stories indicate that this confrontation took place in 2011 while Beatrix was still queen.

Reports also indicate that he was not invited to conduct the orchestra, but that he was an "intruder." The Dutch have a different approach to guarding their head of state, I guess.

Unless the commentator wanted us to think that the Muslim with the microphone eats mussels - which, if he is an observant Muslim he would not do - the archaic term he wanted to use is Musulman.

Yes, his tactics were most unfortunate - he's lucky he was not tackled, or worse! And yes, this is not the approach anyone should take to spreading their Good News, whatever that may be.

Gene said...

I like the term,"moose limb." Muzzie is also good. Heathen is a nice general term which encompasses many other savage races, as well.

Anonymous said...

Gene - If rudeness won converts to the faith, you would have the biggest church in the Eastern USA, maybe in the entire country.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

I am pleased you posted this because the author’s diatribe provides a vivid illustration of the depths of ignorance about Islam under which many people labor. His errors only begin with “musselman.”

I suspect the young man who was proselytizing had some psychological problems.

Gene said...

Anonymous, There was nothing rude in my post.

Rood Screen said...

Pater Ignotus,

I wonder if you've read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion". You once referred to a Fresh Air interview with the author. I'm only half way through, but I think it could be the most important book of the decade.

Mr. C said...

Pater Ignotus, you may damper pedal this example of ideology exposed for what it is with non-sequiturs such as the diversion about "musselman" all you want. But if you still have a rational synapse left in your brain, you will recognize and acknowledge what this video clearly exposes.
If the "respectful, peaceful" Islamist who, in no doubt due to excessive/inattentive secular courtesy on the part of the Dutch authorities, commandeered an entirely cultural, artistic event in order to politicize it, not to engage free citizens in a free environment in missionary rhetoric, then we'd have nothing to discuss here.
This is the future, Pater, and if it proceeds unabated will you be prepared to take the place of another Christian when his number comes up before the headsman, like S. Kolbe.
Honestly, there's turning of a cheek, and there is willful ignorance of reality.

Gene said...

Hey, Ignotus, my offer for firearms instruction is still good. LOL!

Pater Ignotus said...

Mr. C - What the Muslim did was rude and, as Good Father McDonald was showing, ineffective.

Are you prepared to walk into a mosque without an invitation during Friday prayers and remind the good Muslims present that they MUST convert to Catholicism or god to hell? Or to wander into a good Muslim home during the Eid al Fitr feast and, with the same excuses for inappropriateness as the good Muslim did at the concert, tell the Muslims gathered at table that their God is not God?

I doubt most sincerely that I will be asked to step into the sandals of St. Maximilian Kolbe. But should it happen I pray God will strengthen my resolve and grant me the grace to respond to the challenge in a holy, a saintly manner.

Anonymous 2 said...

Mr. C:

“and there is willful ignorance of reality.”

Agreed! So, here is a reality check for you – The vast majority of Muslims in the world are just not into chopping off people’s heads. The ISIS who are terrorizing large swaths of Iraq – thanks, by the way, to our meddling and opening the lid of Pandora’s box – are EXTREMISTS. I have to shout to get through all the static. Indeed, they are reportedly TOO EXTREME even for Al Qaeda.

There are indeed extremists in the Netherlands and elsewhere but what evidence do you have that this particular, probably deranged young man is a sympathizer of such extremists?

Unknown said...

Pater Ignotus, where do you get the idea observant Muslims don't eat mussels? Only the Hanafi school holds shellfish as haram, and even then there are disagreements regarding the status of shellfish among its adherents.

Anonymous said...

I have never in my life witnessed a Catholic doing what that Muslim did. Catholics have always tried give good example and if people have questions we answer them.

So as usual I don't know what Church the pope is talking about.

He apparently knows of a Church that obsesses about rules, dogma, abortion and homosexuality and trying to convert protestants. Where is that Church?

In my whole life I have NEVER heard a sermon at Mass about abortion, homosexuality, or trying to convert protestants to Catholics. And as for this Church obsessed with rules where does that exist? Go to a typical Catholic Sunday Mass and every priests does something different, they all make things up. Nobody follows the rules.

NEWSFLASH FOR THIS POPE - the majority of "Catholics" today do not believe in the Faith, therefore they could care less about converting anybody.

But the truth is....there is only one, true Church and that is the Catholic Church. That is de fide and Francis CAN'T change it. Again, the problem is a pope telling protestants and muslims to stay protestants and muslims. Thats like telling a person who is sick to not take any medicine or see a doctor just stay that way it's ok.

rcg said...

I hate to add to the diver faction, but if the Groups like ISIS are too extreme for the majority of Muslims, where does it get it's money? ISIS is too extreme for the othe Muslim *leaders* because it is truly committed to Islam and takes it to the literal conclusion. No secret bars or movie houses for that lot.

Back to the original thread: I used to dislike the low key approach to evangelizing the world, but actually prefer it now. I think the styles of Benedict and Francis are very similar in that way; Benedict wrote things that generated discussion among the sorts of people who thought on those things and Francis has spoken on topics interesting to the sort of people who think on those things. Both incite further investigation and true conversion, that of the self by the conscious acceptance of Grace and change of heart.

Anonymous 2 said...


This will tell you everything you want to know about ISIS. The section on Finances will answer your specific question. Yes, Gene, I know its Wikipedia (but babies and bathwaters, etc.):

As for ISIS being “truly committed to Islam and tak[ing] it to its literal conclusion,” I do not know what this is supposed to mean. Yes, ISIS adheres to an extreme version of Wahabi Islam, which is within the Hanbali School of Sunni Islam, and thus subscribes to a rather literal interpretation of foundational texts. But the three other, more moderate schools within Sunni Islam (Hanafi, Shafi, and Maliki) are just as representative of “committed Islam.” All of them originally espoused the classical Shari’a but had, and indeed still have, different understandings of it, based on differing interpretations of foundational texts and use of legal reasoning techniques. Since the era of widespread classical Shari'a, of course, there has been much modernization in the Islamic world.

As far as modernization in the Middle East is concerned, many knowledgeable observers both within Islam and outside Islam have noted a reactionary trend beginning in the early part of the twentieth century as often brutal and dictatorial secular rulers (who came to power in the aftermath of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in World War I)tried to stamp out the public manifestations of Islam and steam roller their populations into modernity instead of continuing the more gradual modernization process that had begun under the Ottomans. This happened in Turkey and it happened in Iran, for example. Catholics who lament growing secularization should be among the first to understand the desire to resist, even though we can never endorse the sort of violent resistance to which many Islamic reactionaries have had recourse.

I strongly suspect you will not see this on Fox news commentators such as Sean Hannity, whose performance and that of Megan Kelly I watched again last night (although you might see it from their more level-headed news reporters, who can be quite good). All I can say is: Please be on your guard against propaganda, whether from the left or the right. For instance, Kelly and Hannity were all over Pelosi for saying that Hamas is a humanitarian organization. Well, news flash: Hamas_is_a humanitarian organization. It is_also_a terrorist organization. It runs its operations in different wings, much like the IRA did (but don’t get me started on that – we Brits knew all about terrorism long before Americans did). But this is why Britain and Australia, unlike the United States, for example, only list the military brigades of Hamas as a terrorist organization. But again people like Kelly and Hannity will not tell you any of that because it does not fit their Obama and Democrat bashing agenda. By the same token their counterpart MSNBC commentators like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell will not tell you things that do not fit_their_agenda. So, beware the messenger! But I am not telling you anything you do not already know.

Anonymous 2 said...


For many years I did not hear about those things either. In the last decade or so, however, I have heard a lot of homilies about abortion and homosexuality, and even one or two about the errors of Protestants. In fact, at one point I began to wonder if there was anything else we Catholics really cared about nowadays other than the sex-related issues. This means I could readily relate to Pope Francis’s comments about “obsession.” So parishes differ according to the preoccupations of their pastors. And things have become more balanced recently. But isn’t that the answer, in this as in so much else – balance! So, I do hope that you soon start hearing something about abortion and homosexuality as well as whatever it is you are hearing about.

rcg said...

@A2: The Wikipaedea, (really?) does not explain how extorting truck drivers and kidnapping Iraqis generated $2B. It is laundered money from the other oil states. ISIS is the natural conclusion of Islam because they are following the Koran. The only difference in ISIS and the Ottoman invaders of eastern Europe and the Muslim invaders of southern Europe and Iberia are that the modern ones have better weapons and financing and their cause is being espoused by the media and politicians of the countries they want to conquer. I don't watch television except for sports although I am aware of the personalities you named, no real view either way on them personally.

Anonymous 2 said...


Yes, Wikipedia! You, Gene, and others may mock it but I have found it to be much more balanced and comprehensive than most of what passes for “news coverage” nowadays. Remember, we are not talking about writing a scholarly article or book but looking for a more or less accurate and accessible treatment of topics, especially current events. Appropriateness depends on the purpose being pursued.

And if you did read the Wikipedia section on Financing of ISIS you would have seen that no-one is claiming ISIS raised $2 billion from truck drivers and kidnappings. Yes, it seems that, among their sources of financing, they may have received some financial support from private donors in some Gulf States (but the evidence is disputed and in any event this hardly translates into a majority of Muslims, as you seemed to imply originally). Do you have some better sources about this? If you do, please share them.

And, no, I disagree -- ISIS is not the “natural conclusion of Islam because they are following the Qur‘an.” Millions of Muslims follow the Qur‘an but would totally reject ISIS extremism. Even al-Qaeda does. Or, if you want to say they are “following the Qur’an” because they are citing verses from the Qur’an, then you must allow that those who oppose them and who also cite verses from the Qur’an to justify their opposition are also equally “following the Qur’an.” Analogously, I have seen bloggers here on this Blog cite passages from the Bible to justify the use of all kinds of horrible violence (no names, Gene) and others cite the Bible to oppose them. So, what’s new? What does it prove except that people disagree about how to interpret religious texts? The following will give you a sense about the debate in Islam, although I doubt that you will accept it:

If you would truly like to learn something about Islamic hermeneutics, however, I am happy to give you some good scholarly sources (not Wikipedia or even the BBC).

Gene said...

I want to have Megan Kelly's baby...

rcg said...

@A2: I will let you have the last word about this after this response. Muslims oppose ISIS politically, not religiously. If they cite Islamic reasons it is because they are opposing another Muslim and that is a problem, especially when the first Moslem is basing his actions on the Koran. The BBC site is fine, one has to assume it is at cleats close to correct, but still has the caveat that some old thinkers and some new thinkers believe offensive war is ok to support Islam. Finally, I think that the "modern" Moslems who do, or did, not support war held that position as a practical matter due to weakness. Now that they are becoming more prosperous globally they are becoming more militant, not less so, as free societies do when they become rich. And the moderate countries are moderate only by comparison highlighted by the hypocritical self interests of the West for they would oppose nothing that ISIS would do to a Jew.

Anonymous 2 said...


I don’t need the last word. It is gratifying enough for me to see some nuance and recognition of complexity instead of the previous sweeping generalizations. Besides, what is there to say after Gene’s comment about Megan’s baby? =)